Olivera

zitothebrave said:
The olivera trade may work itself out to be one of the worst trades a Braves GM has made in many many years. Given the questions around Olivera, etc.

But I don't think losing Peraza is really that bad. Odds are by 2017 ALbies will be ready he should hit enough IMO to finish in AA next year, and he should be everybit as good if not better than Peraza. But where this stings is we're handcuffed now. We turned depth into nothing. We had an incredibly strong SS depth with Simmons in the majors, PEraza knocking on the door and Albies in the wings.

Imagine we keep Peraza, play him at 2B, in 2017 or 2018 we trade Simmons who's now kinda expensive and move Albies into his role. Or imagine Mallex Smith doesn't work out, move Peraza to CF and we have a CF.

We turned a position of good depth into one of average depth, and gave up Alex Wood as well.
Click to expand...

Just remember you said that. Teixeira? Heyward? J-Up? Kimbrel? Wainright? Jermaine Dye and Jamie Walker for Michael Tucker and Lockhart? Brett Butler for Len Barker?

Sure seems to leave yourself open to lots of questions in the future.

I've never personally been able to understand why people make statements like that unless they hope to be able to make an "I told you so" post in the future. If the Olivera deal "could" turn out to be the worst, was the Smoltz deal the "best in many many years"? What about the Hudson deal? McGriff? Bourn for absolutely nothing when they got him in 2011?
 
clvclv said:
Just remember you said that. Teixeira? Heyward? J-Up? Kimbrel? Wainright? Jermaine Dye and Jamie Walker for Michael Tucker and Lockhart? Brett Butler for Len Barker?

Sure seems to leave yourself open to lots of questions in the future.

I've never personally been able to understand why people make statements like that unless they hope to be able to make an "I told you so" post in the future. If the Olivera deal "could" turn out to be the worst, was the Smoltz deal the "best in many many years"? What about the Hudson deal? McGriff? Bourn for absolutely nothing when they got him in 2011?
Click to expand...

I don't think the heyward trade should be listed. I still like that trade. Miller has been good and Jenkins is showing serious potential
 
clvclv said:
Just remember you said that. Teixeira? Heyward? J-Up? Kimbrel? Wainright? Jermaine Dye and Jamie Walker for Michael Tucker and Lockhart? Brett Butler for Len Barker?

Sure seems to leave yourself open to lots of questions in the future.

I've never personally been able to understand why people make statements like that unless they hope to be able to make an "I told you so" post in the future. If the Olivera deal "could" turn out to be the worst, was the Smoltz deal the "best in many many years"? What about the Hudson deal? McGriff? Bourn for absolutely nothing when they got him in 2011?
Click to expand...

The reason I think this could be one of the worst is because of Olivera's many question marks, giving up Alex Wood who's been one of our best pitchers, and icing on the cake, gave up a top prospect. And we gave up arguably our 2 best relief pitching chips. There's so many issues with the trade.

ANd all those trades at the end were great trades. Great trades are part of the picture, but you have to judge every trade.
 
zitothebrave said:
The reason I think this could be one of the worst is because of Olivera's many question marks, giving up Alex Wood who's been one of our best pitchers, and icing on the cake, gave up a top prospect. And we gave up arguably our 2 best relief pitching chips. There's so many issues with the trade.

ANd all those trades at the end were great trades. Great trades are part of the picture, but you have to judge every trade.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced our relief pitchers had much value, but other than that I agree with you here. This was a very very risky trade. I want it to work out badly, but I can't help but feel like even Hart is sweating a bit here. We gave up a lot of assets.
 
What always gets me about Teixeira is the second trade. We essentially traded two first round draft picks for Kotchman and a minor league reliever. I would actually classify that trade as more lopsided than the first Teixeira trade.

When judging trades there are two points you have to judge from. The first is when you made the trade the second is in retrospect. A trade is only good when it's good at both points. Sometimes a trade looks great when you make it but ends up being a disaster. The Uggla trade was like that. It looked like we stole Uggla at the time but he ended up being a disaster for us. Ultimately, that was not a good trade.

Conversely, sometimes you vastly overpay for a guy who happens to work out. Just because the trade works out doesn't automatically make it a good one. If you could have made the same trade and done so at half the price then it still wasn't a great trade.

