Is "2017" a huge lie?

[thewupk]

No doubt. But I'd argue that even Maybin showed that he'd "bought in" even more than Andrelton the vast majority of the time. I hated to see him go as well. I'm just saying that I see the rationale behind being hesitant to gamble $53 million that he was going to ever be better than he was last season.

As it was, Andrelton was exactly what Escobar is to the Royals. With better defense? Yes, but Escobar's no slouch.

Would you pay Escobar $53 million over the life of Simmons' contract? I bet DMGM won't.

53 million over 5 years for a 3-4 WAR player is something every team should immediately sign up for. Escobar was half the player Simmons was in 2015. So yeah paying him 53 million over 5 years would be something I wouldn't do.

 

[thewupk]

Isn't it interesting that people like to cast blame of the young, talented players we trade away? "Tough to coach." "Dirty player." It's been strongly implied more than once that Heyward was a "problem in the clubhouse."

This is called Bravesitis. It's a strong force that happens every offseason.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

53 million over 5 years for a 3-4 WAR player is something every team should immediately sign up for. Escobar was half the player Simmons was in 2015. So yeah paying him 53 million over 5 years would be something I wouldn't do.

Here's where I have an issue with WAR. It values the player as an individual but doesn't account for how that player fits within the composition of the team. Team construction requires give and take to establish the whole. Having an all world defense only short stop works if you have great offensive players around him. But the Braves don't. Saying he's a 3-4 win player and therefore justifying his contract works if you have an open-ended payroll where you are strictly looking at cost per WAR as the only criteria. But the Braves don't have that.

The Braves had to determine if the cost/benefit of Simmons' defense (and contract) outweighs the cost/benefit of his replacement (Aybar in this case) plus other return (Newcomb/Ellis), plus whatever future payroll value there is. It's harder to value the trade because (Newcomb/Ellis) are pitchers.

A team is a system like a car. Having really good tires is only useful if you have a working engine, transmission and steering wheel.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

I thought 2012 was a big lie. What is happening in 2017.. Damn Mayans.

 

[nsacpi]

Here's where I have an issue with WAR. It values the player as an individual but doesn't account for how that player fits within the composition of the team. Team construction requires give and take to establish the whole. Having an all world defense only short stop works if you have great offensive players around him. But the Braves don't. Saying he's a 3-4 win player and therefore justifying his contract works if you have an open-ended payroll where you are strictly looking at cost per WAR as the only criteria. But the Braves don't have that.

The Braves had to determine if the cost/benefit of Simmons' defense (and contract) outweighs the cost/benefit of his replacement (Aybar in this case) plus other return (Newcomb/Ellis), plus whatever future payroll value there is. It's harder to value the trade because (Newcomb/Ellis) are pitchers.

A team is a system like a car. Having really good tires is only useful if you have a working engine, transmission and steering wheel.

So in what way do these contextual aspects of Simmons value detract or add to his true value.

If I was attempting to answer this I would look at things like the groundball rate of the staff. The extent to which a SS like him fits in with the types of players to his left and right of the infield. The extent to which his hitting tendencies (low walk and strikeout rates) mesh with the rest of the lineup.

 

[Julio3000]

Isn't it interesting that people like to cast blame of the young, talented players we trade away? "Tough to coach." "Dirty player."

I figured this would be the exception...

Guess not.

 

[clvclv]

That's all fine but sometimes players are what they are. I'm sure it hasn't helped that we bring in hitting coaches every year or so who likely try to make hitters hit a different way. Sometimes you just got to let them be themselves. Yeah Andrelton is a drain on the offense but in the end it doesn't matter to me. He's a good player at a premium position that the Braves now have to fill long term. Which says to me that we aren't looking to compete in 2017 but a few years after that.

And if left to "be what he is", he was rapidly going to become a VERY expensive drain on the offense. That's likely the only reason he was moved.

The further and further this discussion goes, the more it sounds like the arguments when Yunel Escobar was moved. (And no, I'm not comparing the players - just the situation.)

 

[nsacpi]

And if left to "be what he is", he was rapidly going to become a VERY expensive drain on the offense.

