Around Baseball 2015 Edition

[nsacpi]

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.

I think you have summarized it fairly. We obviously differ a bit on some players such as Toussaint. And I've stated how I would value the Riley pick in my assessment of the punt versus no punt scenarios. There are some additional fairly minor things I would add to make things complete, such a regaining some of the prospects/young players we traded away, notably Kubitza, Wren, La Stella, Gosselin and Victor Reyes. And for completeness I would add a few more names to the list of holdover prospects--Dykstra, Mejia, Alejandro Salazar, Povse, Janas and a couple guys who might have lost rookie eligibility--Castro and Williams Perez.

 

[smootness]

My guess is they would have moved Heyward and J. Upton at the deadline if we had not been in contention.

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.

A LF with an OBP significantly under .300 who plays horrid defense is a recipe for disaster. And adding BJ to Justin significantly reduces your return for him.

And how is the prospect of moving Heyward or Upton at the deadline had we not competed a defense for going for it? You would have gotten less in return, and in that scenario, we don't compete anyway.

 

[smootness]

I think you have summarized it fairly. We obviously differ a bit on some players such as Toussaint. And I've stated how I would value the Riley pick in my assessment of the punt versus no punt scenarios. There are some additional fairly minor things I would add to make things complete, such a regaining some of the prospects/young players we traded away, notably Kubitza, Wren, La Stella, Gosselin and Victor Reyes. And for completeness I would add a few more names to the list of holdover prospects--Dykstra, Mejia, Alejandro Salazar, Povse and a couple guys who might have lost rookie eligibility--Castro and Williams Perez.

All of those prospect names you mentioned don't even sniff the potential of Touki. And they're all lower prospects than even Mallex Smith at this point.

 

[thewupk]

My guess is they would have moved Heyward and J. Upton at the deadline if we had not been in contention.

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.

Speaking of Melvin. Is there a world where he stays healthy and performs like he did this year to give the Braves 2-3 WAR?

 

[sturg33]

Punt or no punt... I'm making that Kimbrel trade everytime. I also trade Gattis, too.

With that, plus not signing Markakis, there was money to go fill out the roster for a chance of success.

And like someone said, we could have traded Heyward/Upton at the deadline if it didn't work out. And as we saw with Cueto, Price, Cespedes, etc... you can get some major talent doing that (arguably more than we got in the offseason)

 

[nsacpi]

My guess is they would have moved Heyward and J. Upton at the deadline if we had not been in contention.

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.

Somewhat with the benefit of hindsight, the move that I would have started off with would have been Gattis for major league or major league ready pitching. I would not have necessarily made it a priority to move Melvin just because I don't think there was any value there. But I would have had a serious conversation with the manager to clarify that he did not have to give Melvin 400 at bats or even 100 just because of his contract. Ditto for CJ.

 

[nsacpi]

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.

I know the article you are referring to. For comparability I try to assess draft picks by expected WAR over the first six years to get an idea of what the surplus is during the pre-agency years. A pick in the 15-20 range has an expected WAR of 5-6. A pick in the 1-5 range is about twice as valuable. So you get approximately an extra win per year for six years. Oh lets say 2018-2023, you get an extra win from having a pick in the first 5 versus top 15-20. That's my recollection of the various articles on the subject. The results do seem to vary a bit by methodology and the years looked at.

 

[Carp]

I disagree it's going well.

We're the worst team in baseball. We got not true impact pieces back in the trades from our studs - except Shelby, and he's wasting away on the worst team in baseball.

There no clear path to improvement, other than wait several years for the very lower minors to develop.

And your making that judgement on one season? Wisler, Folty, Man Ban, both Petersons, Ruiz, Fried, etc. None of the guys have a chance to be impact players?

 

[sturg33]

And your making that judgement on one season? Wisler, Folty, Man Ban, both Petersons, Ruiz, Fried, etc. None of the guys have a chance to be impact players?

I think they could be decent players... I don't see anyone who is impact. Yes - that judgement is from one season. And all of the minor league reports from these guys

 

[Carp]

Punt or no punt... I'm making that Kimbrel trade everytime. I also trade Gattis, too.

With that, plus not signing Markakis, there was money to go fill out the roster for a chance of success.

And like someone said, we could have traded Heyward/Upton at the deadline if it didn't work out. And as we saw with Cueto, Price, Cespedes, etc... you can get some major talent doing that (arguably more than we got in the offseason)

So our terrible BP and rotation would somehow not be terrible had we not traded Upton and Heyward...... right.....