Olivera could hit .330 with 25 HRs a year for us and I'll still think we vastly overpaid for him. The amount of risk involved with Olivera is ridiculous. He might never be able to adjust to major league pitching. His age could start slowing his bat leading to a total collapse of his hitting tool. He's a big injury risk. He might not be able to play the field well enough. Considering his realistic upside is hitting about .280 with 15 HRs, the potential reward doesn't match up with the risk. When you add in the cost, it's clear Hart overpaid. He fell in love with Olivera and had to have him. The Dodgers played us like a fiddle. We paid for Olivera as if we were getting a guy guaranteed to hit .280 with 15 HRs, stay healthy, and play a competent third.

So even if Olivera does work out, it wont change the fact that we overpaid for him.
 
zitothebrave said:
The reason I think this could be one of the worst is because of Olivera's many question marks, giving up Alex Wood who's been one of our best pitchers, and icing on the cake, gave up a top prospect. And we gave up arguably our 2 best relief pitching chips. There's so many issues with the trade.

ANd all those trades at the end were great trades. Great trades are part of the picture, but you have to judge every trade.
Click to expand...

You have to give Hart credit for the courage of his convictions. Our scouts think Olivera is capable of a hell of a lot more than .280 with 15 HRs, which I've seen thrown around. As far as I know, that opinion came from one anonymous scout.

There were a lot of teams willing to commit to four years at $8-10m per, us included. Somehow I think there are people that think he's better than .280 with 15 HRs. We owe him $28m and he can play for us for up to six years. That's a bargain if he's what they think he is.

It was perceived as a rich deal going the other way, but consider this - if you think Olivera is The Goods (and we do) and Peraza is highly overrated (and I think we did) and Wood is showing signs of trouble (and he is) and we get a really nice LH reliever, a MiLB lottery ticket and our favorite currency - a big draft pick - back, who played whom?

The funny thing is it could all be a flaming heap of garbage - Peraza doesn't walk, no power, average levels off at .270, so he's not much, Wood's FB avg speed goes to 88 next year and then his arm explodes, Paco remains a DL regular and Olivera flames out, the trade is much ado about nothing.

I'm eager to see Olivera in Atlanta against other ML players. They obviously think he's more Jose Abreu than Adonis Garcia...the biggest part of this is projecting how he'll compete against ML players. And we must think he'll adapt very well. There's been a lot made of his makeup and intangibles and strong family, that sort of that of thing. So they're thinking his MLEs will be on the high end of the spectrum.
 
striker42 said:
What always gets me about Teixeira is the second trade. We essentially traded two first round draft picks for Kotchman and a minor league reliever. I would actually classify that trade as more lopsided than the first Teixeira trade.

When judging trades there are two points you have to judge from. The first is when you made the trade the second is in retrospect. A trade is only good when it's good at both points. Sometimes a trade looks great when you make it but ends up being a disaster. The Uggla trade was like that. It looked like we stole Uggla at the time but he ended up being a disaster for us. Ultimately, that was not a good trade.

Conversely, sometimes you vastly overpay for a guy who happens to work out. Just because the trade works out doesn't automatically make it a good one. If you could have made the same trade and done so at half the price then it still wasn't a great trade.

Olivera could hit .330 with 25 HRs a year for us and I'll still think we vastly overpaid for him. The amount of risk involved with Olivera is ridiculous. He might never be able to adjust to major league pitching. His age could start slowing his bat leading to a total collapse of his hitting tool. He's a big injury risk. He might not be able to play the field well enough. Considering his realistic upside is hitting about .280 with 15 HRs, the potential reward doesn't match up with the risk. When you add in the cost, it's clear Hart overpaid. He fell in love with Olivera and had to have him. The Dodgers played us like a fiddle. We paid for Olivera as if we were getting a guy guaranteed to hit .280 with 15 HRs, stay healthy, and play a competent third.

So even if Olivera does work out, it wont change the fact that we overpaid for him.
Click to expand...

LA had a lot invested in him and an unanticipated logjam in the infield with Turner's development. I don't think their opinion changed much other than knowing he was currently unable to play and they had no place to play him if they did. So the "overpay" is your opinion of his value, which is closer to the .280/15HR guy than the bidding war among several franchises - including our very frugal one - for a foreign player who has never been in the major leagues and hasn't played in a few years because of injury.

Even if we'd won the bidding with our $40m versus LA's $60m, that's an enormous commitment for a guy with all those things going against him, don't you think?

A lot of baseball evaluators think he's going to be a flat-out stud. Freddie liked him. I can't wait to see him.

They say a self-capped franchise has to win a few calculated gambles in order to compete with the money teams. This is one of ours. I guess we'll start to know in a few days when he gets to The Show.

Assuming he's real, of course. Maybe he's the Cuban Sidd Finch.
 
