Around Baseball 2015 Edition

yeezus said:
And there is baseball beyond 2017, you know. MAYBE it wouldn't have made a HUGE difference for 2017, but it would've certainly made a huge difference for the future in general.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say huge. Having the #1 or #2 pick is valuable. But again we need to value it properly by looking at what is being gained. What is being gained is the expected value of a Top 5 pick versus presumably a pick in the 15-20 range if we hadn't punted.
 
yeezus said:
it is so funny you hold this opinion now after your opinion on Peraza while he was still a Brave.
Click to expand...

What he said is Wood and Peraza might be better than anyone we got other than Miller. It is a little unclear whether he meant each one individually or both together. If he meant both together, it is almost surely correct. If he meant Peraza alone, it is debatable, but not way out there.
 
And we can say "no impact" guys came back, but we simply do not know that yet. Plenty of the guys have chances to be impact players, and the chances of getting one with the #1, 2, or 3 pick is much higher than with the 15-20 pick.

None of these trades are even relatively close to being done enough to analyze and determine (the Heyward and Shelby one is closest, and I think it's clearly a good one). Next year will tell us a lot.
 
nsacpi said:
Did punting in 2016 accelerate the rebuild? A little is the answer I come up with. Guys like Albies, Yepez and Acuna were already signed before the new team came aboard. So some restocking of the farm system would have occurred anyhow. Plus the relatively high 2015 draft pick (and second first round pick from the QO to Santana) would have been there with or without punting. Plus with or without punting we would have had the option of blowing past our international slot numbers in the next signing period.

With or without punting we would likely be looking at a team that projects to 75-80 wins in 2016. With or without punting we would have the new stadium and a bigger payroll in 2017. I don't think all the trades we've made significantly move the needle on the 2017 team. So we punted for what? A marginally brighter outlook for 2018 and beyond. To me it is not worth the punt, especially when you consider that every year there are one or two teams like the Rangers this year who get the pixie dust.
Click to expand...

All valid points.

A lot will depend on what, if anything, is done in terms of budget. I agree that outside of Miller (and perhaps Olivera) there is no top-drawer immediate help. I think Jace Peterson will be fine, but he's a support level guy. We'll see on Mallex Smith. Max Fried is a question mark, but could be a member of the rotation in 2017. Most everything else was done around the edges. I'm guessing 2018 or 2019 is when we'll see a legitimate contending team again and that would have likely been the case in 2016 regardless of what approach was taken this past off-season. Just too many holes and if we had not dumped Melvin, not a lot of leeway to add needed parts. The pixie dust being sprinkled in Texas is landing on guys with a much better track record than the team we would have likely rolled onto the field in 2016 regardless of whether or not moves were made.
 
yeezus said:
And we can say "no impact" guys came back, but we simply do not know that yet. Plenty of the guys have chances to be impact players, and the chances of getting one with the #1, 2, or 3 pick is much higher than with the 15-20 pick.

None of these trades are even relatively close to being done enough to analyze and determine (the Heyward and Shelby one is closest, and I think it's clearly a good one). Next year will tell us a lot.
Click to expand...

It is still early days. But surely it is not as premature to make some preliminary assessments now as it was in the first half of the season when thethe (may Allah honor him and grant him peace) and others were crowing about how brilliantly Hart's trades were turning out.
 
nsacpi said:
If the rebuild gets us a team that projects to win 85-90 games in 2017 I would switch my view and say it was worth it.
Click to expand...

My definition of a team in realistic playoff contention according to preseason projections would have a lower bar than that. More like the 82-83 median projection that the Cubs and Astros had this year. Only we would be getting there one year sooner than them.

I'm with you on the other side as well. If the only benefit of starting the rebuild this year ends up being a marginally better team in the fourth year than we would have had in a traditional rebuild, it will have been a mistake. Either in strategy or execution. I'd be very comfortable with McGuirk terminating the employment of Hart and Coppollella in that scenario, assuming the process wasn't impacted significantly by injuries and other circumstances out of their control.
 
50PoundHead said:
All valid points.

A lot will depend on what, if anything, is done in terms of budget. I agree that outside of Miller (and perhaps Olivera) there is no top-drawer immediate help. I think Jace Peterson will be fine, but he's a support level guy. We'll see on Mallex Smith. Max Fried is a question mark, but could be a member of the rotation in 2017. Most everything else was done around the edges. I'm guessing 2018 or 2019 is when we'll see a legitimate contending team again and that would have likely been the case in 2016 regardless of what approach was taken this past off-season. Just too many holes and if we had not dumped Melvin, not a lot of leeway to add needed parts. The pixie dust being sprinkled in Texas is landing on guys with a much better track record than the team we would have likely rolled onto the field in 2016 regardless of whether or not moves were made.
Click to expand...

Wisler is the guy who I think has the best chance of making the punt worthwhile.
 
nsacpi said:
There are some differences with Texas which you point out and they have some bearing on the decision.

