Braves rated the best farm system of the decade by MLB

[jpx7]

It’s a little early to call Anderson and Waters busts, as if high schoolers drafted at age 18 become “core players” in 2 years. Wright is going down the bust path though.

Even though he was a college player, that seems a little premature—but 2020 is certainly a huge year for him.

[nsacpi]

I disagree.

The Braves tanked (or semi-tanked) for a reason. They traded ML talent to get back talent and draft picks (where possible) for a reason. When you go that route, what was essentially a 5 year rebuild no matter if Hart wants to call it a re-load or not, then you should expect more than 1 core piece from your high draft picks.

In 2015 the Braves chose Allard at 1/14, Soroka at 1/28, Riley at CBA 1/41, Herbert at 2/54 (bust), Minter at CBA 2/75 with the only later round guy being Weigel

In 2016 the Braves chose Anderson at 1/3, Wentz at CBA 1/40, Muller at 2/44, Cumberland at CBA 2/76; they did grab some later round guys who at least show a pulse in Wilson, Davidson, Walker, Watts, Clouse

In 2017 they chose 1/5 Wright, 2/41 Waters then added Tarnok in the third and that is about it (they also had an absolutely disastrous international class - signed a lot, spent a lot, cheated a lot, got caught a lot, and failed miserably to choose even one with real promise)

In 2018 they chose 1/8 Carter Stewart who they didn't sign, 2/49 Greyson Jenista who so far is a nothing burger after that there are a few interesting long shots like Vodnik, Dean and Alexander.

In 2019 (arguably after the rebuild was over but I include because of the Stewart compensation from the botched 2018 draft), they got 1/9 Langeliers, 1/21 Shewmake gave away 2/60 with signability guy Beau Philip and then picked up a bunch of guys that it's too early to draw any conclusions outside of the fact that they were passed by all the other teams, many multiple times, before being selected by the Braves.

Out of the last 5 drafts (15 first or second round picks) I see 1 core guy - Soroka. Herbert washed out. Cumberland was a throw in on a trade. Wentz and Allard were used in trades that did not bring core players in return (useful but not really what you're looking for from a rebuild draft return). Waters may pan out as a core guy if he's not traded. All the pitching, outside of Soroka looks pretty suspect with Anderson providing the most hope and Wright still having time. Muller may eventually be something. Minter was a gamble because of health when picked and continues to be so. Riley needs a lot of work.

Right now, I would rank the 15 from the last 5 drafts as:

1. Soroka

2. Waters
3. Riley
4. Anderson
5. Minter
6. Shewmake
7. Laneliers
8. Wright
9. Muller
10. Allard
11. Wentz
12. Jenista
13. Cumberland
14. Philip
15. Herbert

If you were wondering, the 2014 draft produced 1/32 Braxton Davidson and 2/66 Garrett Fulenchek.

Any one particular draft can be bad luck. BUt when you are in a rebuilding mode, gaining only one core player from 15 picks over five years is pretty poor. Maybe Riley pulls it together or Waters blossoms or Wright and Anderson meet their pre-draft promise or Langeliers or Shewmake shine. But, right now, the draft isn't helping the 2020 Braves that much outside of Soroka.

Considering the position we were picking from and the extra early round picks, the yield from the 2015-2017 drafts is unimpressive.

[Metaphysicist]

Only 3 players are relevant to "tanking" for picks: Anderson, Wright, and Langeliers. Those are the only 3 players we gained "access" to by being terrible in the post-Heyward era. Declaring any of those three to be "non-core" guys is incredibly premature.

Also some perspective please: the expectation that a high schooler from any of these drafts would be "core" player already is nonsense. Mike Soroka is a wonderful exception, not the rule. For an obvious comparison, Max Fried was drafted in 2012, and just completed his first full season 7 years later. It took Chipper 5 years to become a regular after being drafted, and he was #1 overall and the best prospect in baseball.

Considering the position we were picking from and the extra early round picks, the yield from the 2015-2017 drafts is unimpressive.

Hard disagree. The vast majority of draft picks turn into hot garbage, even the high ones. Soroka alone makes the 2015 draft a roaring success, before any other potential impact from Riley, Minter, or whoever. Heck, Soroka makes the whole decade a success. Here's a complete list of pitchers who (a) we drafted and (b) who produced even a single 5 WAR season for us in the entire 50+ year history of the amateur draft:

Craig McMurtry (1980)
Tom Glavine (1984)
Steve Avery (1988)
Kevin Millwood (1993)
Mike Soroka (2015)

2016 and 2017 are too recent to have expected much MLB impact, but we have multiple top 30-50 prospects in the upper minors from those 2 classes. If you were really expecting more than that by this point, that's your own mistake.