You realize the money from the Markakis signing came from trading off Upton/Heyward correct? And the Kimbrell trade didn't happen til the day before opening day. Where was this magic money coming from to improve the team?

 

[dak]

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

In order to contend in 2015, I also think it's likely we would have traded one or more of these names (Peraza, for instance) for a short-term fix. Especially with Minor spitting the bit in the Spring.

 

[sturg33]

So our terrible BP and rotation would somehow not be terrible had we not traded Upton and Heyward...... right.....

You realize the money from the Markakis signing came from trading off Upton/Heyward correct? And the Kimbrell trade didn't happen til the day before opening day. Where was this magic money coming from to improve the team?

We signed Markakis before trading Upton.

I am aware of the timing of the Kimbrel trade. I'm also pretty sure we could have managed to trade him anytime we felt like it.

Man... what a dumbass signing that Markakis deal was

 

[Carp]

I think they could be decent players... I don't see anyone who is impact. Yes - that judgement is from one season. And all of the minor league reports from these guys

Then you choose to believe only stuff you want to. I've read scouting reports from several of the guys that suggest very high upside.

 

[sturg33]

Then you choose to believe only stuff you want to. I've read scouting reports from several of the guys that suggest very high upside.

I don't believe we acquired a single top 50 consensus prospect.

But we did trade one away

 

[nsacpi]

So our terrible BP and rotation would somehow not be terrible had we not traded Upton and Heyward...... right.....

You realize the money from the Markakis signing came from trading off Upton/Heyward correct? And the Kimbrell trade didn't happen til the day before opening day. Where was this magic money coming from to improve the team?

We could learn something from following the money trail. It is quite involved. The Kimbrell trade (imo our best trade this off-season) for example involved us moving Melvin's contract (which I'm very happy about) but we took on Maybin and Quentin. We also paid for Cahill's contract. I forget what we got back. Slot money? Then we sent money effectively to pay Arroyo's contract. Then there was effectively a transfer from 2015 and 2016 to 2017 involved in the Bourn-Swisher-CJ trade. I think the bottom line is that our effective payroll was quite low this year because we were willing to take on dead weight (Quentin, Cahill, Arroyo) for future assets including freeing up payroll for 2017. We did this to a more limited extent for 2016 with the Bourn-Swisher-CJ trade. So we have not simply punted on 2015. We have also done certain things that will compromise our ability to compete in 2016.

In return we freed up significant payroll for 2017 (but it does not look like the farm system will be producing much in time for the 2017 season) and we will be able to get some assets via a very early pick position in the next draft that we would not otherwise have had. We also gained some draft picks and players we signed with slot money we traded for. My bottom line is we did not speed the rebuild enough to justify punting in 2015 and compromising our ability to compete in 2016.

I do agree with those who have said it is still early days. This discussion will have its twists and turns. I'm glad there are people on both sides of this argument who will be there to remind the other side when developments merit a change in assessment.

 

[Carp]

We signed Markakis before trading Upton.

I am aware of the timing of the Kimbrel trade. I'm also pretty sure we could have managed to trade him anytime we felt like it.

Man... what a dumbass signing that Markakis deal was

The point remains. The Markakis money came from trading other expensive players. It would not have been available otherwise. So how would we have afforded to fix the BP and two spots in the rotation with roughly 15 million or less to spend?

According to reports I read, we approached several teams about trading Kimbrell and BJ and no one was interested in taking back that much money. So I rather doubt we could have done it anytime we felt like it.

 

[nsacpi]

I don't believe we acquired a single top 50 consensus prospect.

But we did trade one away

Olivera and Wisler were on the most recent BA Top 100 or Top 50 list before we got them.

 

[Carp]

I don't believe we acquired a single top 50 consensus prospect.

But we did trade one away

Pretty likely that both Wisler and Folty would easily be a top 50 prospect if they were left in AAA all yr and were still eligible.

 

[chop2chip]

We signed Markakis before trading Upton.

I am aware of the timing of the Kimbrel trade. I'm also pretty sure we could have managed to trade him anytime we felt like it.

Man... what a dumbass signing that Markakis deal was

Pointless? Sure. I won't argue against that. But there really isn't any real world consequence to that contract either.

He's a player being paid what seems to be the market rate. He has 3 years 30 million left on his contract. There's a good chance he justifies the value needed.

 

[dak]

We also paid for Cahill's contract. I forget what we got back. Slot money?

$ for part of Cahill's contract and 75th pick (A.J. Minter). That deal is not looking great so far, but I'm admittedly more concerned about Minter than most think is fair.