Simmons signed to 7 year extension

MadduxFanII said:
I would slaughter a cow and offer its innards to whatever dark god watched over baseball if it meant getting 2.1 WAR, 21 home runs and 23 stolen bases out of BJ Upton.
Click to expand...

What it doesnt mention is that 12 of those homers and steals occur in 1 month and the rest of the season he only has 9 homers and 11 stolen bases. I think its best we set the bar low and start with just hoping BJ can hit over .200 this time around.
 
keithlaw said:
lulz generally people judge trades based on either the process or the results, but leave it to zito to judge it by the retarded bastard of the two
Click to expand...

I actually showed both sides as to why it's bad. I can show a few others as well. We got badly fleeced in that trade.
 
zitothebrave said:
I actually showed both sides as to why it's bad. I can show a few others as well. We got badly fleeced in that trade.
Click to expand...

No, we didnt.

Salty was expendable with Mac.

Andrus got way overpaid, and we dont have Simmons if we have Andrus, gimme Simba.

Harrison is a solid P but has back problems, not as if hes Kershaw.

Feliz started out good but he's pretty much a 8th-9th inning guy which we punch out every year.

cajun said it best, Angels made out best since they got the best player in baseball with the Tex pick.
 
Again.

Could have traded Salty for someone else. Or could have traded Mac for someone.

Andrus was really cheap for a long time. We could have used Escobar then traded him before his collapse, then trade Andrus when Simmons was ready.

Harrison I could care less about losing. If we lost one of Salty or Andrus, with Harrison and Beau Jones fo rTex then fine I wouldn't have been too upset.

Feliz again, could have been moved for someone.

As I clearly pointed out, for Texas they gained 33.8 rWAR from the trade, we gained 6.1. Not even close.

Texas made out, Anaheim made out. We got boned on both ends.

That said, Anaheim saying they got Trout with the pick for losing tex is a half truth. The truth is they had 2 picks back to back and we don't know if they pass on Trout and take Grichuk or they still take Trout.
 
AUTiger7222 said:
You'll never convince me or anyone that the Tex trade was worse than the Drew trade.
Click to expand...

Well

Waino's rWAR pre-FA was 19.1 his total is 26.4 if you include his FA years.

Add in Marquis's 1.5 and burger king's 1.9 you have a grand total pre-FA of 22.5, grand total 29.9 including the last 2 years of Waino which odds are we wouldn't have had the money to keep.

Drew and Marrerro gave us 8.3 leaving a WAR deficiency of either 14.2 or if you imagine we could have kept Waino 21.6

As discussed in the Tex trade Tex has gained 33.8 we gained 6.9 (forgot Mahay) meaning we're at a WAR deficiency of 26.9. Who knows where it will go long term.

ALso we won with JD Drew. without Drew we miss the playoffs. Teixeira did nothing for us.
 
zitothebrave said:
Well

Waino's rWAR pre-FA was 19.1 his total is 26.4 if you include his FA years.

Add in Marquis's 1.5 and burger king's 1.9 you have a grand total pre-FA of 22.5, grand total 29.9 including the last 2 years of Waino which odds are we wouldn't have had the money to keep.

Drew and Marrerro gave us 8.3 leaving a WAR deficiency of either 14.2 or if you imagine we could have kept Waino 21.6

As discussed in the Tex trade Tex has gained 33.8 we gained 6.9 (forgot Mahay) meaning we're at a WAR deficiency of 26.9. Who knows where it will go long term.

ALso we won with JD Drew. without Drew we miss the playoffs. Teixeira did nothing for us.
Click to expand...

Better question.

Would you rather have Waino now or Tex.

A legit ace which Waino is what we are missing on our team to go over the hump.
 
The Tex trade was pretty bad. Never mind that there's no "stud" we traded, but the values of those guys were high and we, in the end, really got nothing out of it. If multiple deals like that happen, your franchise is screwed.
 
yeezus said:
The Tex trade was pretty bad. Never mind that there's no "stud" we traded, but the values of those guys were high and we, in the end, really got nothing out of it. If multiple deals like that happen, your franchise is screwed.
Click to expand...

We were pretty screwed by that trade as it was.

2008 Braves finished 72-90 and 2009 finished 86-76, you can't help but wonder if we would have been better with one or more of those guys. If we had Feliz and Harrison in the high minors (or majors) with TOmmy along the way maybe we don't make the Lowe and Kawakami signings. So on so forth.

