Miller market 'hot'

[bravesfanMatt]

Hold on everyone. Let's put down the pitchforks and torches.

Enscheff and I don't always agree and we don't here BUT I do see the point being made I think which is that the Cubs plan was very straightforward and easy to understand while, so far, the Braves plan isn't due to questionable and sometimes bizarre moves that aren't easy to see how they fit. For example, the Markakis signing made zero sense given the direction of the team. Trade Wood? Fine. Needed to be done. But the return of a 31 YO prospect who had never had a meaningful ML at bat and hardly any minor league at bats, a guy who likely will be pushing 35 before the rebuild as pursued is likely complete, is hard to accept.

The timing on the trades is questionable as well. Trade Simmons? OK. Needed to be done. BUT, would it not have been better to try and move him back at the deadline, maybe along with Wood, and actually get some really useful returns from the Dodgers? But, it's like they still didn't have a full vision of what they wanted to do and only decided to move Simmons this offseason.

Some of these guys are going to pan out and some won't. And the JUpton, MUpton, Kimbrel and Heyward trades all HAD to be done. Had to. If you're honest and have looked at the payroll obligations, the overall lack of talent at the ML and ml levels, and the unlikelihood of a significant payroll increase at least before 2017, then the rebuild HAD to happen. So, I am willing to give them a pass on those trades. But, everything since, including the signing of Markakis (which in fairness may have happened before they decided to rebuild) has been hit or miss and doesn't follow what I would consider a logical straight line path to a most effiecient rebuild.

The point of everyone's "anger" isn't whether we agree with this move or that move. But to say the Braves have been embarrassed by the Cubs rebuild when we have been 1.4 years into it. That is like saying your neighbors house is prettier when you are still drawing your plans for your house. It is stupid. Argue moves. Complain about decisions. But let the rebuild happen before christening it a failure.

 

[nsacpi]

A few thoughts on the Braves rebuild

1) Most plans do not survive their initial encounter with reality. Which means it is essential to be willing to change plans as you learn from the encounter with reality. I think the Braves initial plan WAS (maybe still is) to have a strong competitive team in place by 2017. And I think they were audacious enough to think they could do that while being somewhat competitive in 2015 and 2016. Within that context signing Markakis made some sense.

2) The Braves began this rebuild in an unusual position. They had a significant young core of players--Justin Upton, Heyward, Freeman, Simmons, Kimbrel, Wood, Teheran, Gattis. The first two had only one year left before hitting free agency. The others had many years of contractual control left under team friendly terms. I think having such a strong young core is the reason why they thought they could be somewhat competitive during the rebuild.

3) Over the course of the first year of the rebuild, their prospects relatively close to the majors or in the majors disappointed as a group (there were some exceptions) and the very young prospects far from the majors exceeded expectations (again there are exceptions but I'm talking about them as a group). This is part of the "encounter with reality" that forces changes in plans. Obviously, this development makes it harder to field a strong team in 2017 but makes the future beyond that look brighter.

4) Whether by design or more due to what other teams were willing to part with, the returns we got in the first year of the rebuild were heavily skewed toward pitching. This occurred during a period when pitching is relatively plentiful and hitting relatively scarce. I am not inclined to give our FO a pass for not properly taking this into account. As a result of this "encounter with reality" they have also had to adjust plans. Unfortunately, this adjustment took the form of their "getting creative" and taking a very big gamble on Olivera. It is too early to write him off, but things look bad so far on that front.

5) I would like to circle back to item 2 above and say that I don't think there has been much coherence in how the FO has handled the young core it inherited from the ancien regime. By that I mean there should be an overall plan (obviously one that will need to evolve as it encounters reality) rather than reacting piecemeal on a player-by-player basis. If you trade Simmons it makes less sense to hold on to Freeman, Miller and Teheran. If you want to be competitive in 2017 and the years immediately after, maybe you should have held on to all four while trying to extend Miller. I don't get the sense there has been an overarching plan for the disposition of the young core. Which has led to some inefficiency. In our lost 2015 season we had guys like Freeman and Simmons and Miller playing in their prime and in our presumably lost 2016 season we might see some of the same. That's wasteful because a competitive team will value production from those types of players more than a team like us that is writing off a season. Alternatively, if the FO does not see 2016 as a lost season and still wants to field a strong team in 2017, the Simmons trade makes little sense. Unless the return blows you away, which I don't think it did. I think it is this lack of coherence that has opened the FO up to criticism from both sides, both from those who want to be competitive sooner and those who want the full rebuild.

 

[skillet]

My biggest problem with this rebuild is the strategy of acquiring pitching pitching pitching at the almost complete expense of impact positional prospects/players.