Not true at all. The market rate for a win was 7M last off-season. His annual salary going forward is 6M, 8M, 11M, 13M, 15M. Even in the last year of the contract he is no more than market value as long as he puts up a 2 WAR season.

 

[thewupk]

And if left to "be what he is", he was rapidly going to become a VERY expensive drain on the offense. That's likely the only reason he was moved.

The further and further this discussion goes, the more it sounds like the arguments when Yunel Escobar was moved. (And no, I'm not comparing the players - just the situation.)

And I don't consider 15 million for a 3-4 WAR player in 2020 to be very expensive. Unless you think the Braves payroll is going to continue to stagnate and become one of the lowest in baseball but then that's a whole other issue.

 

[thewupk]

Not true at all. The market rate for a win was 7M last off-season. His annual salary going forward is 6M, 8M, 11M, 13M, 15M. Even in the last year of the contract he is no more than market value as long as he puts up a 2 WAR season.

And that's just assuming contracts don't continue to rise which I firmly believe they will.

 

[clvclv]

Here's where I have an issue with WAR. It values the player as an individual but doesn't account for how that player fits within the composition of the team. Team construction requires give and take to establish the whole. Having an all world defense only short stop works if you have great offensive players around him. But the Braves don't. Saying he's a 3-4 win player and therefore justifying his contract works if you have an open-ended payroll where you are strictly looking at cost per WAR as the only criteria. But the Braves don't have that.

The Braves had to determine if the cost/benefit of Simmons' defense (and contract) outweighs the cost/benefit of his replacement (Aybar in this case) plus other return (Newcomb/Ellis), plus whatever future payroll value there is. It's harder to value the trade because (Newcomb/Ellis) are pitchers.

A team is a system like a car. Having really good tires is only useful if you have a working engine, transmission and steering wheel.

Exactly.

I'm not the numbers-guy many of you are, but assuming 1 WAR is ~$7 million (???). The 2015 team costs you...

Simmons (SS) - $28 million (4 WAR)
Freeman (1B) - $23.8 million (3.4 WAR)
Markakis (RF) - $13.3 million (1.9 WAR)
Pierzynski (C) - $11.2 million (1.6 WAR)
Uribe - (3B) - $7.7 million (1.1 WAR)
Garcia (LF) - $4.2 million (0.6 WAR)
Maybin (CF) - $4.2 million (0.6 WAR)
Peterson (2B) - $3.5 million (0.5 WAR)

$95.9 million

Castro (Bench) - $4.2 million (0.6 WAR)
Lavarnway (Bench) - $1.4 million (0.2 WAR)
Cunningham (Bench) - $2.1 million (0.3 WAR)
Ciriaco (Bench) - $2.1 million (0.3 WAR)
Terdoslavich (Bench) - $700,000 (0.1 WAR)

$10.5 million

 

[thewupk]

Here's where I have an issue with WAR. It values the player as an individual but doesn't account for how that player fits within the composition of the team. Team construction requires give and take to establish the whole. Having an all world defense only short stop works if you have great offensive players around him. But the Braves don't. Saying he's a 3-4 win player and therefore justifying his contract works if you have an open-ended payroll where you are strictly looking at cost per WAR as the only criteria. But the Braves don't have that.

The Braves had to determine if the cost/benefit of Simmons' defense (and contract) outweighs the cost/benefit of his replacement (Aybar in this case) plus other return (Newcomb/Ellis), plus whatever future payroll value there is. It's harder to value the trade because (Newcomb/Ellis) are pitchers.

A team is a system like a car. Having really good tires is only useful if you have a working engine, transmission and steering wheel.

I agree with the cost benefit of Simmons compared to what the return was. My only issue with the trade is that it goes agaisnt the idea of competing in 2017. This move seems to push that date out a bit. And if that is their new plan then fine. Much like moving Kimbrel last year if the Braves aren't going to be winning anytime soon then trade them for future assests. Simmons would be wasted while we rebuild. And I think JT or Miller should be next if that is indeed the case.

