Managuarantano's Volunteers
<B><I>The Artist Formally Known as <P>Ventura's St
Easier when you have players on long term deals rather than one year left
Objectively ranking the top farm systems
- Thread starter Enscheff
- Start date
Easier when you have players on long term deals rather than one year left
Its overally simplistic to just say 'he gutted the team, anybody could do it'.
LOTS of GMs fail at rebuilds, additionally Coppy has made several moves that weren't the result of trading big name players, guys like Touki and TD weren't acquired by trading established stars. Those are two legit players in this system.
Yes losing results in high draft picks -- but then you have to nail those picks, its hard to argue with the results guys like Minter/Allard/Soroka/Wiegel/Anderson/Wentz/Muller/Riley have had so far, thats drafting well - which has nothing to do with 'gutting the team'.
The international blitz was planned out well in advance and the Braves walked away with the either the best or second best haul of the 2016 cycle, again this has NOTHING to do with 'gutting the team' the Braves recognized years ago that 2016 was the year to make a splash and they crushed it. This rebuild has been so much more than just trading away Upton/Kimbrel/Simmons/Heyward/Gattis.
tomahawkchop
New member
Nice work on the analysis. The accountant in me appreciated the objectivity of it.
Question: What do you guys think would be a good/useful metric to calculate the value of the players that each of these teams traded away to acquire their talent? Would it be surplus value? I agree that each of those teams rebuilt their teams more quickly than ATL, but I'd be curious to see what the value of their trade pieces were in comparison to ours.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Expected surplus value is the projected value of their production (measured by WAR) minus the cost for remaining years of contractual control. And I think this is a good place to start in looking at what we gave up relative to another rebuilding team such as the White Sox.
I would do it but I have a track record of critical comments about the FO that calls into question my objectivity.
I think surplus value is a good way to measure what we gave up compared to what we got. A quick glance would give major bonus points to Atlanta and New York for giving up essentially 1 year of Heyward and a half year of Chapman for Swanson and Torres. Those are major wins for those two teams.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I think what he was getting at is how does one year of Heyward, one year of Upton, 4 years of Gattis, 4 years of Kimbrel and 5 years of Simmons compare with 3 years of Sale and 5 years of Eaton taking into account their expected production and contracts. I think the answer is obvious but I have a track record of comments about the Braves FO that suggests I might not be fair and impartial.
I would work on it later but since I didn't come up with WAR or surplus value myself I don't think it would be worth talking about.
Actually I think you are always pretty objective in any analysis and comments that you have.
You go off the reservation to have some fun just to get us posibraves a little riled up though.
sturg33
I
I think when you consider what we got for Heyward (Shelby - not Dansby/Ender)... then it's clear the other teams did better with their assets than what Atl did.
Like I've said many times - the Shelby for Dansby/Ender trade kept this rebuild from being a bit disastrous.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
It did make it a closer call. But not that close.
Keep in mind that a significant part of the value in our farm system comes from players signed prior to our embarking on the rebuild (Albies, Acuna) and others who came via the draft rather than trades of major league talent (Allard, Soroka).
yup - and throw in international signings as well (Maitan, Cruz, Pache, Severino.... )
Still, 1 year of Heyward for 4 years of Miller (2-3 WAR pitcher) is good value. The main issue with that original trade is that it was a win soon trade and not a rebuild trade.
sturg33
I
Correct... we traded 5-6 WAR (plus Walden ~ 1 WAR) for ~10 WAR... in a time we were not ready to compete.
Easy. 3 days into the season. His prospect surplus value carries a lot of uncertainty for obvious reasons. That's the nature of the beast. So ignoring the technicality of him being a prospect I would venture more on the side of valuing him as a MLB player. In a hypothetical trade I would not value him at 75 million in surplus value.
We converted Heyward into a longer term asset. We will never know but I would bet the Braves always had intentions of trading Miller.
Not every trade in a rebuild has to be for a 19 year old. Its all about getting more valuable assets.
Right. It worked out beautifully because Miller was sold at the high point of his value after the Braves switched gears to a slightly longer term rebuild.
It's possible. But every other move that offseason was gearing up to win in 2017. And that would include having Miller on the team. They shifted gears and it worked out great. But I don't believe that was the original goal.
We will never know. I'm sure the Braves had well over 10 different types of scenarios on various team constructions. This is also ever changing so each plan probably changed over time depening on what was available at the time.
People act like the Heyward for Miller trade was some slam dunk because Miller turned out good. They conveniently forget that Miller was considered extremely risky at the time, and trades shouldn't be judged based on hindsight. Trades should be judged based on the process used, and the data available at the time of the trade.
At the time of the trade, Miller was another one of those frustrating "stuff" pitchers whose results didn't match the talent, and everyone was waiting for him to "figure it out". The Braves took that chance, and the Cardinals gave up that chance for an established star who would help them win immediately. Heyward did exactly that, posting arguably the best season of his career. Miller seemed to "figure it out" as far as casual fans were concerned, but many people argued it was a mirage based on the underlying peripherals (he maintained his usual WHIP, K and BB rates, but was very lucky in suppressing HRs).
In stepped Dave Stewart, the dumbest GM in the modern game. He didn't care that Miller's 3.02 ERA was largely an illusion and due for heavy regression. He just signed Grienke to an insane contract, and was desperate to win now. He was pushing all his chips into the center, and Coppy just so happened to be holding a pair that kept him in the hand when Stewart was ready to do something stupid.
You are correct, without Dave Stewart, the Braves rebuild would be verging on being called a failure. The Braves owe Stewart a job in the FO.
To me that's a ridiculous statement - without the Stewart trade the Braves would STILL have rebuilt their farm system into a top-5ish group, Albies would likely slot into SS, Mallex (who you REALLY LIKE) would be in CF instead of Inciarte and we still could have flipped Shelby for a valuable piece, not as good as Swanson/Inciarte, but with his contract, the year he was coming off and stuff - he still could have fetched something pretty strong.
So you'd still have a very strong farm system, Albies at SS, TD slotting in at 2B hopefully in a couple years and Mallex in center with Shelby still in the fold to flip. How is that on the verge of failing the rebuild?
BTW, without Coppy - the Braves wouldn't have ripped off Dave Stewart, any team in baseball could have traded with the Diamondbacks and ripped them off, but only Coppy did it.