Ryan Pollack on Fangraphs

[chop2chip]

A 2 WAR pitcher is going to cost a minimum of $14M over a couple of years at least and the Braves, to be competitive with other clubs for the same talent, will likely have to overpay in terms of money and/or years to sign that talent. And Coppy's talking about 2 pitchers.

You're assuming a binary situation that isn't really binary. The Braves can add two pitchers that (1) aren't 2 WAR and (2) don't cost $14 M annually.

Could they go for cheaper pitchers either in FA or trade and hope for 2 WAR performance or better? Sure. But that's not what Coppy has indicated that he wants to do if I am understanding him correctly which is make a real attempt at improvement to competent levels.

Coppy has never indicated that he wouldn't trade for pitchers. He's only indicated that he wants to add two starting pitchers. You're assuming with a high level of specifity.

A 2 War catcher would cost $14M per on a 2-3 deal, at least. If the Braves trade for McCann (as seems likely IMO), he's signed THROUGH 2018 at $17M per. The Yankees would have to pay $3M per year just to get McCann down to the number I speculated.

You're assuming the prospect we send to them has no value. Even if its a Tyrell Jenkins, he's worth something quantifiable.

If the Braves sign a 3B who is significantly better than Garcia, someone like Prado, I think it will be for a minimum of $10M per year over 3 years. I only speculated $7M to provide for a little normalization if the other numbers turn out too high.

Fair

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions but they re based on what Coppy has said he will do. If he does what he's said he wants to do, then I expect the assumptions to be pretty accurate. That would mean that the Braves would be close to Max payroll commitment through the 2018 season (after which they lose Markakis and Flowers, but see raises for Teheran and Inciarte) and close to Max payroll commitment through 2019 (after which Kemp and Teheran come off the books as well as the likely ending of the FA contracts of those signed this offseason - the two SP, C and 3B).

Add to this that Markakis and Kemp, at least (maybe Prado, McCann and the pitchers as well), likely decline on baseball value vs cost due to increasing age, and you have a team with little payroll flexibility just at the time when they need it the most.

That's possible. But at the same time the team should have plenty of players developed ready to contribute that will be pre-arbitration. The Braves rebuild shouldn't only be viewed from the lens of a single window of contention. The main idea is to build the team with young players developed internally and to continually reinforce that talent with multiple waves of young talent. That's a cheap, sustainable method of team building, but it takes time to develop.

 

[chop2chip]

I never stated I was summarizing the article.

You took the following throw away lines from an article largely about something else and twisted it to fit your own opinion. That's hardly fair.

Based on this timeline, Braves fans should be okay with more losing in 2017. Contention is more likely to be a surprise based on good luck than a plan based on skill. If the team doesn’t improve dramatically in 2018, though, Braves fans have my permission to get grumpy

The Braves fall $10-13 million short by comparison. They have about $53.4 million to replace five free agents (Gordon Beckham, Emilio Bonifacio, Jim Johnson, Eric O’Flaherty, and A.J. Pierzynski) and improve their team overall. That’s a good amount, but the Cubs and Astros had more with which to work

He never stated the Braves will suck in 2017. He said that fans should be okay with sucking in 2017 based off other comparable rebuilds.

 

[nsacpi]

Payroll flexibility is a real issue as we move deeper into our window for contending. But I think it is more subtle than is generally realized. On the surface paying Kemp 18M per year over the 2018-2020 period does reduce payroll flexibility. But not relative to an alternative such as paying Cespedes 25M per year over 2018-2023.

Whatever additional moves we see this off-season, I'm hoping that we do try to tailor things to maintain as much flexibility going forward. For example in acquiring McCann, the issue of his 2019 option is likely to come up. But I'm hoping that we minimize the amount we are on the hook for in 2019, even it means paying more in 2017 and 2018. This is because as we move deeper into our window for contending, the young guys coming up in the farm system will become more expensive and also it will become clearer which areas we need to upgrade at market prices. We want to have the flexibility for some upgrades on a year to year basis.