[Metaphysicist]

So I'm actually curious if what I said there about 2016-2017 is due to my own bias, so I'm gonna try and look at this objectively.

First, let's using the "value" of the picks in the first 2 rounds posted by nscapi upthread. That should let us know the so-called expected value of those picks. Then, let's compare to the current "expected value" of those picks based on FanGraphs similar prospect valuations. This would probably be more accurate after the off-season rankings come out, but let's spitball with the 2019 numbers and assume we got the right "value" in trades:

2016

Overall Pick	Player	"Draft Value"	"Current FV"	"Current $ Value"
3	Ian Anderson	$38.2M	55	$34m
40	Joey Wentz	$7.6M	45	$4M
44	Kyle Muller	$6.9M	45+	$6M
76	Brett Cumberland	~$3.8M	40	$2M
Total		$56.5		$46M

2017

Overall Pick	Player	"Draft Value"	"Current FV"	"Current $ Value"
5	Kyle Wright	$31.9M	50	$21M
41	Drew Waters	$7.4M	55	$46M
Total		$39.3M		$67M

So we were expected to get $95.8M from those picks at the time, and we currently expect $113M. If you feel like Wilson and his 50 FV is relevant and you wanna bundle him with Anderson due to their bonus-splitting deal, that's another +$21M.

So yeah, I feel confident that we are doing fine so far. But of course that is not the same as the draft being an ultimate success.

[nsacpi]

Hitting on a Soroka DOES make up for a large number of unproductive high picks in the 2015-2017 drafts.

This is even more true when it comes to hitting on Andrelton Simmons during a period when the team drafted lower and had fewer extra high round picks.

[nsacpi]

So I'm actually curious if what I said there about 2016-2017 is due to my own bias, so I'm gonna try and look at this objectively.

First, let's using the "value" of the picks in the first 2 rounds posted by nscapi upthread. That should let us know the so-called expected value of those picks. Then, let's compare to the current "expected value" of those picks based on FanGraphs similar prospect valuations. This would probably be more accurate after the off-season rankings come out, but let's spitball with the 2019 numbers and assume we got the right "value" in trades:

2016

Overall Pick	Player	"Draft Value"	"Current FV"	"Current $ Value"
3	Ian Anderson	$38.2M	55	$34m
40	Joey Wentz	$7.6M	45	$4M
44	Kyle Muller	$6.9M	45+	$6M
76	Brett Cumberland	~$3.8M	40	$2M
Total		$56.5		$46M

2017

Overall Pick	Player	"Draft Value"	"Current FV"	"Current $ Value"
5	Kyle Wright	$31.9M	50	$21M
41	Drew Waters	$7.4M	55	$46M
Total		$39.3M		$67M

So we were expected to get $95.8M from those picks at the time, and we currently expect $113M. If you feel like Wilson and his 50 FV is relevant and you wanna bundle him with Anderson due to their bonus-splitting deal, that's another +$21M.

So yeah, I feel confident that we are doing fine so far. But of course that is not the same as the draft being an ultimate success.

I think this is a fair way to evaluate drafts and draft eras. The Golden Wren Era looks pretty good when you add up the surplus value generated by Simmons, Wood and Gattis during their pre free agent years. Draft positions were generally low in the Golden Wren Era, so the performance relative to draft pick value looks good.

[nsacpi]

And of course there is also the international talent brought in during the Golden Wren Era, which far exceeds what came in during the preceding and succeeding eras.

[Carp]

I disagree.

The Braves tanked (or semi-tanked) for a reason. They traded ML talent to get back talent and draft picks (where possible) for a reason. When you go that route, what was essentially a 5 year rebuild no matter if Hart wants to call it a re-load or not, then you should expect more than 1 core piece from your high draft picks.

In 2015 the Braves chose Allard at 1/14, Soroka at 1/28, Riley at CBA 1/41, Herbert at 2/54 (bust), Minter at CBA 2/75 with the only later round guy being Weigel

In 2016 the Braves chose Anderson at 1/3, Wentz at CBA 1/40, Muller at 2/44, Cumberland at CBA 2/76; they did grab some later round guys who at least show a pulse in Wilson, Davidson, Walker, Watts, Clouse

In 2017 they chose 1/5 Wright, 2/41 Waters then added Tarnok in the third and that is about it (they also had an absolutely disastrous international class - signed a lot, spent a lot, cheated a lot, got caught a lot, and failed miserably to choose even one with real promise)

In 2018 they chose 1/8 Carter Stewart who they didn't sign, 2/49 Greyson Jenista who so far is a nothing burger after that there are a few interesting long shots like Vodnik, Dean and Alexander.