Part of the problem with speculating on a trade retrospectively is you don't know what having those assets would have brought you otherwise. Some big names that were traded in 07, 08 or 09, Josh Hamilton, Dan Haren, Miguel Cabrera, Carlos Quentin, Nick Swisher, Matt Holliday, Adam Dunn, CC Sabathia, Roy Halladay, Curtis Granderson, JJ Hardy, Cliff Lee, so on so forth. there were many other places we could have made moves. Of course there is potential bad as well. The year Kelly struggled we may have seen Andrus play 2B, not Prado and we may not have gotten Prado's great contributions and he may not have been able to net us J-Up.

Part of the problem with revisionist history is just that, you look bad no matter what. You can make a trade that doesn't make a lick of sense at the time and it looks better over time because of stuff shaking out. The McLouth trade would be a perfect example of that. We traded mostly spare parts for McLouth, and he stank here. So it looks better for Pitt because of him stinking. Though there was no guarantee of that happening when he was traded.
 
There should be a gag order on discussing the damn Teix trade. YES IT WAS HORRIBLE. I'm still loving the young team that we have now though.
 
zitothebrave said:
Well

Waino's rWAR pre-FA was 19.1 his total is 26.4 if you include his FA years.

Add in Marquis's 1.5 and burger king's 1.9 you have a grand total pre-FA of 22.5, grand total 29.9 including the last 2 years of Waino which odds are we wouldn't have had the money to keep.

Drew and Marrerro gave us 8.3 leaving a WAR deficiency of either 14.2 or if you imagine we could have kept Waino 21.6

As discussed in the Tex trade Tex has gained 33.8 we gained 6.9 (forgot Mahay) meaning we're at a WAR deficiency of 26.9. Who knows where it will go long term.

ALso we won with JD Drew. without Drew we miss the playoffs. Teixeira did nothing for us.
Click to expand...

This post misses several key points. First, when the Teixeira trade was made the Braves were 3.5 games out of first place 2/3 of the way through the 2007 season, despite having a 1B (Scott Thorman) who posted a WAR of -0.9. The Braves knew there was a risk that the players they dealt might one day be productive ML players, but except for Salty, none were ready to contribute in July of 2007. To say we got nothing out of Teixeira is simply not correct. For the last third of 2007 he put up a WAR of 2.0, and as you pointed out, posted a WAR of 6.1 in his 157 games as a Brave. Unfortunately, the Braves pitching nosedived in August, 2007 and despite the marked (pun intended) improvement at 1B, finished 5 games behind.

You mention the 33.8 WAR of the guys who we traded, but you fail to mention the WAR of the guys who were left behind in their positions.

Had he stayed with Atlanta, Salty never would have been more than a backup behind McCann. Since the trade, Corky Miller, David Ross, and Gerald Laird have combined for almost exactly the same WAR as has Salty, despite fewer games and PAs. Harrison had two very good seasons in Texas (2011 and 2012) but had a negative WAR in 08, 09, 10, and 13. Feliz was a good set-up man in 09, and a good closer in 10 and 11, but the guys we had in those years (EOF, Wagner and Kimbrell) were better. For some inexplicable reason the Rangers thought he would be a good starter in 2012, but only lasted 8 games before he was injured, and was a non-factor in 2013.

Andrus has put up a WAR of 17.1 since he hit the majors in 09, but our SS in that time period have put up a WAR of 16.8, and that included our dreadful SS WAR season of 2012, when Simmons went out injured after 44 games, after he replaced Pastor, and was replaced by Janish, both of whom had negative WARs. If you include the second half of 2007 and 2008, when Elvis was still in the minors, our SS WAR has exceeded theirs since the trade (Esco had a post-trade prorated WAR of 0.8 WAR in 07 and a 3.5 WAR in 08). Point is, that but for the first third of 2012, with Pastor and the last third of 2012 with Janish, we have had better SS play than the Rangers have had with Andrus.

Yes, we could have held our cards and not made the Tex trade, and maybe played those cards in different trades, but the guys we traded were 100% expendable, both in July 2007 and now. You trade from positions of strength to fill weaknesses. That's exactly what the Braves did. We got what we paid for in the trade, great 1B production that we sorely lacked in the first 2/3 of 2007.

