You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Objectively ranking the top farm systems
- Thread starter Enscheff
- Start date
Personally, I don't think we trade Teheran before his contract ends unless we have 3-4 guys who have established themselves as good major league starters. You can disagree with the logic behind that thinking, but I think once we start competing, they're not going to give away assets just for value's sake.
That said, we did give away Mallex, even though he could play a role this year and going forward, because we saw there was value to be had. So I do think we'll continue to make similar moves. But I don't think you'll see us trade away good major league players just to maximize value unless they become expendable.
I think Teheran plays out his contract here. We may try to sign him to an extension the offseason before the last year on the deal, in which case we could look to deal him after another couple years. But I think it will be a while, at least.
That said, we did give away Mallex, even though he could play a role this year and going forward, because we saw there was value to be had. So I do think we'll continue to make similar moves. But I don't think you'll see us trade away good major league players just to maximize value unless they become expendable.
I think Teheran plays out his contract here. We may try to sign him to an extension the offseason before the last year on the deal, in which case we could look to deal him after another couple years. But I think it will be a while, at least.
Personally, I don't think we trade Teheran before his contract ends unless we have 3-4 guys who have established themselves as good major league starters. You can disagree with the logic behind that thinking, but I think once we start competing, they're not going to give away assets just for value's sake.
That said, we did give away Mallex, even though he could play a role this year and going forward, because we saw there was value to be had. So I do think we'll continue to make similar moves. But I don't think you'll see us trade away good major league players just to maximize value unless they become expendable.
I think Teheran plays out his contract here. We may try to sign him to an extension the offseason before the last year on the deal, in which case we could look to deal him after another couple years. But I think it will be a while, at least.
The point should not be to "try to win while we have Teheran". The point should be building a consistent winner. That is accomplished by maximizing the value of all assets, including Teheran. What the Rays have done with their pitching assets is the gold standard the Braves need to follow.
The Braves will never, ever, be shopping at or near the top of the FA pitching market (no matter how many Braves homers think they have a shot at signing Price, Lester, Grienke, or Lester), so they need to create a pitcher assembly line where they develop them, use them for 4-6 seasons (by extending a few younger ones to age 29/30 like they did with Teheran), and then ship them out before they get hurt. Signings like Colon and Dickey are exactly the type of stop gap solutions they should pursue when that strategy leaves them with a hole in the rotation.
The last thing a mid-market team needs is to start finishing with a .500+ record, drafting towards the end of the first round, and slowly wasting the control of impact assets on non-playoff seasons. They can build a core around position players like Freeman, Swanson, Inciarte and maybe Albies, but pitchers almost never stay good long enough to be part of any core.
The point should not be to "try to win while we have Teheran". The point should be building a consistent winner. That is accomplished by maximizing the value of all assets, including Teheran. What the Rays have done with their pitching assets is the gold standard the Braves need to follow.
The Braves will never, ever, be shopping at or near the top of the FA pitching market (no matter how many Braves homers think they have a shot at signing Price, Lester, Grienke, or Lester), so they need to create a pitcher assembly line where they develop them, use them for 4-6 seasons (by extending a few younger ones to age 29/30 like they did with Teheran), and then ship them out before they get hurt. Signings like Colon and Dickey are exactly the type of stop gap solutions they should pursue when that strategy leaves them with a hole in the rotation.
The last thing a mid-market team needs is to start finishing with a .500+ record, drafting towards the end of the first round, and slowly wasting the control of impact assets on non-playoff seasons. They can build a core around position players like Freeman, Swanson, Inciarte and maybe Albies, but pitchers almost never stay good long enough to be part of any core.
I'm not saying the focus should be 'try to win while we have Teheran'. But that's not the same as 'don't trade your best pitcher when you're trying to win a World Series'. The Rays have done a very good job of managing assets, but the only two that I think are somewhat reasonable comparisons are Garza and Shields. They definitely traded both at the right time in the middle of their string of competitiveness. With Edwin Jackson, they just realized he was at his peak in value and took their one shot to get something out of him, and Kazmir was given up for little. Neither one was one of the top guys on their staff.