Simmons trade - pitching

Maybin trade - pitching

Wood/Peraza trade - trade for a bat, but for a 31 year old from another country and injury issues which was a huge stretch at minimum and is so far looking like a disaster

Uribe/Kelly Johnson - pitching

Gosselin - pitching

Heyward - pitching

Kimbrel - Maybin (later traded for pitching) and pitching

Carpenter/Shreve - pitching

Kubitza - pitching

Gattis - pitching + Ruiz

Justin - pitching + Mallex and JP

 

[Hudson2]

I believe we will see the front office buy a piece of offense this offseason like Zobrist. He makes alot of sense bc i think they wanna compete next year and really go for it in 2017, that's why they are asking for mlb talent in a return for Shelby. They've beefed up the bullpen some so far and got Norris who can be a bounce back candidate. If they can bring in Zobrist and Flowers then that will help out alot. We need somebody who can handle our pitchers better, especially the young ones. Zobrist and Markakis are not huge power guys but they are the type of guys you want in your lineup if you are gonna compete. Those 2 plus Freeman, Aybar, and Olivera isn't bad at all and Mallex may break camp with the team. Our pitching will be alot better next year, especially bc of how close Newcomb, Sims, and Jenkins are. We have a long ways to go yet this offseason but we aren't terrible and with a few moves make it interesting next year.

 

[emk418]

The point of everyone's "anger" isn't whether we agree with this move or that move. But to say the Braves have been embarrassed by the Cubs rebuild when we have been 1.4 years into it. That is like saying your neighbors house is prettier when you are still drawing your plans for your house. It is stupid. Argue moves. Complain about decisions. But let the rebuild happen before christening it a failure.

I'm definitely critical of Coppy and Hart but I agree and like the majority of the moves. What bugs me is this middle ground that they can't let go of. There's no reason to have this money committed to Markakis right now....the Olivera deal was horrible and makes no sense even if he becomes a solid bat. I don't understand why he would come out and say Freeman is going nowhere....when you're rebuilding leave room for someone to blow you away. But my biggest gripes are being stuck in this middle ground with Markakis and Olivera mostly because they are blocking two of the easiest positions we can look for to land young offensive building blocks. It's going to be very hard to find the right deals for our pitching when we essentially can only target 3B, 2B, and C.

 

[nsacpi]

One thing that is not discussed as much as it should be but set back the plan for 2017 is the fact that more upper level guys (AA and higher) lost luster than gained in 2015. Among our top prospects or young major leaguers who disappointed to one extent or another were Olivera, Bethancourt, Foltynevich, Shae Simmons (due to injury) and Ruiz. Against that I would say three guys in the upper levels significantly enhanced their value--Vizcaino, Mallex Smith and John Gant. I had a high regard for Wisler when we acquired him and view what he did last year as equivalent to holding serve. Olivera definitely lost value in the period after we acquired him. I had relatively modest expectations for Jace Peterson and also view what he did as the equivalent of holding serve.

The question for the FO is whether those developments are significant enough collectively to cause it to reconsider its plan to build a contending team by 2017.

 

[nsacpi]

It is interesting to consider the case of the Royals. Of course any analysis of their decisions gets colored by the fact they went to the last two WS and won the last one. But they had two significant assets (Greinke and Gordon) during their years in the wilderness. There is not much to argue about in terms of their decision to move Greinke and that turned out very well for them. But they held on to Gordon through that period and he was on a contract that adjusted for time and inflation is similar to ones Simmons and Freeman are signed for. I don't think our situation is such that you necessarily want to get rid of all the guys in their prime. Sure you can get a great return for them. But it is also quite helpful when the young uns start reaching the majors to have one or two very good players already in place.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

I believe we will see the front office buy a piece of offense this offseason like Zobrist. He makes alot of sense bc i think they wanna compete next year and really go for it in 2017, that's why they are asking for mlb talent in a return for Shelby. They've beefed up the bullpen some so far and got Norris who can be a bounce back candidate. If they can bring in Zobrist and Flowers then that will help out alot. We need somebody who can handle our pitchers better, especially the young ones. Zobrist and Markakis are not huge power guys but they are the type of guys you want in your lineup if you are gonna compete. Those 2 plus Freeman, Aybar, and Olivera isn't bad at all and Mallex may break camp with the team. Our pitching will be alot better next year, especially bc of how close Newcomb, Sims, and Jenkins are. We have a long ways to go yet this offseason but we aren't terrible and with a few moves make it interesting next year.

You have limited assets (money). You don't commit a significant chunk of that to an AARP guy whether that's Zobrist, Lackey, or John Smoltz. It's just not smart. Even if Zobrist is worth his money over three years, it doesn't mean anything to the long term outlook for the team. The risk reward just isn't worth it.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

It is interesting to consider the case of the Royals. Of course any analysis of their decisions gets colored by the fact they went to the last two WS and won the last one. But they had two significant assets (Greinke and Gordon) during their years in the wilderness. There is not much to argue about in terms of their decision to move Greinke and that turned out very well for them. But they held on to Gordon through that period and he was on a contract that adjusted for time and inflation is similar to ones Simmons and Freeman are signed for. I don't think our situation is such that you necessarily want to get rid of all the guys in their prime. Sure you can get a great return for them. But it is also quite helpful when the young uns start reaching the majors to have one or two very good players already in place.