In 2019 (arguably after the rebuild was over but I include because of the Stewart compensation from the botched 2018 draft), they got 1/9 Langeliers, 1/21 Shewmake gave away 2/60 with signability guy Beau Philip and then picked up a bunch of guys that it's too early to draw any conclusions outside of the fact that they were passed by all the other teams, many multiple times, before being selected by the Braves.

Out of the last 5 drafts (15 first or second round picks) I see 1 core guy - Soroka. Herbert washed out. Cumberland was a throw in on a trade. Wentz and Allard were used in trades that did not bring core players in return (useful but not really what you're looking for from a rebuild draft return). Waters may pan out as a core guy if he's not traded. All the pitching, outside of Soroka looks pretty suspect with Anderson providing the most hope and Wright still having time. Muller may eventually be something. Minter was a gamble because of health when picked and continues to be so. Riley needs a lot of work.

Right now, I would rank the 15 from the last 5 drafts as:

1. Soroka

2. Waters
3. Riley
4. Anderson
5. Minter
6. Shewmake
7. Laneliers
8. Wright
9. Muller
10. Allard
11. Wentz
12. Jenista
13. Cumberland
14. Philip
15. Herbert

If you were wondering, the 2014 draft produced 1/32 Braxton Davidson and 2/66 Garrett Fulenchek.

Any one particular draft can be bad luck. BUt when you are in a rebuilding mode, gaining only one core player from 15 picks over five years is pretty poor. Maybe Riley pulls it together or Waters blossoms or Wright and Anderson meet their pre-draft promise or Langeliers or Shewmake shine. But, right now, the draft isn't helping the 2020 Braves that much outside of Soroka.

We have barely had any graduation from these classes, so acting like they were failures is extremely premature.
These classes have generated many top prospects so far and several other promising prospects on the rise. The only real bust so far has been Herbert. Calling Cumberland a "throw-in" in the Guasman deal is some big revisionist theory. He was top 100 or right outside it according to scouting services.


The 2018 class was a bust from the start since we had draft picks taken away and our pool was shortened due to sanctions. Still, it's barely a year removed and it has produced Beck, Alexander, Harris, Riley, Vodnik, and Dean as legit prospects.

[Metaphysicist]

Hitting on a Soroka DOES make up for a large number of unproductive high picks in the 2015-2017 drafts.

This is even more true when it comes to hitting on Andrelton Simmons during a period when the team drafted lower and had fewer extra high round picks.

Hitting on Andrelton of course make that draft an absolute success. Still not sure it really vindicates the overall draft strategy, since Simba was an exception to that strategy.

[jpx7]

Still, it's barely a year removed and it has produced Beck, Alexander, Harris, Riley, Vodnik, and Dean as legit prospects.

Define “legit”.

[Metaphysicist]

I ran the (extremely rough) numbers using a similar method as above for both pre- and Wren eras, here's what I came up with for the first 3 rounds (Not crediting any trade receipts):

2005-2009:

$166M Expected Surplus Value
$500M Actual Surplus Value

+257M over-expectation outside top guy ($247M from Freeman)

Freeman: +247M surplus
Heyward: +199 (pre-trade)
Escobar: + 101
Kimbrel: +99
Minor: +26
Hale: +9

2010-2014:

$97M Expected Surplus Value
$208 Actual Surplus Value

-38M shortfall outside of top guy ($153M from Andrelton)

Simba: +153
Wood: +62
Cunningham: +1

So yeah, Wren did fine but it was entirely because of whatever scout got Andrelton on the board*. There was neither the depth nor overwhelming success of the preceding 5 year period with our top picks. Will be interesting to see how the post Wren drafts look this time next decade.

There was obviously some success for Wren down draft (Gattis), but down that far is such a crapshoot that I find it hard to credit any kind of strategy to it (and the expected value is basically nothing), and these kind of successes were even more prevalent from 2005-2009 (Hanson, Flowers, Medlen, Beachy [NDFA])

I think factoring in trade receipts would probably make the disparity look even larger, but that is very speculative.

Also, we f'ing own the 2nd round.

