I do however think that both he and Coppy both chose their words carefully when they discussed that as well. Even if we could ever hope to translate GM-Speak effectively, I'd be more likely to agree with those who say that while their comments on not being in on the top of the market bats were much more convincing - that the continued mention of the "Braves Way" always makes me wonder whether they might be inclined to go get that one front-end guy if they get the chance.
Johnny Cueto
- Thread starter blueagleace1
- Start date
I do however think that both he and Coppy both chose their words carefully when they discussed that as well. Even if we could ever hope to translate GM-Speak effectively, I'd be more likely to agree with those who say that while their comments on not being in on the top of the market bats were much more convincing - that the continued mention of the "Braves Way" always makes me wonder whether they might be inclined to go get that one front-end guy if they get the chance.
I can see there's no point in discussing offseason plans with folks that insist upon holding out hope the Braves will start handing out $150M+ contracts this offseason after doing everything in their power to clear the books of all dead weight contracts.
Actually, I hope they do go ahead and sign Price for $200M+ and Heyward for $175M+, and everything works out financially once they move into the new park. Since there a 0.0023% chance either of those happen, I'll just continue to focus my conjecture on the Braves trading pitching for hitting, and signing FA contracts in the $50M and under range.
Actually, I hope they do go ahead and sign Price for $200M+ and Heyward for $175M+, and everything works out financially once they move into the new park. Since there a 0.0023% chance either of those happen, I'll just continue to focus my conjecture on the Braves trading pitching for hitting, and signing FA contracts in the $50M and under range.
To continue working the "google machine"...
"We have no interest whatsoever in trading Jose Peraza," Braves assistant general manager John Coppolella said. "Teams scout top prospects all the time, as we do other team's top prospects. It was just a case where one of their scouts was sent to watch one of our guys." - http://m.mlb.com/news/article/11870...lla-braves-have-no-interest-in-trading-peraza
"We have no interest whatsoever in trading Jose Peraza," Braves assistant general manager John Coppolella said. "Teams scout top prospects all the time, as we do other team's top prospects. It was just a case where one of their scouts was sent to watch one of our guys." - http://m.mlb.com/news/article/11870...lla-braves-have-no-interest-in-trading-peraza
dak
Well-known member
When it's said more than once by your baseball ops leaders then it's definitely a talking point. In other words, something said purposefully to influence someone. It doesn't mean it's not true though, and in this case I think the talking point was more in inform / align than to deceive.
If that's the case, why did you say anything to begin with? If you knew that was going to happen, you should've also known that you were just wasting your time, right?
Guess we will just have to wait and see. I'll be bumping this thread in March.
Turns out I'm not as bright as I think I am. Every year it's the same unrealistic expectations with regards to FA signings, and every year I'm shocked at how many folks cook up hair-brained scenarios where the Braves sign Price, or Heyward (or Holliday, or....you get the point).
You'd think I would have just learned to smile and ignore them by now...kinda like how I ignore my niece when she asks for a pony and comes up with all sorts of ideas about how she can raise it in my sister's apartment.
That very well could be the case, no doubt. I have always thought that they were all (JS, Hart, and Coppy) always more intent on dispelling any thoughts that they were going to spend big on a bat. They've always seemingly left themselves that "out" when it came to Pitchers - even if it's a teeny, tiny one - that opening to say "we never said we weren't going to spend aggressively - we just said it wouldn't be on a bat".
Again, we're all just speculating. That's what makes it fun - trying to read between the lines when they never make concrete statements outlining what "The Plan" actually is.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
You are basing your expectations of what the Braves will do THIS year based upon what they have done in RECENT years. If you go back far enough, the Braves were players EVERY year in the deep end of the FA pool. They didn't sign them all BUT they kicked the tires on Maddux, Bonds, AROD, the 3B from Philly who end up with back problems whose name I am forgetting, their own FA such as Glavine and Smoltz....
In recent years they haven't and even when they did it was on guys who were more second tier like Melvin. As for never spending more than $75M on a FA, that's either mistaken or purposefully misleading. If you converted Maddux's contract, or CJ, AJ or Smoltz or Glavine, etc. for current value, they would certainly be in the upper realm of FA contracts. It's not like they played for nothing just to play for Cox and Atlanta. They may have left some money on the table because they liked where they played but all but AJ were big Union guys and wouldn't hurt the industry and other players by significantly walking away from way, WAY more money.
I'm not interested enough to do a lot of research but I wonder what the equivalent value of the Melvin contract would be today...
It would be around 20 million or so a year given current market prices.
Millwood1Hitter
Anytime Now Frankie...
The main difference between those times and now is we had Ted Turner or TW as owners, whereas we've seen less flexibility and willingness to spend with Liberty at the helm, payroll has remained relatively constant while salaries have risen exponentially during that period.
That being said, I hope things change between new revenues from the ballpark and the extended TV deal, hopefully we are in a place to be at least competitive in the open market to be able to acquire an asset in an area of need or keep a valuable homegrown piece. To me, that's the Braves way. Player scouting and development and filling needs.
While the Braves were amongst the biggest spenders under Turner in the 90s, we still worked under a budget frame but also had the flexibility to acquire a big piece if needed, but more importantly to be able to pay and retain the services of great homegrown talent ala Glavine, Smoltz, Chipper, etc. Yes we acquired Maddux and kicked the tires on various others, and acquired other big names like McGriff but we didn't spend for the sake of spending nor spend like a drunken sailor on every shiny new toy like George did in NY. I hope that that is the business model were looking to replicate and operate under.