Price and Moore don't really count for me because the Rays had already stopped being competitive by that point. And you could argue that not having Garza/Shields hurt them in the postseason, causing them to hamper their chances of winning a title within their window. Those trades, while good trades in terms of value and getting positive pieces in return, certainly didn't set them up to be a consistent winner.
The Rays are also even more strapped for resources than we are. You're dealing with a competitive team sport, not a pure business, and the goal is winning the World Series. Sure, winning 5 World Series is an even bigger and better goal than winning 1, but I don't think that holding onto your best players through their contracts while in the middle of competing keeps you from building a consistent winner. I am generally against being a buyer at the trade deadline, and I think you can make smart deals that keep you competitive while maximizing value. I just don't think it's as easy as 'always trade your best pitchers with 1-2 years left on the deal in order to maximize value'. Is there a team that has used that strategy consistently that has actually won World Series?
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
Here's an interesting test case - Jake Arrieta
Enscheff, what do you think the Cubs should do with him? Should they have traded him already? Should they trade him now? At the trade deadline this year?
Not Enscheff, but apples vs oranges when it comes to Cubs vs Braves. Cubs are very much a large market club with an extremely loyal following and good TV monies. The Braves should be a large market club, but don't act that way, have a fickle fanbase and a relatively poor TV contract.
Also, the Cubs are coming off a WS win, their first, forever, and are primed everywhere else to continue their run at excellence. They don't need the prospects right now, not in the way the Braves do, and will continue to need because of the inability to buy FA hole fillers as necessary, as the Cubs can do.
The Braves should be a large market club, bringing in money hand over fist and re-investing in the product on the field. We will have to see if the new stadium, in a more baseball friendly part of town and a better TV contract will open the purse strings a bit. I tend to think that as long as they are owned by Liberty that they will not be large market spenders.
Russ2dollas
10 yr, $185 million Extension
believe it that if two of Wisler/Blair/Newk step up and show they are ready and Weigel and Fried continue their good work, you will start to hear more JT rumors. He is still our king asset and will be utilized thusly. I would expect a next off season type trade if we see some pushing from below...maybe deadline 2018. I really don't think Coppy wants to wait to 2019.. the risk starts to get too high.
I think the Braves have to be realistic. Maybe we are competing for a WS title in 2019 and trading JT would be tough politically.
But a scenario that is not too crazy for 2019:
At the winter meetings for the 2019 season you have JT pitching at a great 3 or solid 2 level. He's only making 11 million with a team option for 12 million in 2020. So team on the hook for 1 year cheap and they have the option for a second year cheap. That is a very attractive asset.
The Rome Rotation we should know about. They will be high A in 2017. AA in 2018. So at this time we should have a good idea about what those guys will be for us.
We likely know if Newcombe, Weigel, and/or Fried are useful rotation pieces.
We definitely know if Wisler or Blair are options at the back end.
We definitely know what Folty is.
So it's reasonable that we could be looking at:
TOR (1 or 2): 2 of Folty, Allard, Touki, Fried, Newcombe
Mid (3 or 4): 2 of Folty, Allard, Touki, Fried, Newcombe, Weigel, Soroka, Gohard
Back end (4 or 5): Wisler, Blair, Newcombe, Weigel, Soroka, Gohard
Maybe our 1 is Allard coming off a strong rookie season. 2 is Folty. 3 is Fried with a couple of years of exp. 4. Soroka 5. Newcombe. If that worked out and you could turn JT into a stud position player...
Not Enscheff, but apples vs oranges when it comes to Cubs vs Braves. Cubs are very much a large market club with an extremely loyal following and good TV monies. The Braves should be a large market club, but don't act that way, have a fickle fanbase and a relatively poor TV contract.
Also, the Cubs are coming off a WS win, their first, forever, and are primed everywhere else to continue their run at excellence. They don't need the prospects right now, not in the way the Braves do, and will continue to need because of the inability to buy FA hole fillers as necessary, as the Cubs can do.
The Braves should be a large market club, bringing in money hand over fist and re-investing in the product on the field. We will have to see if the new stadium, in a more baseball friendly part of town and a better TV contract will open the purse strings a bit. I tend to think that as long as they are owned by Liberty that they will not be large market spenders.