The Royals were built by having absolutely horrible teams for about a decade. If you look at their homegrown contributors, they not only were 1st rounders but most were guys taken in the top five of their respective drafts. The Royals are also not built for the long haul. They are about one year from sinking into mediocrity again as their home grown guys matriculate out.

I fully expect them to re-sign Gordon and be saddled with an aging semi-star who gets to hang around as the team crumbles around him.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

One thing that is not discussed as much as it should be but set back the plan for 2017 is the fact that more upper level guys (AA and higher) lost luster than gained in 2015. Among our top prospects or young major leaguers who disappointed to one extent or another were Olivera, Bethancourt, Foltynevich, Shae Simmons (due to injury) and Ruiz. Against that I would say three guys in the upper levels significantly enhanced their value--Vizcaino, Mallex Smith and John Gant. I had a high regard for Wisler when we acquired him and view what he did last year as equivalent to holding serve. Olivera definitely lost value in the period after we acquired him. I had relatively modest expectations for Jace Peterson and also view what he did as the equivalent of holding serve.

The question for the FO is whether those developments are significant enough collectively to cause it to reconsider its plan to build a contending team by 2017.

This is a good point which makes me call into question the overall effectiveness of the scouts responsible for identifying prospect targets. Every team is going to hit/miss on trades BUT I certainly hope that 2016 is a rebound year for a number of guys, especially Ruiz.

 

[Enscheff]

What bugs me is this middle ground that they can't let go of. There's no reason to have this money committed to Markakis right now....the Olivera deal was horrible and makes no sense even if he becomes a solid bat. I don't understand why he would come out and say Freeman is going nowhere....when you're rebuilding leave room for someone to blow you away. But my biggest gripes are being stuck in this middle ground with Markakis and Olivera mostly because they are blocking two of the easiest positions we can look for to land young offensive building blocks. It's going to be very hard to find the right deals for our pitching when we essentially can only target 3B, 2B, and C.

This is my issue as well. All these moves make sense individually, but as a whole they don't fit a coherent plan.

Some moves were "win now" moves, some were "win soon" moves, and some were "win later" moves. This lack of a singular plan is going to lead to "win never".

 

[smootness]

This is my issue as well. All these moves make sense individually, but as a whole they don't fit a coherent plan.

Some moves were "win now" moves, some were "win soon" moves, and some were "win later" moves. This lack of a singular plan is going to lead to "win never".

The Markakis move doesn't negatively impact our ability to win in the future. I didn't like the Olivera deal, and still don't, but I think most of what is complicating things is the new stadium. Blowing the team up to rebuild the farm system was the right move, but it was a tough time to have to so it. They probably feel like they have to at least save some face and put out a halfway decent team so they don't lose all the projected new revenues when the stadium opens.

I believe the right move for the team is blowing it up completely and only stockpiling long-term assets. But I'm not sure that is the absolute best move for the organization as a whole.

 

[nsacpi]

This is a good point which makes me call into question the overall effectiveness of the scouts responsible for identifying prospect targets. Every team is going to hit/miss on trades BUT I certainly hope that 2016 is a rebound year for a number of guys, especially Ruiz.

Overall I think our scouts did fine. The group that played at age 17 or 18 is extremely promising. But the guys in AA, AAA and majors were a bit disappointing on balance. Not hugely disappointing. But given that 2017 was always going to be an ambitious proposition maybe enough to change our plans for that year. Then you take the Simmons trade and it seems that we are moving away from 2017. So maybe the FO has made that adjustment in plans but is not going public with it. Holding on to Freeman can be viewed as similar to the Royals holding on to Gordon. You can definitely question it, but there is a case for having some very good pieces already in place by the time the young uns arrive.

 

[50PoundHead]

I'm definitely critical of Coppy and Hart but I agree and like the majority of the moves. What bugs me is this middle ground that they can't let go of. There's no reason to have this money committed to Markakis right now....the Olivera deal was horrible and makes no sense even if he becomes a solid bat. I don't understand why he would come out and say Freeman is going nowhere....when you're rebuilding leave room for someone to blow you away. But my biggest gripes are being stuck in this middle ground with Markakis and Olivera mostly because they are blocking two of the easiest positions we can look for to land young offensive building blocks. It's going to be very hard to find the right deals for our pitching when we essentially can only target 3B, 2B, and C.

That's the part that gives me pause. I don't see the Olivera deal being as dire as many because I don't think that much of Alex Wood and Peraza looks like a one-tool guy. Still probably an overpay for a deal centered on Olivera, but not to the extent some believe. With you on the Markakis deal. Never made sense.