But the point I would emphasize is that we can set aside any comparisons with Texas and ask whether the punt did anything much to the outlook for 2016 and 2017. I would say no. It will marginally improve the outlook for 2018 and beyond. Marginally.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it did. Here are the assets we've obtained because of the decision to punt this year:
Shelby Miller
Matt Wisler
Mike Foltynewicz
Max Fried
Jace Peterson
Tyrell Jenkins
Rio Ruiz
Mallex Smith
Dustin Peterson
Austin Riley
Ricardo Sanchez
#1-2 pick in 2016 instead of something probably outside the top 10; also higher 2nd round pick
Lower 1st round pick from the Marlins
Manny Banuelos (we're not selling off bullpen arms for prospects if we don't punt)
Touki Toussaint (we're not able to take on money in deals like we have if we don't punt)
John Gant (we don't sell off pieces if we don't punt)
Either Derian Cruz or Christian Pache (we can't sign both and still go for it without trading Paroubeck)
Hector Olivera (we don't trade Wood if we don't punt)
Zach Bird
Rob Whalen
Andrew Thurman

Now, not all of these pieces will make an impact at all, and plenty will not make much of an impact. But overall, you're talking about a pretty huge group of solid or better pieces. The likelihood of at least 2-3 of these becoming good MLB pieces is actually pretty good. That's our #2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 22, and 23 prospects according to MLB.com; our 3B for the next few years who we hope can be an impact bat; a very good MLB starting pitcher; 2 SPs who have already gotten MLB experience who have a chance to be above-average; an elite talent in next year's draft; and 1 more very good international prospect this year.

If you think that's essentially nothing, that's fine. But yes, I do think this has both accelerated the rebuild and tacked on quite a bit more long-term talent as well. You don't make a baseball team out of a few pieces. At the very least, we have added a lot of guys that should be able to be MLB contributors for minimum cost. That is very helpful and allows you to go get 2-3 pieces that will cost more that will put you over the top. Without the pool of talented players at low cost, you're forced to build a completely top-heavy team that has no room for error.
 
nsacpi said:
Wisler is the guy who I think has the best chance of making the punt worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Forgot him, but yes. We should have some depth in terms of rotation candidates moving forward, both from the trades and from within. If we do sign a premier FA pitcher, it could make Teheran or Miller expendable by 2017 with Wisler, Sims, and Jenkins as candidates to fill out the rotation.

The thing that has frustrated me a bit is that there is so much movement that it's difficult to see what the strategic framework is. I always had the same frustration with Wren and I'm more fair and balanced than Fox News so it would be remiss for me not to point that out.
 
dak said:
My definition of a team in realistic playoff contention according to preseason projections would have a lower bar than that. More like the 82-83 median projection that the Cubs and Astros had this year. Only we would be getting there one year sooner than them.

I'm with you on the other side as well. If the only benefit of starting the rebuild this year ends up being a marginally better team in the fourth year than we would have had in a traditional rebuild, it will have been a mistake. Either in strategy or execution. I'd be very comfortable with McGuirk terminating the employment of Hart and Coppollella in that scenario, assuming the process wasn't impacted significantly by injuries and other circumstances out of their control.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that the bar for defining a contending team is lower. For me it is expected wins in the 80-85 range.

I was giving a bar for what would make it worthwhile to have punted and set it higher. Because to me without the punt we could have put a team at about 80 expected wins or a little better on the field in 2017 when you take into account the likely bump in payroll.
 
So just for the record, without the decision to punt, we would be left with this group as our entire list of prospects:
Albies
Peraza
Allard
Sims
Davidson
Soroka
Herbert
Hursh
Grosser
Camargo
Yepez
Acuna
Cabrera
Parsons
Cruz or Pache

We would be looking at probably a 10-15 pick in the draft, we would have Gattis and Kimbrel coming off significantly worse years, and we would have Heyward and Upton about to leave. Yes, we would get the picks for them leaving, but you're still talking about bottom of the first round picks; that's fine, but it's nowhere near the impact of a #1 pick. The 3 first round picks would be nice, but we'll have two anyway.

That's still a weak system. Yes, you would still be looking to add Maitan and more international prospects next year, along with the 1st round picks, but that's not exactly a system that looks like it's ready to a) help you now or b) sustain you for years going forward. We would also still have BJ's contract on the books, and possibly CJ's as well.