But Enscheff seems to think teams should always trade their pitchers with 1-2 years left on their deals to maximize value. Additional factors like market size, team makeup elsewhere, etc. don't seem to play into it. Which is fine, I'm just curious on how he views Arrieta specifically.
I would personally argue that the fact that Braves fans are fickle is even more reason to keep Teheran, not trade him. Fans will generally come as long as you win, so you want to make the best moves to help you do that long-term, certainly. But fickle fans seem more likely to decide not to show up because the team sold off their best pitcher, showing they're 'not serious about competing' or whatever else those fans like to say.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
But Enscheff seems to think teams should always trade their pitchers with 1-2 years left on their deals to maximize value. Additional factors like market size, team makeup elsewhere, etc. don't seem to play into it. Which is fine, I'm just curious on how he views Arrieta specifically.
I would personally argue that the fact that Braves fans are fickle is even more reason to keep Teheran, not trade him. Fans will generally come as long as you win, so you want to make the best moves to help you do that long-term, certainly. But fickle fans seem more likely to decide not to show up because the team sold off their best pitcher, showing they're 'not serious about competing' or whatever else those fans like to say.
Fickle fans are less likely to know who Teheran is, especially if he isn't doing "chicks dig the long ball" or other like commercials. It's the more than casual fans that would lose their minds if they traded Teheran, especially the ones who think/hope/pray that somehow the team will magic it's way into competition.
Fickle fans are less likely to know who Teheran is, especially if he isn't doing "chicks dig the long ball" or other like commercials. It's the more than casual fans that would lose their minds if they traded Teheran, especially the ones who think/hope/pray that somehow the team will magic it's way into competition.
Even casual fans know who the team's best players are. It's why they get pissed when you trade guys like Kimbrel, Simmons, etc.
The people who don't know who Julio Teheran is, or who don't hear about us trading our best pitcher, are the people who go to one game a year, wear a Braves shirt every 6 months, and ask why the man walked back to the dugout even though he didn't swing.
Those people mean nothing and make up probably 2-5% of your attendance. It's the casual fan, the ones who come to games occasionally and follow the basic results and know the top players, you have to concern yourself with. Those people make up probably 50-75% of your attendance.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
Even casual fans know who the team's best players are. It's why they get pissed when you trade guys like Kimbrel, Simmons, etc.
The people who don't know who Julio Teheran is, or who don't hear about us trading our best pitcher, are the people who go to one game a year, wear a Braves shirt every 6 months, and ask why the man walked back to the dugout even though he didn't swing.
Those people mean nothing and make up probably 2-5% of your attendance. It's the casual fan, the ones who come to games occasionally and follow the basic results and know the top players, you have to concern yourself with. Those people make up probably 50-75% of your attendance.
I think you have passing fans (those that barely know the rules and attend 1-2 games a year because they can't think of anything better to do), casual fans, as you say probably 50-75%, your T-Shirt buying fans, probably 15-25%, then your purists (those who watch the game for the outcome of the game, who may like particular players, but are much more team oriented in their fandom and typically know more about the game), probably 10-15%.
I think you can figure out how well known Teheran is by looking at his jersey sales (FF as well). Without regard to their worthiness as the stars of the team, Teheran and Freeman have been promoted as the stars of the team. I think if you look at the number of jerseys (and other player specific merchandise) and compare to past Braves greats like Chipper, Andruw, Smoltz, Glavine, Maddux, etc. then adjust for differences in attendance and factor in necessity (you may not be miss right, but you are miss right now) you could probably come to a reasonable estimate of the fan popularity of the player.
I would expect that each franchise does that kind of internal analysis and figures that in to player value.
But Enscheff seems to think teams should always trade their pitchers with 1-2 years left on their deals to maximize value. Additional factors like market size, team makeup elsewhere, etc. don't seem to play into it. Which is fine, I'm just curious on how he views Arrieta specifically.
