2015 Farm System Rankings (Law 6th/Fangraphs 6th)

skillet said:
This illustrates what I and several others have said about our rebuild. While I am in the camp of being on board with the rebuild, the only issue I have is that while we rebuilt our farm system from a bottom 5 to being rated 6th best, we didn't get any elite prospects in any of the trades. If you gave each column a weighted number (say 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1), we would get 24 points while the Cubs would get 31, even though we both have 11. Even the Twins who only have 8 as opposed to our 11 have 26 points to our 24.

I'm overall happy with the rebuild, but it would have been nice to have gotten at least 1 60-65 prospect. It's for that reason I have to give the rebuild a solid B as opposed to an A.
Click to expand...

I hear you, but I also feel prospects ranked like 60-100 are all really similar. I don't know how their success rates differ, but I doubt they're significantly different. So to me, you just have to get a lot of prospects with clear tools and talent and hope for the best. It's a numbers game.
 
skillet said:
This illustrates what I and several others have said about our rebuild. While I am in the camp of being on board with the rebuild, the only issue I have is that while we rebuilt our farm system from a bottom 5 to being rated 6th best, we didn't get any elite prospects in any of the trades. If you gave each column a weighted number (say 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1), we would get 24 points while the Cubs would get 31, even though we both have 11. Even the Twins who only have 8 as opposed to our 11 have 26 points to our 24.

I'm overall happy with the rebuild, but it would have been nice to have gotten at least 1 60-65 prospect. It's for that reason I have to give the rebuild a solid B as opposed to an A.
Click to expand...

But based on that you are relying way too much on the success of that one prospect in order to effectively turn around your team. I'd rather have multiple chances on guys that have been potentially undervalued and give our scouting/developmental team time. I was not unrealistic in thinking the Braves were going to get a top 10-20 prospect back for players with 1 year left on their deals.
 
thethe said:
But based on that you are relying way too much on the success of that one prospect in order to effectively turn around your team. I'd rather have multiple chances on guys that have been potentially undervalued and give our scouting/developmental team time. I was not unrealistic in thinking the Braves were going to get a top 10-20 prospect back for players with 1 year left on their deals.
Click to expand...

Let me be a bit more clear. For example, the Justin Upton trade. We got 4 prospects, Jace and Dustin Peterson, Fried and Smith. Granted, Fried could end up being the jewel of the trade if he can overcome TJ, but even if that happens it would be several years away. I would have much rather had Hunter Renfroe and Matt Wisler as the return. Two less guys, but much better prospects with much higher upsides. We went with quantity over quality in that trade.

The Gattis trade, on the other hand, was excellent.
 
It is true that Heyward and Justin Upton having one year before free agency limited their trade value. On the other hand, a combined expected 8-9 WAR at a price less than half the market value for that kind of production should net you a Top 50 prospect. One option that might have been preferable to the way things unfolded would have been to trade Upton and Heyward together. I would have rather done that and netted one top prospect than a bunch of fringy ones.
 
skillet said:
This illustrates what I and several others have said about our rebuild. While I am in the camp of being on board with the rebuild, the only issue I have is that while we rebuilt our farm system from a bottom 5 to being rated 6th best, we didn't get any elite prospects in any of the trades. If you gave each column a weighted number (say 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1), we would get 24 points while the Cubs would get 31, even though we both have 11. Even the Twins who only have 8 as opposed to our 11 have 26 points to our 24.

I'm overall happy with the rebuild, but it would have been nice to have gotten at least 1 60-65 prospect. It's for that reason I have to give the rebuild a solid B as opposed to an A.
Click to expand...

I agree that quality is preferable to quantity when it comes to player valuation, and I feel pretty confident that the Braves FO is on the same page. If they could have gotten Renfroe (FV 55) OR Wisler (FV 55) in the Upton trade in lieu of Jace (FV 40) + Smith (FV 45), you can bet they would have preferred that. The market for Upton was softer than some thought, and I think there's a good chance the Braves overplayed their hand a bit.

Even with just a satisfactory / fair return for Upton, the Braves did a solid job executing the rebuild. IMO, the Gattis return was great, the Heyward return was good, and most of the smaller trades were good. While the execution of the rebuild strategy may grade out to something like a B- or C+ (see: Markakis, Nick), the most important thing is that they had the right strategy. I think we had a good, and certainly interesting, offseason.
 
I'm not nearly as down or dumbfounded as most on the Markakis signing. I think it was done for two reasons. One, to help to remain competitive for the next couple years while we rebuild, and second, to bring a strong, veteran presence to our clubhouse which was sorely lacking leadership.

Gattis trade - A+
Heyward trade - B+/A-
Smaller trades - B/B+
Upton trade - C-
Overall offseason - B
 
skillet said:
Let me be a bit more clear. For example, the Justin Upton trade. We got 4 prospects, Jace and Dustin Peterson, Fried and Smith. Granted, Fried could end up being the jewel of the trade if he can overcome TJ, but even if that happens it would be several years away. I would have much rather had Hunter Renfroe and Matt Wisler as the return. Two less guys, but much better prospects with much higher upsides. We went with quantity over quality in that trade.

The Gattis trade, on the other hand, was excellent.
Click to expand...

I had no idea Wisler and Renfroe was an option. Got a link to validate this?
 
dak said:
Fangraphs will be publishing their top 200 prospect list tomorrow. The Braves are tied for first with 11 prospects in the top 200, but a lot of their guys look to be toward the back of the list. Intro article linked below.

Top-200-Prospects-Team-Grid.png


http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/top-200-prospects-the-process-and-introduction/
Click to expand...

I hope some of those 'spects turn into 60s and 70s otherwise, blah.
 
skillet said:
Never said they were, just that the return would have been much better had we gotten one or two top prospects instead of 4 average ones.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that Fried is an average prospect. He is a great injured prospect.

Of course though you would rather get a top prospect as opposed to 4 average ones but there is no reason to think there were top prospects available so the point doesn't really mean much in this discussion. At least from my point of view.
 
skillet said:
Never said they were, just that the return would have been much better had we gotten one or two top prospects instead of 4 average ones.
Click to expand...

So you are comparing an actual trade offer to one that you made up, just now.

I don't get it.

Also, I find error in the thinking of your last line as well. Judging the return before any of them take a pitch for their new club. Ehhhh...
 
Tapate50 said:
So you are comparing an actual trade offer to one that you made up, just now.

I don't get it.

Also, I find error in the thinking of your last line as well. Judging the return before any of them take a pitch for their new club. Ehhhh...
Click to expand...

This is just the tone of a large percentage of the fanbase right now. They could be a 100% right and would make people like me look foolish. I am just going to defer to the scouting/developmental team that continually churned out top 5 farm systems while competing for division titles each year.
 
Sims should bounce back to be included next year I would think.

FG seems to be very bullish on Fried. Folty as well. I noted the inclusions of working with McDowell for Folty.

Like seeing Albies that high already. Wow.
 
skillet said:
Let me be a bit more clear. For example, the Justin Upton trade. We got 4 prospects, Jace and Dustin Peterson, Fried and Smith. Granted, Fried could end up being the jewel of the trade if he can overcome TJ, but even if that happens it would be several years away. I would have much rather had Hunter Renfroe and Matt Wisler as the return. Two less guys, but much better prospects with much higher upsides. We went with quantity over quality in that trade.

The Gattis trade, on the other hand, was excellent.
Click to expand...

Tapate50 said:
I had no idea Wisler and Renfroe was an option. Got a link to validate this?
Click to expand...

thethe said:
Another example of what Dalyn does best!
Click to expand...

What the hell do I have to do with it? I've never mentioned either of those guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top