Touki and Riley are two huge pieces in the lower levels that we wouldn't have, and the likelihood of at least 1-2 of the Wisler/Folty/Jenkins/Fried becoming good MLB pitchers in the not-too-distant future is pretty good. Some act like the pieces we added that are above A are just filler. That's not true at all.
 
smootness said:
Yes, I think it did. Here are the assets we've obtained because of the decision to punt this year:
Shelby Miller
Matt Wisler
Mike Foltynewicz
Max Fried
Jace Peterson
Tyrell Jenkins
Rio Ruiz
Mallex Smith
Dustin Peterson
Austin Riley
Ricardo Sanchez
#1-2 pick in 2016 instead of something probably outside the top 10; also higher 2nd round pick
Lower 1st round pick from the Marlins
Manny Banuelos (we're not selling off bullpen arms for prospects if we don't punt)
Touki Toussaint (we're not able to take on money in deals like we have if we don't punt)
John Gant (we don't sell off pieces if we don't punt)
Either Derian Cruz or Christian Pache (we can't sign both and still go for it without trading Paroubeck)
Hector Olivera (we don't trade Wood if we don't punt)
Zach Bird
Rob Whalen
Andrew Thurman

Now, not all of these pieces will make an impact at all, and plenty will not make much of an impact. But overall, you're talking about a pretty huge group of solid or better pieces. The likelihood of at least 2-3 of these becoming good MLB pieces is actually pretty good. That's our #2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 22, and 23 prospects according to MLB.com; our 3B for the next few years who we hope can be an impact bat; a very good MLB starting pitcher; 2 SPs who have already gotten MLB experience who have a chance to be above-average; an elite talent in next year's draft; and 1 more very good international prospect this year.

If you think that's essentially nothing, that's fine. But yes, I do think this has both accelerated the rebuild and tacked on quite a bit more long-term talent as well. You don't make a baseball team out of a few pieces. At the very least, we have added a lot of guys that should be able to be MLB contributors for minimum cost. That is very helpful and allows you to go get 2-3 pieces that will cost more that will put you over the top. Without the pool of talented players at low cost, you're forced to build a completely top-heavy team that has no room for error.
Click to expand...

I agree with your entire list except for Cruz and Pache. The front office would always had have the option and ability to deal some minor league pieces to get the necessary slot money. Also I would value the pick we used for Riley as the expected value of a pick in that range rather than Riley himself. On the debit side is the expected value of the draft picks associated with qualifying offers to Heyward and Upton. And since Olivera and Bird and the draft pick from that trade are on your list, we should debit what went to LA in that trade since they have substantial future value.
 
nsacpi said:
I wouldn't say huge. Having the #1 or #2 pick is valuable. But again we need to value it properly by looking at what is being gained. What is being gained is the expected value of a Top 5 pick versus presumably a pick in the 15-20 range if we hadn't punted.
Click to expand...

The difference in likelihood of a #1-2 pick making it compared to even a pick in the 10-15 range is massive. I'm not saying that alone makes the decision to punt worth it; I'm just saying that, yes, it is a huge difference.
 
nsacpi said:
I agree with your entirely list except for Cruz and Pache. The front office would always had have the option and ability to deal some minor league pieces to get the necessary slot money. Also I would value the pick we used for Riley as the expected value of a pick in that range rather than Riley himself. On the debit side is the expected value of the draft picks associated with qualifying offers to Heyward and Upton.
Click to expand...

Sure, we could have still traded somebody, but that's then taking away someone else from the system that we currently have. So adding Paroubeck allowed us to package him for slot money.

And again, the picks for Heyward and Upton are fine, but we wouldn't have added the pick we got from the Marlins, so the net gain is only one of those picks...which certainly has value but nothing close to the value of a top 2 pick. Our 2nd round pick also will now be much closer to those compensation picks than it would have been otherwise, as well.

So you're talking about something like #1, #30, and #41 against #15, #25, #26, and #55. I'll actually take the first option all day.
 
smootness said:
The difference in likelihood of a #1-2 pick making it compared to even a pick in the 10-15 range is massive. I'm not saying that alone makes the decision to punt worth it; I'm just saying that, yes, it is a huge difference.
Click to expand...

If you define or quantify massive, I would let you know whether I agree or not.
 
My guess is they would have moved Heyward and J. Upton at the deadline if we had not been in contention. Can't prove the negative, but I wonder if the return would have been better if we had waited.

The other aspect of this that I seem to be the only one talking about is the millstone that was Melvin Upton, Jr.'s, contract. Does the team hang onto Melvin to mollify Justin if Justin isn't moved?

Playing everything in reverse, I think I try to package Melvin, Jr., and Justin early in the off-season and hang onto Heyward. Put Gattis in LF part-time and get a solid 4th OF (not someone like Cunningham) to caddy Gattis and play some CF. I think there's still a lack of pitching that would have done us in, but I think the "we are competing in 2015" argument would have held some water.
 
nsacpi said:
If you define or quantify massive, I would let you know whether I agree or not.
Click to expand...

This article shows that your odds basically double by picking in the top 5 vs. the 16-20 range. And your chances of finding a very good MLB player are basically doubled over even the 11-15 range.

And that counts picks 3-5. I can't find the study, but I remember seeing one recently that showed the odds of the #1 picks are a good bit higher than the 2 pick, which are a good bit higher than the rest of the top 5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top