I would personally argue that the fact that Braves fans are fickle is even more reason to keep Teheran, not trade him. Fans will generally come as long as you win, so you want to make the best moves to help you do that long-term, certainly. But fickle fans seem more likely to decide not to show up because the team sold off their best pitcher, showing they're 'not serious about competing' or whatever else those fans like to say.
No, I said mid market teams should be flipping pitching assets with 1-2 years of control remaining. The Cubs have shown they can shop at or near the middle of the FA when they signed Lester. The Braves are not even in the same realm financially.
The Cubs will do the smart thing and let Arrietta walk. Then they will let Lester walk when his deal is up.
The difference between them and the Braves is that the Cubs can afford to fill a rotation hole with Lester, while the Braves will never be able to. Their only hope for long term competitiveness is to have a constant resupply of starting pitching, and the only way to do that while consistently picking late in the draft is to get 2 young guys for every pitching veteran.
We saw how the farm turned out when the Braves stopped being a top payroll team. They stopped producing enough pitching, and they couldn't afford to bring in impact guys to fill the holes. So we got to see overpaid garbage like KK and Lowe.
Southcack77
Well-known member
No, I said mid market teams should be flipping pitching assets with 1-2 years of control remaining. The Cubs have shown they can shop at or near the middle of the FA when they signed Lester. The Braves are not even in the same realm financially.
The Cubs will do the smart thing and let Arrietta walk. Then they will let Lester walk when his deal is up.
The difference between them and the Braves is that the Cubs can afford to fill a rotation hole with Lester, while the Braves will never be able to. Their only hope for long term competitiveness is to have a constant resupply of starting pitching, and the only way to do that while consistently picking late in the draft is to get 2 young guys for every pitching veteran.
We saw how the farm turned out when the Braves stopped being a top payroll team. They stopped producing enough pitching, and they couldn't afford to bring in impact guys to fill the holes. So we got to see overpaid garbage like KK and Lowe.
I'm not sure "never" is the right word. Atlanta is not Tampa or Oakland and Turner's tv deal on way out has artificially depressed team revenues. It will expire one day.
I'm not sure "never" is the right word. Atlanta is not Tampa or Oakland and Turner's tv deal on way out has artificially depressed team revenues. It will expire one day.
Pretty sure the Braves current TV deal runs through 2027. In 10 years I think it's more likely cable TV will be well on its way out, and live streaming like MLB.tv is much more prevalent. I'm afraid that means the Braves will miss out on the small window of time where all these mega TV deals were signed by most other MLB teams.
If I'm the Braves FO, I'm not going to plan my organizational strategy around what might happen with TV money a decade from now. Coppy most likely won't even be around by then, so I doubt he is making a 10 year plan involving revenue from a new TV deal.
I would hope the Braves are operating under the realities of today and the foreseeable future rather than speculation a decade into the future.
No, I said mid market teams should be flipping pitching assets with 1-2 years of control remaining. The Cubs have shown they can shop at or near the middle of the FA when they signed Lester. The Braves are not even in the same realm financially.
The Cubs will do the smart thing and let Arrietta walk. Then they will let Lester walk when his deal is up.
The difference between them and the Braves is that the Cubs can afford to fill a rotation hole with Lester, while the Braves will never be able to. Their only hope for long term competitiveness is to have a constant resupply of starting pitching, and the only way to do that while consistently picking late in the draft is to get 2 young guys for every pitching veteran.
We saw how the farm turned out when the Braves stopped being a top payroll team. They stopped producing enough pitching, and they couldn't afford to bring in impact guys to fill the holes. So we got to see overpaid garbage like KK and Lowe.
Ok, I got you. But if mid-market teams are already at a disadvantage due to an inability to be a player for the top FAs, then it just seems like you're consistently putting them at a slightly bigger disadvantage by shipping all their pitchers before their deals are up.
Again, I definitely think it makes sense to do that at times, and probably in a majority of cases, but there is also something to be said for allowing your team to remain as good as it can be while you're competitive. It is more difficult for a mid-market team to build a sustained winner, but it's also more difficult for them to win any championships if you're constantly taking the top off the pitching staff.