I don't want to be like the Twins or As, where you watch talent come up and reach their potential, only to see them leave or moved going into their prime. Once you think you get a group of talent together and they've figured it out, putting together a legit contender, your scrambling to try to fill a void that ultimately usually can't be found.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
Yes... every off-season is the same... the FO is always quoted as saying "so and so won't happen" and then so and so does happen... sorry, direct quotes from a FO who don't want other teams to know their strategy explicitly don't exactly mean much to me and they never have, for good reason.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
I don't think they will go after said players either, and I don't think the people arguing with you are saying they will. But your reasoning of why... based on FO quotes is a terrible reason.
JohnAdcox
Brian Jordan's New BFF
Please do. In fact, bump it every day until the sun goes cold and the earth is long dust (which for the record, I advocate, because it would be hilarious and because it would be an absolutely astonishing feat given the physics involved). But every word we say would still be true.
We’re saying the Braves COULD spend money. If they don’t — heck, it they take the field with only what they have right now — that will still be true every time you bump. They COULD. Nothing they’ve said or done precludes that.
The interesting topic is whether they SHOULD, and if so when and how. And, of course, trying to decipher their cryptic strategy. In fact, when you touch on those topics, you are, frankly, interesting and insightful. When you declare that you’re going to come back in March and say, “I told you so,” well … you’ll be just as wrong then as you are now, no matter what happens. We know they have money to spend. We know they have paper to print contracts on. We know (well, at least find it reasonable to assume) that they have pens. They still should in March.
But I repeat … you make excellent points on the “should,” “how,” and “when” issues, and that’s why this thread is worthy of discussion and debate.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Yup that's the question worthy of discussion for all the free agents we might sign. And it really comes down to terms of contract. Whether it be Price, Cueto, Heyward.
In the case of Cueto I see a pitcher who over the next five years (his age 30-34 seasons) I would project as generating the following WAR numbers: 4, 3, 3, 3, 2. In other words 3 WAR per season. So we watch in the off-season and see what the going rate is for pitchers. I expect it to be about 6M per expected win. That's why I think Cueto on a deal that pays 15M or less is good value.
The other key question is length of contract. A pitcher of his caliber should be able to get a 5-6 year deal. But if due to the glut of starting pitching or whatever reason the market is a little soft for him, I think it would be wise to investigate a deal that has 4 years with an option year for 15M/year. Maybe his agent hangs up the phone but we should kick the tires on pretty much all the free agents without qualifying offers and maybe a couple with qualifying offers.
My point is there is a price where Cueto (or any free agent for that matter) becomes good value. ymmv
dak
Well-known member
My best guess at this point on where Cueto ends up would be somewhere between 5 / $110m and 6 / $125m. He's averaged about 3.5 fWAR / 200 IP during his peak years of age 27 - 29. On a 5 or 6 year deal, I'd estimate his future production at 2.5 fWAR per year (factors in decline / injury risk). In this scenario, the winning bidder would be paying $8-9m per WAR. If the value assumption is adjusted up to 3 fWAR per year, the cost would be $7m per WAR.
I haven't done the math myself, but I have every reason to believe that nsacpi's $6m per WAR ratio is correct. I'm just suggesting that it's not linear, and that the guys at the top of the food chain are getting noticeably more than that ratio. The scenarios above work out to 20% to 50% more than the average ratio. I believe the better value proposition is in the middle to low end of the market.
I haven't done the math myself, but I have every reason to believe that nsacpi's $6m per WAR ratio is correct. I'm just suggesting that it's not linear, and that the guys at the top of the food chain are getting noticeably more than that ratio. The scenarios above work out to 20% to 50% more than the average ratio. I believe the better value proposition is in the middle to low end of the market.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
One comp that comes to mind is Anibal Sanchez. Cueto is hitting free agency a year older. But he also is about half a win better and there has been some inflation over the past three years.
Sanchez got 16M/year at five years plus an option. I would guess Cueto will end up with something similar but 2-3M/year higher in AAV.
I think the best bang for your buck is at the high end. It does have several risks though. That player getting hurt, falling on their face ala Melvin, and all the issues inherent with giving out long contracts. But the appeal of a say a 6 WAR player at 25+ million or so a year is really good. I think the range you have to worry about is the 2.5-4 WAR players or anyone else that signs early. They will likely get the max $/WAR and that's what you want to avoid. If you can get those 2-3 WAR players that sign later on in the off season then you will get your best value there.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Is there such a player. Scherzer who hit free agency coming off a 5.2 WAR season got an AAV of 30M. Or 28M if you want to take into account deferred salary.
Scherzer projects at 4 wins per year over the seven-year life of the contract if you want to be slightly optimistic. So the Gnats signed him for about 7M/projected win.
dak
Well-known member
I was backing off of the Lester deal as a comp. I think your Anibal Sanchez comp is better. We know that the average MLB salary has increased about 8% on an annual basis over the past two years. Link below. If you multiply the $16m AAV by 8% over 3 years it takes you to $20m AAV. So, my initial estimate is probably a bit high and something like 5 / $100m is more reasonable. That ends up being $6.7m per fWAR if you assume 3 fWAR per year value, and $8m per year fWAR if you assume 2.5 fWAR per year value. That would be 11% to 33% above a $6m / fWAR average.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/04/major-league-baseball-average-salary-meal-money-2015-mlb