After 2018, the Markakis contract comes off the books and hopefully the part of McCann's contract we are on the hook for will decline significantly going from 2018 to 2019. This would give us some flexibility after the 2018 season. After 2019, the Kemp deal comes off as will the rest of McCann's contract. After 2020, Teheran rolls off. After 2021, Freeman rolls off. I like the way this is set up. And we need to take care with any moves this off-season that we always have some flexibility each off-season.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

You took the following throw away lines from an article largely about something else and twisted it to fit your own opinion. That's hardly fair.

I said: Essentially concludes that 2017 is destined to be another down year and that Braves fans should be prepared for that.
He said: Based on this timeline, Braves fans should be okay with more losing in 2017. Contention is more likely to be a surprise based on good luck than a plan based on skill.


He never stated the Braves will suck in 2017. He said that fans should be okay with sucking in 2017 based off other comparable rebuilds.

He clearly says that 2017 contention is more likely to be based on luck rather than skill.

And another key is that the Braves have less money but more importantly have a worse FA class to draw from.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Payroll flexibility is a real issue as we move deeper into our window for contending. But I think it is more subtle than is generally realized. On the surface paying Kemp 18M per year over the 2018-2020 period does reduce payroll flexibility. But not relative to an alternative such as paying Cespedes 25M per year over 2018-2023.

Whatever additional moves we see this off-season, I'm hoping that we do try to tailor things to maintain as much flexibility going forward. For example in acquiring McCann, the issue of his 2019 option is likely to come up. But I'm hoping that we minimize the amount we are on the hook for in 2019, even it means paying more in 2017 and 2018. This is because as we move deeper into our window for contending, the young guys coming up in the farm system will become more expensive and also it will become clearer which areas we need to upgrade at market prices. We want to have the flexibility for some upgrades on a year to year basis.

After 2018, the Markakis contract comes off the books and hopefully the part of McCann's contract we are on the hook for will decline significantly going from 2018 to 2019. This would give us some flexibility after the 2018 season. After 2019, the Kemp deal comes off as will the rest of McCann's contract. After 2020, Teheran rolls off. After 2021, Freeman rolls off. I like the way this is set up. And we need to take care with any moves this off-season that we always have some flexibility each off-season.

I agree mostly with this. The thing is, if you don't restrict yourself by trying to force contention in 2017, then the obvious thing to do would be to trade Markakis and Kemp and not trade for McCann (unless you get an exceptional deal for him).

You could sign a catcher to pair with Flowers (or just go with Recker) and not tie yourself to McCann's long term cost (or Weiters or Castro). The short term key to catcher is to have someone who can developmentally help young pitchers through game calling, mentoring, defense, framing, etc. Longer term, offense becomes more critical.

You move Kemp and Markakis for best available, shedding their long term expense commitment and gaining young talent of some quantity and type and play Mallex at one spot and maybe sign a veteran like Beltran who will have some expense but no years. You look to give Peterson a shot hopefully sometime mid year.

You don't sign a 3B. Instead play Garcia there and hope to give Ruiz a shot by mid year.

You look for SP that are on one year deals that you can pick up cheap who are pitching for their next contract.

There is a chance you could end up being just as good that way than without the moves and you lower your payroll commitment to where you have close to $80M free for additions during the FA season between 2017 and 2018 AND you likely have a number of young players up that aren't up to start 2017. You use that $80M (or at least some) to address holes then with a better understanding of what the holes really are and use a good bit of whatever is left during the next FA cycle.

But those moves give the appearance of standing pat or not trying to compete, which is no longer part of the narrative, even though it should be.

 

[Enscheff]

He clearly says that 2017 contention is more likely to be based on luck rather than skill.

And another key is that the Braves have less money but more importantly have a worse FA class to draw from.

You are just going to have to realize that most posters here are going to pick apart a post and argue with any off-topic point just because you wrote it.

It is clear to anyone with a reading comprehension above the 3rd grade level that you weren't summarizing the article, especially after reading the article. Yet here we are, 2 pages in with the mouth breathers arguing about whether or not you summarized it and moaning about points that don't really pertain to the topic at hand.

