8/13 GDT: Atlanta Braves (51-63) vs. St. Louis Cardinals (61-56)

[Enscheff]

Okay... We all tend to get caught up in proving that we were right and someone else was wrong about any given player. Yeah, Blair has not turned out to be what we hoped. Agreed!!!

As has been mentioned, the Braves have young pitchers projected to come up in waves over the next few years. Most of them will likely turn out to be "nothing special." We have high hopes that a handful of them will turn out to be special.

Without looking anything up, I would guess that there might be 500 or more guys pitch in MLB in a given year. Some will be young guys who get a tryout of sorts and then disappear. Some will be AAAA guys who aren't expected to do much. Maybe 200 will be above average pitchers with effective careers. In our previous discussions we have more or less agreed that even top prospects bust at a high rate. (Potential and results are often not correlated as well as we might hope).

Those guys have to come from somewhere, so it is safe to assume that many effective pitchers come from nowhere without the hype and high expectations that top prospects carry.

In a nutshell... Some of these will pan out (probably not as many as we hope), some will move to less prominent roles, some will become journeymen with undistinguished careers, and many will just fade away.

The Braves have taken the approach that a huge number of highly thought of prospects is a good approach to get a few high quality pitchers at affordable prices. Other teams may decide to let someone else develop pitchers then trade for or sign the best. (more costly for each one, but less speculative).

Which is the more efficient model? We all have our opinions, and mine does not depend on proving you wrong if you disagree.

I love the discussion and information I get here... but I wish we could all stop worrying so much about proving the other guys wrong.

This article objectively shows which is the more efficient model: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/valui...100-prospects/

The only reason folks argue for the "stockpile pitching" model despite all evidence that it is inferior is because the Braves are doing it, and they like to cheer for the Braves.

I am 100% confident that if Coppy had stated 3 years ago, "we think building around position prospects is the best way to build a long term winner because hitting prospects have proven to be more valuable over the last few decades", we wouldn't be having this debate.

We probably also wouldn't have seen 7 pitching prospects bust at the MLB level.

[bravesfanMatt]

This article objectively shows which is the more efficient model: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/valui...100-prospects/

The only reason folks argue for the "stockpile pitching" model despite all evidence that it is inferior is because the Braves are doing it, and they like to cheer for the Braves.

I am 100% confident that if Coppy had stated 3 years ago, "we think building around position prospects is the best way to build a long term winner because hitting prospects have proven to be more valuable over the last few decades", we wouldn't be having this debate.

We probably also wouldn't have seen 7 pitching prospects bust at the MLB level.

Who are the 7 that busted? I could say Wisler and Blair (not officially, but writing is on wall).. surely you are not counting Manny, Jenkins, Whalen, Gant and others in that Bust rate?

[smootness]

This article objectively shows which is the more efficient model: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/valui...100-prospects/

The only reason folks argue for the "stockpile pitching" model despite all evidence that it is inferior is because the Braves are doing it, and they like to cheer for the Braves.

I am 100% confident that if Coppy had stated 3 years ago, "we think building around position prospects is the best way to build a long term winner because hitting prospects have proven to be more valuable over the last few decades", we wouldn't be having this debate.

We probably also wouldn't have seen 7 pitching prospects bust at the MLB level.

Position prospects are more valuable, on average, than pitching prospects of a similar talent level. I think that is clear.

But you still have to produce major league pitching. That is a fact. So you can do it by acquiring pitching prospects, you can do it by acquiring hitting prospects and flipping them for pitching, or you can do it by buying major league pitching. The latter is difficult for a team in the Braves' position, even with our payroll supposedly increasing. So we can do one of the first two. Should we have drafted more hitting? Possibly, and I won't argue with you there, although it would have been difficult to build as much overall value out of the draft as we have no matter what you target. Should we have acquired more hitting in trades? I think that's hard to say, because the fact that position prospects carry more value also reduces the kind of hitting return you can get in trades. So we went after more easily acquired pitching, some of it with temporarily lowered value due to injury, and hoped to see that value increase. I think there have been mixed results on that, and again, I won't argue if someone says we haven't done well enough there.

[thewupk]

Maybe the fact we landed an MLB guy that's put up 6.1 WAR over first 2 seasons and a promising young SS shows Blair was essentially a throw in

Pretty sure the defensive 1st platoon cfer we got in ender was the throw in. Most people on this board scoffed at the idea he was worth just as much as Miller alone at the time.

[thewupk]

But wave one was always the least likely to succeed.

