MINORS THREAD TUESDAY 4/18 ... Final results

[nsacpi]

The problem wasn't getting Newcomb as part of the package for Simmons. The problem was allowing the inclusion of Aybar to water down the overall value of the return. What value did he add other than giving the Braves someone to stick at SS during a lost season? They could have found that on the FA market for peanuts. Why in the **** is a rebuilding team concerned with acquiring MLB talent in a trade anyways?

Watering down the return for a valuable asset has been a common theme during the rebuild, and it's a major issue. The Braves have consistently handled their assets in sub-optimal ways.

The White Sox didn't attach a crappy contract to Sale when they traded him. They didn't insist on the Nats sending back a crappy MLB OFer to take Eaton's place on the roster. They maximized the long term return, which is exactly what a rebuilding team should be doing, regardless of what anyone may think of the individual prospects they got in return.

It's a process over results thing, and few of the posters around here can grasp the concept.

my recollection is Coppy claimed that Aybar's bat would offset losing Simmons' glove...my recollection is several of us at the time pointed out what a ridiculous claim that was

 

[Enscheff]

my recollection is Coppy claimed that Aybar's bat would offset losing Simmons' glove

Which speaks to their ability to evaluate MLB roster construction...

 

[Julio3000]

my recollection is Coppy claimed that Aybar's bat would offset losing Simmons' glove...my recollection is several of us at the time pointed out what a ridiculous claim that was

That one's not going in his HoF induction reel.

 

[Southcack77]

Well Melvin is doing worse than that as well seeing he's not in the big leagues. One has to wonder why there was so little interest in him after the Blue Jays (who aren't burning things up) let him go.

I think it is hard to unwind the BJ Upton deal because the salary relief is hard to quantify in terms of prospects and acquisitions. It's most likely the Braves would have cut Upton and then carried that sunk cost for the balance of his contract and that might have affected things somewhat drastically.

Whether that cost outweighs the hypothetical return for Kimbrell at some point if he had been traded -- I don't know. It's just hard to say.

I really don't regret the Simmons deal and would probably do it again. More salary relief. A trade of a relatively fairly compensated player whose value was on defense who figured to possibly be in decline by the end of the deal -- don't have an issue with that. And getting Newcomb back was good. Ellis was maybe a rotation piece and they had no reason to suspect Aybar would face plant - except that Atlanta seems to do that to people. And I have no reason to believe that Aybar being included in the deal was a major cost to the Braves. And he by all rights should have been worth some kind of prospect at the deadline.

In hindsight, you'd take a different package but it looked ok to me at the time and I don't hate it now.

These are murky trades with pieces still in play. Expecting the front office to clearly prevail in every established player for prospects transaction is unrealistic.

I tend to agree with Enscheff though that it isn't so hard to trade established players for prospects, but remain somewhat confused why he gives the White Sox GM such credit for trading higher quality assets. No kidding those guys got better returns. They were better players, signed to cheaper deals, with more control. Damn straight they should get better packages in return.

 

[Southcack77]

my recollection is Coppy claimed that Aybar's bat would offset losing Simmons' glove...my recollection is several of us at the time pointed out what a ridiculous claim that was

Granted, you have the statement he made to the press hyping a trade he just made as evidence and I just have a theory, but my guess is that Coppy didn't really think that.

I think Coppy viewed Aybar as a veteran on a short deal that might be expected to play solidly at short and then be flipped for some kind of interesting asset at the deadline. Essentially, its the same calculation as Brandon Phillips.

My guess is the Braves were asked to take Aybar's salary as a service to the Angels rather than Angels thinking Aybar required value back.

Unfortunately for the Braves, Aybar completely cratered, which was not something that was obviously going to happen. Any more than it would be obvious that Phillips would start hitting .180 this season.

 

[Southcack77]

Which speaks to their ability to evaluate MLB roster construction...

You are criticizing them essentially for not overpaying for players that wouldn't make them contenders.

They have their plan, which is to try to be respectable by acquiring major league assets at relatively low costs, with the notable exception of the Kemp deal, which I admittedly still don't quite understand.

 

[smootness]

The problem wasn't getting Newcomb as part of the package for Simmons. The problem was allowing the inclusion of Aybar to water down the overall value of the return. What value did he add other than giving the Braves someone to stick at SS during a lost season? They could have found that on the FA market for peanuts. Why in the **** is a rebuilding team concerned with acquiring MLB talent in a trade anyways?

Watering down the return for a valuable asset has been a common theme during the rebuild, and it's a major issue. The Braves have consistently handled their assets in sub-optimal ways.

The White Sox didn't attach a crappy contract to Sale when they traded him. They didn't insist on the Nats sending back a crappy MLB OFer to take Eaton's place on the roster. They maximized the long term return, which is exactly what a rebuilding team should be doing, regardless of what anyone may think of the individual prospects they got in return.

It's a process over results thing, and few of the posters around here can grasp the concept.

Aybar didn't constitute value in that deal. He was included solely because we needed a major league SS and they didn't. The deal was Simmons for Newcomb and Ellis. I didn't like it then and still don't, but that was the deal.

 

[sturg33]

Aybar didn't constitute value in that deal. He was included solely because we needed a major league SS and they didn't. The deal was Simmons for Newcomb and Ellis. I didn't like it then and still don't, but that was the deal.

Uhh... Aybar had come off seasons of 1.5, 4.2, and 0.9 WAR before being traded.

Teams don't just trade away players because "they don't need them." There was a reason for all the rumors about teams asking Coppy for Aybar (specifically the Cards), but Coppy wanted him.

I don't believe for a second that Coppy didn't assign real value to Aybar in that deal

 

[smootness]

Uhh... Aybar had come off seasons of 1.5, 4.2, and 0.9 WAR before being traded.

Teams don't just trade away players because "they don't need them." There was a reason for all the rumors about teams asking Coppy for Aybar (specifically the Cards), but Coppy wanted him.

I don't believe for a second that Coppy didn't assign real value to Aybar in that deal

You can believe what you want, but it was obvious we weren't trying to actually win anything. Therefore, a stop-gap SS meant nothing to us. The Angels may have included Aybar because Coppy said, 'we need Aybar back so we can replace Simmons' but I guarantee you that in his mind the deal was Simmons for Newcomb and Ellis.