Addressing what you actually said:

I don't think there is anything preventing this team from making enough additions to be an 80 win team next year. Adding guys like Mac and Shields via trade, and signing someone like De La Rosa would not cripple the team's future. If Mallex or Inciarte is traded for a controllable piece at a position of need (Baez for 3B for example), that will keep costs down as well.

Most of the pitching should be traded off when they have 1-2 years of control remaining (including Julio), so that will also keep costs down moving forward.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

You are just going to have to realize that most posters here are going to pick apart a post and argue with any off-topic point just because you wrote it.

It is clear to anyone with a reading comprehension above the 3rd grade level that you weren't summarizing the article, especially after reading the article. Yet here we are, 2 pages in with the mouth breathers arguing about whether or not you summarized it and moaning about points that don't really pertain to the topic at hand.

Addressing what you actually said:

I don't think there is anything preventing this team from making enough additions to be an 80 win team next year. Adding guys like Mac and Shields via trade, and signing someone like De La Rosa would not cripple the team's future. If Mallex or Inciarte is traded for a controllable piece at a position of need (Baez for 3B for example), that will keep costs down as well.

Most of the pitching should be traded off when they have 1-2 years of control remaining (including Julio), so that will also keep costs down moving forward.

I guess. It's gotten to where if you aren't straight "company line" at this point then you are just negative, not on board, and have no place in a discussion that is limited to glorying in all the variable shades of success that are just right around the corner.

As for Mac and Shields, to me it's about yearly cost and number of years. If you have both through 2018 at anything close to $10M plus per year, I think it would limit flexibility, paying declining players at a time of team ascension.

 

[mfree80]

We all bow to your superior wit, decorum and intellect. Perhaps someday all of our crystal balls will have such clarity that we will be able to predict the future with such certainty... or perhaps fangraphs will give us all of the answers we seek.

 

[Enscheff]

We all bow to your superior wit, decorum and intellect. Perhaps someday all of our crystal balls will have such clarity that we will be able to predict the future with such certainty... or perhaps fangraphs will give us all of the answers we seek.

This post is case in point. There isn't a single fact related to baseball. It is pure whining about someone else posting facts that aren't well received.

 

[chop2chip]

You are just going to have to realize that most posters here are going to pick apart a post and argue with any off-topic point just because you wrote it.

It is clear to anyone with a reading comprehension above the 3rd grade level that you weren't summarizing the article, especially after reading the article. Yet here we are, 2 pages in with the mouth breathers arguing about whether or not you summarized it and moaning about points that don't really pertain to the topic at hand.

I addressed Harry's points in another post. He never responded to that and chose to respond to my comment that I felt like he mischaracterized the article of which this thread is titled. It's not a big deal, but when there isn't a link to the article it paints an inaccurate context for Pollack's comment, which wasn't to address the Braves 2017 talent level (Harry's point #1) nor to give an exactness of our budget (Harry's point #2).

I don't think Harry's points are stupid. He's clearly advocating not wasting money to go all in on 2017. I agree with that, but that doesn't mean we can't be competitive. I just disagree with his assumptions of what the offseason plans are and I addressed that in a separate post.

 

[mfree80]

This post is case in point. There isn't a single fact related to baseball. It is pure whining about someone else posting facts that aren't well received.

Not nearly as witty as calling someone retarded though.

 

[chop2chip]

He clearly says that 2017 contention is more likely to be based on luck rather than skill.

And another key is that the Braves have less money but more importantly have a worse FA class to draw from.

He also clearly states "Because I don’t have a crystal ball to envision next year’s roster or its talents, I’ll talk about the process instead."

So, again, the point of his comment was that we're within the expected window of being terrible still, so it's okay if we still suck, not that we will suck.

As for your second point, his methodology is really crude for determining budget. He's assuming our payroll levels based off of the 2003 budget adjusted for inflation, which doesn't take into account the new revenue from the ballpark and a different ownership group. We could have more money than the Astros and Cubs or maybe even less - who knows? My interpretation of Pollack's point is that we have a lot of flexibility and we could have more if we offload some contracts.

I agree with your salient point that we shouldn't blow our wad on going for gold next year, but what indication have you received that that's indeed the plan? #askcoppy isn't the same as having a firm understanding of the innerworkings of the braintrust.