Also also, 2006 was an awful draft. $45M expected, 6 picks in top 100, absolutely nothing for the results.

*Gerald Turner signed both Gattis and Simmons in 2010. I hope he got bonus, geez.

[Enscheff]

Ok...Soroka doesn’t make an entire decade of drafts a success. Hyperbole only weakens an argument, so let’s refrain from that.

A good franchise produces a “core” player every year on average. It may not be a 4+ win star, but a guy that produces at the MLB level for 5+ years.

The Braves May have whiffed recently in the US draft, but they have usually done very well on the international market. As much grief as I give them for their trades during the rebuild, they did get Folty, Ender, Swanson, Newk and Fried...definitely core players.

[nsacpi]

I ran the (extremely rough) numbers using a similar method as above for both pre- and Wren eras, here's what I came up with for the first 3 rounds (Not crediting any trade receipts):

2005-2009:

$166M Expected Surplus Value
$500M Actual Surplus Value

+257M over-expectation outside top guy ($247M from Freeman)

Freeman: +247M surplus
Heyward: +199 (pre-trade)
Escobar: + 101
Kimbrel: +99
Minor: +26
Hale: +9

2010-2014:

$97M Expected Surplus Value
$208 Actual Surplus Value

-38M shortfall outside of top guy ($153M from Andrelton)

Simba: +153
Wood: +62
Cunningham: +1

So yeah, Wren did fine but it was entirely because of whatever scout got Andrelton on the board*. There was neither the depth nor overwhelming success of the preceding 5 year period with our top picks. Will be interesting to see how the post Wren drafts look this time next decade.

There was obviously some success for Wren down draft (Gattis), but down that far is such a crapshoot that I find it hard to credit any kind of strategy to it (and the expected value is basically nothing), and these kind of successes were even more prevalent from 2005-2009 (Hanson, Flowers, Medlen, Beachy [NDFA])

I think factoring in trade receipts would probably make the disparity look even larger, but that is very speculative.

Also, we f'ing own the 2nd round.

Also also, 2006 was an awful draft. $45M expected, 6 picks in top 100, absolutely nothing for the results.

*Gerald Turner signed both Gattis and Simmons in 2010. I hope he got bonus, geez.

To one extent or another every pick is a crapshoot. So I would not discount Simmons or Gattis as luck but fully count Soroka as skill. Consider Mike Trout. The Angel's certainly lucked out. But they deserve full Mark's for not passing on him like 20 other teams did.

[nsacpi]

So I'm actually curious if what I said there about 2016-2017 is due to my own bias, so I'm gonna try and look at this objectively.

First, let's using the "value" of the picks in the first 2 rounds posted by nscapi upthread. That should let us know the so-called expected value of those picks. Then, let's compare to the current "expected value" of those picks based on FanGraphs similar prospect valuations. This would probably be more accurate after the off-season rankings come out, but let's spitball with the 2019 numbers and assume we got the right "value" in trades:

2016

Overall Pick	Player	"Draft Value"	"Current FV"	"Current $ Value"
3	Ian Anderson	$38.2M	55	$34m
40	Joey Wentz	$7.6M	45	$4M
44	Kyle Muller	$6.9M	45+	$6M
76	Brett Cumberland	~$3.8M	40	$2M
Total		$56.5		$46M

2017

Overall Pick	Player	"Draft Value"	"Current FV"	"Current $ Value"
5	Kyle Wright	$31.9M	50	$21M
41	Drew Waters	$7.4M	55	$46M
Total		$39.3M		$67M

So we were expected to get $95.8M from those picks at the time, and we currently expect $113M. If you feel like Wilson and his 50 FV is relevant and you wanna bundle him with Anderson due to their bonus-splitting deal, that's another +$21M.

So yeah, I feel confident that we are doing fine so far. But of course that is not the same as the draft being an ultimate success.

Just to add data for the 2015 draft:

14 Allard draft value $19.2M

28 Soroka draft value $10.7M

41 Riley 7.4M

54 Herbert 5.4M

75 Minter 3.5M

Total 46.2M

[nsacpi]

Average value of the first and second round picks (including supplemental) during Hartcoppy Era: 47M

Average value of the first and second round picks (including supplemental) during Golden Wren Era: 19M

So I put the question out there: Will the actual realized value (per draft) of the Hartcoppy picks exceed the Golden Wren Era picks by a ratio 2.5 to 1.

If I was a bettin' man I'd say no.