Revisionist history. Multiple top 100 prospects and several top 50. While an argument can be made that wave 2 is better doesn't discount that wave 1 flopped.

[smootness]

Revisionist history. Multiple top 100 prospects and several top 50. While an argument can be made that wave 2 is better doesn't discount that wave 1 flopped.

First, it is true that wave 1 was always the least likely to succeed, even if it has flopped.

Second, you can't determine yet that the whole wave flopped. Even if you remove Ender because he was already in the majors, it is far too early to make a determination on Dansby, Folty, or Newcomb. And Gohara technically counts as part of wave 1 because we got him for Mallex. Wisler and Blair do look like flops, yes. And guys like Ruiz and Dustin Peterson probably won't be much, but they weren't ever real likely to be a whole lot.

[msstate7]

Pretty sure the defensive 1st platoon cfer we got in ender was the throw in. Most people on this board scoffed at the idea he was worth just as much as Miller alone at the time.

I'm sure... still any scoffing?

[thewupk]

First, it is true that wave 1 was always the least likely to succeed, even if it has flopped.

Second, you can't determine yet that the whole wave flopped. Even if you remove Ender because he was already in the majors, it is far too early to make a determination on Dansby, Folty, or Newcomb. And Gohara technically counts as part of wave 1 because we got him for Mallex. Wisler and Blair do look like flops, yes. And guys like Ruiz and Dustin Peterson probably won't be much, but they weren't ever real likely to be a whole lot.

Why are you talking about? Wave 1 of the pitching prospects have flopped. That's all anyone but you are talking about. Swanson and ender don't matter in this discussion.

[thewupk]

I'm sure... still any scoffing?

Depends. It seems the anti war guys only show up when it discounts their guys. When Miller was our guy people didn't like that his low war (for an ace) equalled that of a platoon defensive 1st cf.

[smootness]

Why are you talking about? Wave 1 of the pitching prospects have flopped. That's all anyone but you are talking about. Swanson and ender don't matter in this discussion.

My b. Haven't read back far enough. Even still, the jury is still out on Newcomb and Folty. The odds are good it won't be an overall good result from that group, but there is still plenty to be determined.

[sturg33]

I believe Tyrell Jenkins cracked a few top 100 lists.

And he flopped as well.

Folty I think is getting close to "flop" with regards to becoming a TOR pitcher... but he clearly belongs in a ML rotation. However, for this rebuild to be successful, we need HIGH IMPACT starters to emerge, and so far none have.

Newk has a chance. I'll give him another full season before making a proclamation. I've moved on from Wisler, Blair, Jenkins, Sims, and Folty becoming a TOR

[mfree80]

I believe Tyrell Jenkins cracked a few top 100 lists.

And he flopped as well.

Folty I think is getting close to "flop" with regards to becoming a TOR pitcher... but he clearly belongs in a ML rotation. However, for this rebuild to be successful, we need HIGH IMPACT starters to emerge, and so far none have.

Newk has a chance. I'll give him another full season before making a proclamation. I've moved on from Wisler, Blair, Jenkins, Sims, and Folty becoming a TOR

Can't disagree on all but Folty and Newk.

I still have hope that Wisler, Blair, and Sims can find a role in a Bullpen somewhere, but Wisler's first attempt has not been promising.

[bravesfanMatt]

I don't remember Jenkins every hitting top 100.. and a pitching prospect that is outside the top 100 is probably not going to make it anyway.. Jenkins best hope was a #4/5 leaning more to the 5 side. I don't consider anyone that has that upside a flop. He is just who he is. Wisler/Blair can be considered flops if something major doesn't change them.. but I almost think flop is the wrong word here. I think developmental fail is the what I would call them.

[Southcack77]

There are two things at play:

1. The organizational philosophy regarding pitching prospects.
2. The success of particular trades that accompanied the tear down of the team.

These are two separate and entirely distinct things.

What is irrelevant to either thing is whether John Gant, Robbie Whalen, Tyrell Jenkins, Manny Banuelos failed or not. Those were throw-ins and minor acquisitions and they make up more than half of the seven? failures. You can debate Wisler or Blair, but I doubt Atlanta had either of them valued as anything more than possible rotation pieces.

There is simply impatience and a rush to judgment on all sides in trying to evaluate all this, including to some degree the part of the Braves.

But whether an organization philosophy is a good idea or a bad idea isn't something that is going to be determined in years 1, 2, 3 of a total tear down and rebuild.