As an aside, it looks like the argument could be made that we butt-****ed the Dodgers with Avilan and Johnson, who were really worth....nothing.

I think there are pitchers who really respond to Roger, usually sinkerballers. We can get those guys or similar off the market in the offseason and let Roger fix them and have useful bullpen pieces. (However, he needs them for more than a couple weeks in order to fix them, and we've had 20-something guys in our pen this year).
 
zbhargrove said:
Well, I'm also not trying to say Peterson is going to be one of the "best in the game"... my point is, struggling as a rookie does not mean he cannot be a solid regular from here on out.
Click to expand...

I certainly like him in the field, and his bat looked very good for an extended time. But he's had some bad months, too; bad enough that you can't play him every day and win. Like you, I'd want to see more before giving up on him.

I'll be interested to see if Olivera can play 3B, too. Because I think he's a 2B masquerading as a guy who can play multiple positions. In which case Peterson is out.
 
There seems to be a lot of knee jerk reactions going on. It's still so early to be judging this trade so emphatically. I have my opinions both ways, but until about July of next year it's going to be hard to make a full judgement on this one.
 
Chico said:
There seems to be a lot of knee jerk reactions going on. It's still so early to be judging this trade so emphatically. I have my opinions both ways, but until about July of next year it's going to be hard to make a full judgement on this one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this one, more than many, has so wide of a spectrum of outcomes that it's really tough to form a good opinion. Lots of players, lots of risks on both sides.

I think it's save to say if we looked at a Dodger message board, they would be talking about how they traded real players and great potential for the Braves trash, as they watch Wood struggle and Johnson and Avilan throw away games.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
Yeah, this one, more than many, has so wide of a spectrum of outcomes that it's really tough to form a good opinion. Lots of players, lots of risks on both sides.

I think it's save to say if we looked at a Dodger message board, they would be talking about how they traded real players and great potential for the Braves trash, as they watch Wood struggle and Johnson and Avilan throw away games.
Click to expand...

Yup. They're probably not thinking about how Wood and Peraza can both be contributors next year at a discounted price. Fans tend to make knee jerk reactions.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
You have to give Hart credit for the courage of his convictions. Our scouts think Olivera is capable of a hell of a lot more than .280 with 15 HRs, which I've seen thrown around. As far as I know, that opinion came from one anonymous scout.

There were a lot of teams willing to commit to four years at $8-10m per, us included. Somehow I think there are people that think he's better than .280 with 15 HRs. We owe him $28m and he can play for us for up to six years. That's a bargain if he's what they think he is.

It was perceived as a rich deal going the other way, but consider this - if you think Olivera is The Goods (and we do) and Peraza is highly overrated (and I think we did) and Wood is showing signs of trouble (and he is) and we get a really nice LH reliever, a MiLB lottery ticket and our favorite currency - a big draft pick - back, who played whom?

The funny thing is it could all be a flaming heap of garbage - Peraza doesn't walk, no power, average levels off at .270, so he's not much, Wood's FB avg speed goes to 88 next year and then his arm explodes, Paco remains a DL regular and Olivera flames out, the trade is much ado about nothing.

I'm eager to see Olivera in Atlanta against other ML players. They obviously think he's more Jose Abreu than Adonis Garcia...the biggest part of this is projecting how he'll compete against ML players. And we must think he'll adapt very well. There's been a lot made of his makeup and intangibles and strong family, that sort of that of thing. So they're thinking his MLEs will be on the high end of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

Actually seems like a bargain for that level of production just by itself. Granted, I understand several will still want to say we overpaid if he's not capable of more than that (and think we all get that point), but there's little question that's a far sight better than what we were going to get from Johnson (for less money).
 
Just as an aside, I'd really like to hear from the stat-minded crowd why those of us who have often said we didn't feel so bad about the Tex deal were so wrong. Explained in layman's terms, that make the point so clearly. At the time (IIRC), WAR was the chief measurement trumpeted by the stathead community because it was the "best" measurement. With that in mind...