[Horsehide Harry]

Ok...Soroka doesn’t make an entire decade of drafts a success. Hyperbole only weakens an argument, so let’s refrain from that.

A good franchise produces a “core” player every year on average. It may not be a 4+ win star, but a guy that produces at the MLB level for 5+ years.

The Braves May have whiffed recently in the US draft, but they have usually done very well on the international market. As much grief as I give them for their trades during the rebuild, they did get Folty, Ender, Swanson, Newk and Fried...definitely core players.

Agree with this. My point is that the Braves are where they are largely because of international signings (Acuna, Albies, Camargo, etc.) and astute trades resulting in the departure of ML talent for other teams minor league talent. The US Draft, outside of Soroka, has largely (not completely by any means) been a minor factor in the creation of the current team.

Could draft picks from the past five drafts still have an impact on the Braves moving forward? Possibly. At this point, IMO, the most sure thing looks like Waters. Anderson, Wright and Riley still have a shot. Langeliers and Shewmake are still too new to really judge.

But given all the maneuvering and machinations involving the US Draft, the results, so far, have been pretty underwhelming.

[Metaphysicist]

Ok...Soroka doesn’t make an entire decade of drafts a success. Hyperbole only weakens an argument, so let’s refrain from that.

Okay mom.

Anyway, the point: If we are assessing long term drafting success (5+ years, a decade, whatever), developing a true legitimate star once every blue moon is much more important churning out a Mark Lemke's worth of value every year. Obviously you'd like to do both, though.

[Metaphysicist]

To one extent or another every pick is a crapshoot. So I would not discount Simmons or Gattis as luck but fully count Soroka as skill. Consider Mike Trout. The Angel's certainly lucked out. But they deserve full Mark's for not passing on him like 20 other teams did.

I'm not saying to discount them; I'm saying:

(a) Wren's drafts were, in toto, successful when compared to the FG baseline numbers. So, hurray!
(b) That success is completely dependent on Andrelton, so the drafts are pretty top heavy
(c) Wren's drafts were much less successful than the previous 5 years under Clark
(c) Wren's drafts didn't do anything out of the ordinary with those down-draft picks like Gattis, and actually hit less often on those lotto tickets than in the previous 5 years

I only looked at the top 3 rounds before because that's where the actual expected value is. But I'll run the numbers on the whole draft, including Gattis and whoever. It won't make Wren look better.

[Metaphysicist]

Here are the whole draft #s, 1-40/50; I was right, it makes Wren look worse.

2005-2009:

$226M Expected Surplus Value
$803M Actual Surplus Value (I think I miscounted before, actually)

+332M over-expectation outside top guy ($247M from Freeman)

Freeman: +247M
Heyward: +199
Escobar: + 101
Kimbrel: +99
Medlen: +76
Hanson: +63
Minor: +26
Hale: +9

2010-2014:

$158M Expected Surplus Value
$234 Actual Surplus Value

-73M shortfall outside of top guy ($153M from Andrelton)

Simba: +153
Wood: +62
Gattis: +30
Webb: +7
Gosselin: +6
S. Simmons: +4
Shreve: +3
Cunningham: +1

[Metaphysicist]

Average value of the first and second round picks (including supplemental) during Hartcoppy Era: 47M

Average value of the first and second round picks (including supplemental) during Golden Wren Era: 19M

So I put the question out there: Will the actual realized value (per draft) of the Hartcoppy picks exceed the Golden Wren Era picks by a ratio 2.5 to 1.

If I was a bettin' man I'd say no.

I think that's a reasonable question, but I would frame it a little differently. The GWE had an expected value of 158M and generated 234M in actual value. That's 148% of expected value. 2015-2017 had an expected value of $190. If you are looking to compare "efficiency," 148% of that would be $281M.

The 2015 class has already generated $52M, so the question is whether the whole gang can put together 229 million in surplus value between them. The current "expected" value of the not-yet-regular guys:

Riley (55 FV)[?] = $46M
Waters (55 FV) = $46M
Anderson (55 FV) = $34M
Wright (50 FV) = $21M
Wilson (50 FV) = $21M
Muller (45+ FV) = $6M

That's $174M. That would just require Soroka (or Minter?) to generate $55M going forward, or like 6 WAR before FA. I think that would be a disappointing low outcome, since his basic regressed ZiPS or whatever is probably ~3 WAR for next year alone.

I wouldn't count these chickens before they hatch; literally all these guys could end up worth nothing. But based on these very-back-of-the-napkin numbers, they are "on pace," for whatever it's worth.