And even for big-market teams, if your contention is that trading these pitchers with 1-2 years left on their deal maximizes value and helps you long-term, why would that not be the case for them as well? Wouldn't it still be a better use of assets to trade Arrieta now? Why would you hold onto him?
It depends on the pitcher. If we have a Kershaw...then no. Julio on the other hand is a very good pitcher, but not really a ace. He is definitely boardline of being one, but not quite. That's not to say I don't like him (I do), but given the value of his contract, his speed decline...he should be traded IF the right trade is out there...even if that's tomorrow. If a trade is presented that can help us in a big way...you have to do it. We are positioned better than any team in baseball to replace a pitcher in the future. I think the Braves intend to do just that. We have waves of pitchers, because they intend to develop and trade many with high stock, while keeping a few jems. If you get a least one high pitching prospect back in the deal...then it's a never ending cycle of talent.
Ok, I got you. But if mid-market teams are already at a disadvantage due to an inability to be a player for the top FAs, then it just seems like you're consistently putting them at a slightly bigger disadvantage by shipping all their pitchers before their deals are up.
Again, I definitely think it makes sense to do that at times, and probably in a majority of cases, but there is also something to be said for allowing your team to remain as good as it can be while you're competitive. It is more difficult for a mid-market team to build a sustained winner, but it's also more difficult for them to win any championships if you're constantly taking the top off the pitching staff.
And even for big-market teams, if your contention is that trading these pitchers with 1-2 years left on their deal maximizes value and helps you long-term, why would that not be the case for them as well? Wouldn't it still be a better use of assets to trade Arrieta now? Why would you hold onto him?
A team in the Cubs position that is run well doesn't necessarily need long-term help. They have the funds to buy whatever piece they are missing. Mid market teams like the Braves will constantly have to have a stocked minor league system to be able to compete year in year out. Otherwise you will get what we have now with years of rebuilding.
Btw....paying a pitcher a huge contract is a bad deal in most instances. Look at Greinke for example...great pitcher, but who wants that deal?? There are just a handful of pitchers (who play one out of every 5 games), that merit that kind of money. It makes more sense to have many pitchers on the farm and sign position players (who play every day), to your bigger contracts.
A team in the Cubs position that is run well doesn't necessarily need long-term help. They have the funds to buy whatever piece they are missing. Mid market teams like the Braves will constantly have to have a stocked minor league system to be able to compete year in year out. Otherwise you will get what we have now with years of rebuilding.
I understand the distinction there, and I'm fine with that if that's the argument. But Enscheff is always concerned with maximizing value at every opportunity, so I'm just curious as to his thoughts. Is he ok with failing to fully maximize value in every case for certain teams and in certain situations? Because my understanding of his positions is generally that any move that fails to fully maximize value (or is 'sub-optimal') is a bad move. So if moving your best pitcher with 1-2 years left maximizes value for mid-market teams, it seems like it would also maximize value for any team.
Again, I get that one can view teams in different markets differently; I just haven't understood that to be Enscheff's general position before.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
Ok, I got you. But if mid-market teams are already at a disadvantage due to an inability to be a player for the top FAs, then it just seems like you're consistently putting them at a slightly bigger disadvantage by shipping all their pitchers before their deals are up.
Again, I definitely think it makes sense to do that at times, and probably in a majority of cases, but there is also something to be said for allowing your team to remain as good as it can be while you're competitive. It is more difficult for a mid-market team to build a sustained winner, but it's also more difficult for them to win any championships if you're constantly taking the top off the pitching staff.
And even for big-market teams, if your contention is that trading these pitchers with 1-2 years left on their deal maximizes value and helps you long-term, why would that not be the case for them as well? Wouldn't it still be a better use of assets to trade Arrieta now? Why would you hold onto him?
If that were the case then the whole concept implodes upon itself because the market value of those pitchers would fall to the point that the return would not be worth making the trade. If all teams, large market included, started trading away their best starters right before FA where is the market? Who buys?
I understand Enscheff's premise and think of it as more of a "rule of thumb" as opposed to a inviolable law. But, when teams like the Braves violate the rule of thumb they have to know that they are flirting with disaster and a potential rebuild is on the way in the not too distant future.