That might be a little irritating thing to not be able to comment on, but the truth is you won't know for awhile. In fact, the front office might be gone before the fruits of their organizational change are being born.

Unfortunately, that is why you are getting players "rushed."

Because the casual fan is bitching about how Tyrell Jenkins and Manny Banuelos weren't stars. No one ever said they would be.

[sturg33]

There are two things at play:

1. The organizational philosophy regarding pitching prospects.
2. The success of particular trades that accompanied the tear down of the team.

These are two separate and entirely distinct things.

What is irrelevant to either thing is whether John Gant, Robbie Whalen, Tyrell Jenkins, Manny Banuelos failed or not. Those were throw-ins and minor acquisitions and they make up more than half of the seven? failures. You can debate Wisler or Blair, but I doubt Atlanta had either of them valued as anything more than possible rotation pieces.

There is simply impatience and a rush to judgment on all sides in trying to evaluate all this, including to some degree the part of the Braves.

But whether an organization philosophy is a good idea or a bad idea isn't something that is going to be determined in years 1, 2, 3 of a total tear down and rebuild.

That might be a little irritating thing to not be able to comment on, but the truth is you won't know for awhile. In fact, the front office might be gone before the fruits of their organizational change are being born.

Unfortunately, that is why you are getting players "rushed."

Because the casual fan is bitching about how Tyrell Jenkins and Manny Banuelos weren't stars. No one ever said they would be.

^ not bitching about anything. Just pointing out that at one time he was once considered a good prospect. I'm not going to go crazy researching it, but a quick google search shows me that Keith Law had him "just missing the top 100" in 2016. Saying:

Jenkins has a power arm and is a good athlete but falls just short of being an elite prospect due to a low strikeout rate and control issues. Shoring up just one of those areas in could lead to Jenkins reaching his ceiling as a mid-rotation starter.

I don't care about Whalen and Gant.

I do care about Blair, Wisler, Folty, and Newk QUITE A BIT due to us trading Miller, Kimbrel, Gattis, and Simmons to acquire them.

[thewupk]

I don't remember Jenkins every hitting top 100.. and a pitching prospect that is outside the top 100 is probably not going to make it anyway.. Jenkins best hope was a #4/5 leaning more to the 5 side. I don't consider anyone that has that upside a flop. He is just who he is. Wisler/Blair can be considered flops if something major doesn't change them.. but I almost think flop is the wrong word here. I think developmental fail is the what I would call them.

Jenkins was 94th in 2012 on Baseball America's top 100. Also anyone in the back end of the top 100 is really no different than anyone ranked to around 150th. The difference is very minimal.

[bravesfanMatt]

Jenkins was 94th in 2012 on Baseball America's top 100. Also anyone in the back end of the top 100 is really no different than anyone ranked to around 150th. The difference is very minimal.

So he wasn't a prospect then. Like I said

[thewupk]

So he wasn't a prospect then. Like I said

Yup. He had pretty much fallen off by the time the Braves traded for him. Despite people like thethe pushing his upside at the time of the trade the only shot he ever had was being a BP arm

[thewupk]

There are two things at play:

1. The organizational philosophy regarding pitching prospects.
2. The success of particular trades that accompanied the tear down of the team.

These are two separate and entirely distinct things.

What is irrelevant to either thing is whether John Gant, Robbie Whalen, Tyrell Jenkins, Manny Banuelos failed or not. Those were throw-ins and minor acquisitions and they make up more than half of the seven? failures. You can debate Wisler or Blair, but I doubt Atlanta had either of them valued as anything more than possible rotation pieces.

There is simply impatience and a rush to judgment on all sides in trying to evaluate all this, including to some degree the part of the Braves.

But whether an organization philosophy is a good idea or a bad idea isn't something that is going to be determined in years 1, 2, 3 of a total tear down and rebuild.

That might be a little irritating thing to not be able to comment on, but the truth is you won't know for awhile. In fact, the front office might be gone before the fruits of their organizational change are being born.

Unfortunately, that is why you are getting players "rushed."

Because the casual fan is bitching about how Tyrell Jenkins and Manny Banuelos weren't stars. No one ever said they would be.

They both had significant more value than Folty at the time we acquired them. Folty was at one time ranked pretty well but his value tanked hard after 2014 which is the main reason the Braves were able to get him for Gattis. Folty was able to rebound in 2015 at the AAA level and hasn't embarrassed himself at the MLB level. But he hasn't improved this year over 2016 which is disappointing.