As far as WAR of a player mattering to how they fit on a given team. I disagree with that. A players worth is what he actually produces on the field. And it doesn't matter how that comes whether it's via hitting, base running, or defense. They all help the team win. Do the Braves need offense? Yes. But the Braves traded 2 of the best defenders in teh game in consecutive offseasons. Our defense is likely going to be garbage in 2016 and that will be an issue going forward as well.

 

[thewupk]

Exactly.

I'm not the numbers-guy many of you are, but assuming 1 WAR is ~$7 million (???). The 2015 team costs you...

Simmons (SS) - $28 million (4 WAR)

Freeman (1B) - $23.8 million (3.4 WAR)

Markakis (RF) - $13.3 million (1.9 WAR)

Pierzynski (C) - $11.2 million (1.6 WAR)

Uribe - (3B) - $7.7 million (1.1 WAR)

Garcia (LF) - $4.2 million (0.6 WAR)

Maybin (CF) - $4.2 million (0.6 WAR)

Peterson (2B) - $3.5 million (0.5 WAR)

$95.9 million

Castro (Bench) - $4.2 million (0.6 WAR)

Lavarnway (Bench) - $1.4 million (0.2 WAR)

Cunningham (Bench) - $2.1 million (0.3 WAR)

Ciriaco (Bench) - $2.1 million (0.3 WAR)

Terdoslavich (Bench) - $700,000 (0.1 WAR)

$10.5 million

As you can see Simmons was and will continue to be a great value.

 

[clvclv]

As you can see Simmons was and will continue to be a great value.

Just as you can see that he's a luxury a team with less than a $120 million payroll can't afford when he's making market value if they have any hope of competing.

 

[nsacpi]

Just as you can see that he's a luxury a team with less than a $120 million payroll can't afford when he's making market value if they have any hope of competing.

Our front office keeps telling us payroll will rise significantly starting in 2017. I don't know if it is true or not. But they do repeat that message quite often.

 

[clvclv]

Our front office keeps telling us payroll will rise significantly starting in 2017. I don't know if it is true or not. But they do repeat that message quite often.

And I assume that will be the case as well. Like everyone else, I need to see it first.

At that point, paying players like Simmons and Heyward makes plenty of sense. The problem is that we're not at that point - yet.

 

[thewupk]

Just as you can see that he's a luxury a team with less than a $120 million payroll can't afford when he's making market value if they have any hope of competing.

But he's not making market value. Far from it. That is kind of the point. Unless his production drops off he will never at any point in his current contract be at or above market value.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

So in what way do these contextual aspects of Simmons value detract or add to his true value.

If I was attempting to answer this I would look at things like the groundball rate of the staff. The extent to which a SS like him fits in with the types of players to his left and right of the infield. The extent to which his hitting tendencies (low walk and strikeout rates) mesh with the rest of the lineup.

I agree you look at that but his value to the TEAM is affected by the value that other players bring. If your RF is an all average no power player and your SS is an all defense no offense player it puts a lot of pressure on other positions to produce offense. If your RF brought more production to the table then it makes it easier to carry the no offense of the shortstop.

Also, and this doesn't necessarily mean anything for the Braves, but advantage gained from the range of the shortstop diminishes if you have great range at 3B and 2B. I know that sounds counterintuitive since an infield defense made up of great defenders is less likely to allow ground balls through. BUT, if the shortstop is getting to balls that the 3B would have gotten to then the value of that play is less.

I understand needing a metric to value a player as an individual but you can't stop there you also have to value the fit to the whole.

 

[clvclv]

But he's not making market value. Far from it. That is kind of the point. Unless his production drops off he will never at any point in his current contract be at or above market value.

And in trading him (and potentially the others) WHILE he's not making market value, they're all but signaling 2017 IS NOT a realistic goal.

They're not going to call a press conference to announce that - that's just the way it is folks. It's a full-blown tear-down.

 

[nsacpi]

Also, and this doesn't necessarily mean anything for the Braves, but advantage gained from the range of the shortstop diminishes if you have great range at 3B and 2B. I know that sounds counterintuitive since an infield defense made up of great defenders is less likely to allow ground balls through. BUT, if the shortstop is getting to balls that the 3B would have gotten to then the value of that play is less.

I don't think that's counterituitive or controversial. If you have a statue at third, there is greater value in having a shortstop with great range.