 

[Enscheff]

I addressed Harry's points in another post. He never responded to that and chose to respond to my comment that I felt like he mischaracterized the article of which this thread is titled. It's not a big deal, but when there isn't a link to the article it paints an inaccurate context for Pollack's comment, which wasn't to address the Braves 2017 talent level (Harry's point #1) nor to give an exactness of our budget (Harry's point #2).

I don't think Harry's points are stupid. He's clearly advocating not wasting money to go all in on 2017. I agree with that, but that doesn't mean we can't be competitive. I just disagree with his assumptions of what the offseason plans are and I addressed that in a separate post.

Right, it's more about how the board functions in general.

As a recent example, clv posts that the Braves should target Rich Hill. I reply with a post stating 2 facts: Coppy is looking for stable pitchers, and that Rich Hill has been anything but stable over the last decade. I then drew one conclision based on those 2 facts: Rich Hill is not a viable target for the Braves.

His response was predictably whiny about those facts being presented. There was no counter point, and no facts presented to further support his argument. Just a post that contained nothing but whining.

Does it make sense how it's impossible to have a baseball discussion with folks like that?

 

[chop2chip]

This post is case in point. There isn't a single fact related to baseball. It is pure whining about someone else posting facts that aren't well received.

Oh the irony

 

[chop2chip]

Right, it's more about how the board functions in general.

As a recent example, clv posts that the Braves should target Rich Hill. I reply with a post stating 2 facts: Coppy is looking for stable pitchers, and that Rich Hill has been anything but stable over the last decade. I then drew one conclision based on those 2 facts: Rich Hill is not a viable target for the Braves.

His response was predictably whiny about those facts being presented. There was no counter point, and no facts presented to further support his argument. Just a post that contained nothing but whining.

Does it make sense how it's impossible to have a baseball discussion with folks like that?

That's a pretty lame way to walk back your comment about my lack of reading comprehension.

 

[Enscheff]

That's a pretty lame way to walk back your comment about my lack of reading comprehension.

My comment wasn't directed solely at you. Do I strike you as someone that "walks back" comments?

 

[chop2chip]

My comment wasn't directed solely at you. Do I strike you as someone that "walks back" comments?

In this case you certainly did.

 

[Managuarantano's Volunteers]

Like Enscheff, I feel we could "compete" next year without too many offseason changes. Mainly just two SPs (Heck, Collmenter could be one of them as far as I'm concerned), another 3B, and definitely a catcher are the only changes that have to be made. Even with that, if we get lucky we may not need a new 3B with a Garcia/Ruiz platoon. Not having two of the worst players in baseball starting for us will really help (Aybar and AJP).

Note - my view of compete is like 75ish wins.

 

[nsacpi]

Like Enscheff, I feel we could "compete" next year without too many offseason changes. Mainly just two SPs (Heck, Collmenter could be one of them as far as I'm concerned), another 3B, and definitely a catcher are the only changes that have to be made. Even with that, if we get lucky we may not need a new 3B with a Garcia/Ruiz platoon.

Note - my view of compete is like 75ish wins.

I have a similar view. I don't think we are going to go for two 2 WAR pitchers at market price. It will likely be guys with that potential who are coming of injury or disappointing seasons and looking to rebuild value. The list includes Cashner, Morton, Brett Anderson. I'd like to see those guys signed to a one year deal with an option. It's ok for the option to be priced fairly high because it would only be picked up if they performed well. Having the option gives us some upside benefit, whether in the form of keeping them for that second year or flipping them.

 

[Enscheff]

I have a similar view. I don't think we are going to go for two 2 WAR pitchers at market price. It will likely be guys with that potential who are coming of injury or disappointing seasons and looking to rebuild value. The list includes Cashner, Morton, Brett Anderson. I'd like to see those guys signed to a one year deal with an option. It's ok for the option to be priced fairly high because it would only be picked up if they performed well. Having the option gives us some upside benefit, whether in the form of keeping them for that second year or flipping them.

I predict the Braves trade for Shields and sign De La Rosa.