I think the thing to remember about Ruiz and Dustin Peterson (and Mallex Smith to a lesser extent) is that they were extremely young for the league in which they were playing. The aging of the upper minors is now in full force and has reached AA, making it a much more rigorous proving ground. I think we'll see a much-improved Ruiz on a second time through Mississippi. Curious to see if Peterson starts in AA and how he does.

I think the scouts did quantity over quality and the long range plan is to pluck the stars in the draft and international market. Problem is that is a long range strategy that doesn't mesh with some of the other moves. In retrospect, I suppose we could have made the Justin Upton deal smaller and gotten Renfroe instead of Jace Peterson and Dustin Peterson or made the Heyward deal bigger and insisted on Piscotty or Grichuk (although the fact that Heyward was on a one-year deal would have made the Cardinals extremely reluctant to part with either of those guys).

That aside, I do agree there is a measure of inconsistency. Like I've said a number of times, I criticized Wren for what I viewed as impulsive or inconsistent moves and I will criticize this front office as well. I just bristle at the Cubs' comparison, which is totally apples-to-oranges.

 

[smootness]

Yeah, we weren't getting any of the Renfroe/Piscotty/Grichuk group for a one-year rental.

The only reason we were even able to get Miller and Fried is because we bought low on both...Miller coming off a down year and the Cards were loaded w/ pitching, and Fried having TJ.

 

[50PoundHead]

Yeah, we weren't getting any of the Renfroe/Piscotty/Grichuk group for a one-year rental.

The only reason we were even able to get Miller and Fried is because we bought low on both...Miller coming off a down year and the Cards were loaded w/ pitching, and Fried having TJ.

I tend to agree and if we had overpaid for any of those hitters by tossing in Lucas Sims or someone of that level, this place would have erupted.

 

[UNCBlue012]

Crasnick: #Cubs are actively exploring a trade for one of the top closers, baseball sources say.

Lol. Watch someone get Soler. Maybe Papelbon.

 

[NYCBrave]

That's the part that gives me pause. I don't see the Olivera deal being as dire as many because I don't think that much of Alex Wood and Peraza looks like a one-tool guy. Still probably an overpay for a deal centered on Olivera, but not to the extent some believe. With you on the Markakis deal. Never made sense.

I think the thing to remember about Ruiz and Dustin Peterson (and Mallex Smith to a lesser extent) is that they were extremely young for the league in which they were playing. The aging of the upper minors is now in full force and has reached AA, making it a much more rigorous proving ground. I think we'll see a much-improved Ruiz on a second time through Mississippi. Curious to see if Peterson starts in AA and how he does.

I think the scouts did quantity over quality and the long range plan is to pluck the stars in the draft and international market. Problem is that is a long range strategy that doesn't mesh with some of the other moves. In retrospect, I suppose we could have made the Justin Upton deal smaller and gotten Renfroe instead of Jace Peterson and Dustin Peterson or made the Heyward deal bigger and insisted on Piscotty or Grichuk (although the fact that Heyward was on a one-year deal would have made the Cardinals extremely reluctant to part with either of those guys).

That aside, I do agree there is a measure of inconsistency. Like I've said a number of times, I criticized Wren for what I viewed as impulsive or inconsistent moves and I will criticize this front office as well. I just bristle at the Cubs' comparison, which is totally apples-to-oranges.

And this is where I have an issue. We've been in a position of power in all of the trades we've made, meaning we could have gone around the league and sought out the best offer, but it seems like we've gotten a questionable return in just about every trade. Like you said, the front office went for quantity over quality since our farm team was so barren, hoping it would allow us to compete sooner, and I think that was a big mistake.

 

[50PoundHead]

And this is where I have an issue. We've been in a position of power in all of the trades we've made, meaning we could have gone around the league and sought out the best offer, but it seems like we've gotten a questionable return in just about every trade. Like you said, the front office went for quantity over quality since our farm team was so barren, hoping it would allow us to compete sooner, and I think that was a big mistake.

But the question remains "What can you get for possible one-year rentals (Heyward and J. Upton)?" They may have fumbled the Kimbrel deal to some extent, but getting Melvin off the payroll seemed to be the highest priority in that deal and that put a huge crimp in the return.

 

[Heyward]

The Royals were built by having absolutely horrible teams for about a decade. If you look at their homegrown contributors, they not only were 1st rounders but most were guys taken in the top five of their respective drafts. The Royals are also not built for the long haul. They are about one year from sinking into mediocrity again as their home grown guys matriculate out.

I fully expect them to re-sign Gordon and be saddled with an aging semi-star who gets to hang around as the team crumbles around him.

Moose, Hos, Cain, Wade Davis all hit FA in 17.

Gordon's market has been pretty quiet.