Teixeira As A Brave (2007-2008) (~$12,500,000):
157 games, 691 PAs, 589 ABs, .295/.395/.548/.944, 174 hits, 36 2Bs, 1 3B, 37 HRs, 134 RBI, 101 Runs, 92/116 BB/K Ratio, 6.1 WAR - 6.1 WAR/Season

Feliz (2009-2014) ($7,261,160):
1.6 + 2.3 + 1.5 + 1.4+ 0.3 + 1.3 = 8.4 WAR - 1.4 WAR/Season

Harrison (2008-2013) ($10,580,420):
-0.3 + -0.2 + - 0.1 + 4.0 + 6.1 + -0.4 = 9.1 WAR - 1.5 WAR/Season

Saltalamacchia (2007-2012) ($8,976,180):
-0.2 + 0.3 + 0.4 + 0.0 + 1.0 + 1.5 = 2.2 WAR - 0.37 WAR/Season

Andrus (2009-2014) ($15,670,000):
3.6 + 1.1 + 4.2 + 4.0 + 4.3 + 1.0 = 18.2 WAR - 3.03 WAR/Season


The Rangers (over 6 seasons from each player) spent $42,577,760 and got 39.1 WAR ($1,088,945/WAR). The Braves spent ~12,500,000 (for one season of Tex) and got 6.1 WAR ($2,049,180/WAR).

I'm honestly not asking out of spite or to pick an argument - I'm sure I'm not the only one around these parts interested in learning more about "The Dark Side".
 
So you're saying the team that spent 2M/WAR did better than the team that spent 1M/WAR?

You have to also consider the market price. Consider the following hypothetical situation where team A makes a trade with team B:

1) The market price of 1 WAR is 3M.

2) Team A gets players who generate 40 WAR at 1M/WAR

3) Team B gets players who generate 5 WAR at 1M/WAR

Which team is better off from this trade?
 
After you guys are done debating this, go ahead and think about the premium it costs for 5+ WAR players. Here's a hint: you aren't going to win much with a lineup full of mediocre players (1-3 WAR), no matter how cost effective those players are with respect to $/WAR.
 
Enscheff said:
After you guys are done debating this, go ahead and think about the premium it costs for 5+ WAR players. Here's a hint: you aren't going to win much with a lineup full of mediocre players (1-3 WAR), no matter how cost effective those players are with respect to $/WAR.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I'll take 6 years of 4 cost effective, decent-to-good players over 1 year of 1 very good player. Every time.
 
nsacpi said:
So you're saying the team that spent 2M/WAR did better than the team that spent 1M/WAR?

You have to also consider the market price. Consider the following hypothetical situation where team A makes a trade with team B:

1) The market price of 1 WAR is 3M.

2) Team A gets players who generate 40 WAR at 1M/WAR

3) Team B gets players who generate 5 WAR at 1M/WAR

Which team is better off from this trade?
Click to expand...

I think the point many miss is when you look at it during the period of control though. Teixeira generated 6.1 WAR during his season in Atlanta. In an average season, the four players generated 6.3 WAR between them - 1.4 + 1.5 + 0.37 + 3.03.

I understand the additional years, but am trying to point out the disconnect that I think hangs many people up. The Braves were in a position (at that time) where adding a star like Tex could've been worth that minimal future production from the players they gave up to get him. Granted Harrison and Andrus had a handful of good seasons later on, but the only one of those that reached Teixeira's year in Atlanta was Harrison's 2012 (that season they got 13 WAR from all 4 combined) which came much later than the Braves needed it.

A crude way of looking at things, no doubt, but I think this is what goes through most GMs' minds when trying to leverage some of their organization's future to "go for it" in a particular season. Granted the Mutts' decision looks like it may work out and win them a Division Title this season, but would their chance to win it all not have been more enhanced if they'd have given up just one of their SPs to land Tulo too?

I think a big part of the disconnect is that statheads look at value over the total life of the contract where the rest of us are more willing to have a couple of down seasons (or possibly more) if it gets you a parade. That's why I don't understand the difference in reasoning from those who hated the Heyward trade. The Cards have gotten 4.3 WAR from Jason (so far). The Braves have gotten 4.1 out of Miller plus three more years of whatever number he puts up PLUS 6 years of whatever they get from Jenkins. If you assume you get two more 3+ WAR seasons from Shelby and two 2+ WAR seasons from Jenkins do you not have to consider the trade a mistake from the Cardinals' perspective?

We all had our Braves'-colored glasses on back in 2007, and thought (at least) Salty, Andrus, and Feliz were all going to turn into stars - that just hasn't been the case. I think that's the point several posters here are trying to make when they get accused of being Hart's "yes men" - we've had so many years without a parade, and holding onto J-Up, Heyward, and Kimbrel didn't look like it would've led to a parade this year either. We had little in the pipeline to get excited about, and a couple of late First Round picks in return for Jason and Justin likely wasn't going to change that either. We traded away good players in Heyward and Upton in the hopes that Miller, Jenkins, Fried, Smith, and the Petersons turn into something more than Salty, Feliz, Harrison, and Andrus did - isn't that more or less what the Rangers did when they sent Tex here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top