The Tex trade was a classic trade of selling future assets that may or may not have panned out in return for a known asset who filled an immediate and glaring need.

While I would never call it a "good" trade for the Braves, it is far from the disaster everyone paints it.
 
JCarbo76 said:
This post misses several key points. First, when the Teixeira trade was made the Braves were 3.5 games out of first place 2/3 of the way through the 2007 season, despite having a 1B (Scott Thorman) who posted a WAR of -0.9. The Braves knew there was a risk that the players they dealt might one day be productive ML players, but except for Salty, none were ready to contribute in July of 2007. To say we got nothing out of Teixeira is simply not correct. For the last third of 2007 he put up a WAR of 2.0, and as you pointed out, posted a WAR of 6.1 in his 157 games as a Brave. Unfortunately, the Braves pitching nosedived in August, 2007 and despite the marked (pun intended) improvement at 1B, finished 5 games behind.

You mention the 33.8 WAR of the guys who we traded, but you fail to mention the WAR of the guys who were left behind in their positions.

Had he stayed with Atlanta, Salty never would have been more than a backup behind McCann. Since the trade, Corky Miller, David Ross, and Gerald Laird have combined for almost exactly the same WAR as has Salty, despite fewer games and PAs. Harrison had two very good seasons in Texas (2011 and 2012) but had a negative WAR in 08, 09, 10, and 13. Feliz was a good set-up man in 08, and a good closer in 10 and 11, but the guys we had in those years (EOF, Wagner and Kimbrell) were better. For some inexplicable reason the Rangers thought he would be a good starter in 2012, but only last 8 games before he was injured, and was a non-factor in 2013.

Andrus has put up a WAR of 17.1 since he hit the majors in 09, but our SS in that time period have put up a WAR of 16.8, and that included our dreadful SS WAR season of 2012, when Simmons went out injured after 44 games, after he replaced Pastor, and was replaced by Janish, both of whom had negative WARs. If you include the second half of 2007 and 2008, when Elvis was still in the minors, our SS WAR has exceeded theirs since the trade (Esco had a post-trade prorated WAR of 0.8 WAR in 07 and a 3.5 WAR in 08. Point is, that but for the first third of 2012, with Pastor and the last third of 2012 with Janish, we have had better SS play than the Rangers have had with Andrus.

Yes, we could have held our cards and not made the Tex trade, and maybe played those cards in different trades, but the guys we traded were 100% expendable, both in July 2007 and now. You trade from positions of strength to fill weaknesses. That's exactly what the Braves did. We got what we paid for in the trade, great 1B production that we sorely lacked in the first 2/3 of 2007.

The Tex trade was a classic trade of selling future assets that may or may not have panned out in return for a known asset who filled an immediate and glaring need.

While I would never call it a "good" trade for the Braves, it is far from the disaster everyone paints it.
Click to expand...

So a bulleted response here.

1. Factoring in the guys we have/had plays a part, but it doesn't reflect what value we gave up vs received. You should almost always be at a negative value when you make a trade like the Teixeira trade. Because you're trading multiple players for one who's only under control for a short time. The WAR deficit shouldn't be that bad though. through all those players FA years. We traded 4 major league regulars for 1 and a half years of a superstar, that's a bad trade. Those regulars could have been split up to other trades, or started for us. I point to again the Peavy deal, the Peavy deal fell through because he didn't want to come to Atlanta if we gave up Escobar, but if we had top prospect Elvis Andrus in the wings we may have been able to get him. That alone would have averted the disasterous Lowe signing.

2. We were not that far behind, but our rotation outside of Huddy and Smoltz was garbage. When you compared us to the Phillies or MEts you could see we didn't compare to the 2. Instead of getting a 1B (which was a need) the Braves could have made a move for a number of pitchers but chose to instead blow their budget on a hitter. Who was great for the Braves and a certain improvement over Thorman. But the Braves had much bigger issues.
 
zitothebrave said:
So a bulleted response here.

1. Factoring in the guys we have/had plays a part, but it doesn't reflect what value we gave up vs received. You should almost always be at a negative value when you make a trade like the Teixeira trade. Because you're trading multiple players for one who's only under control for a short time. The WAR deficit shouldn't be that bad though. through all those players FA years. We traded 4 major league regulars for 1 and a half years of a superstar, that's a bad trade. Those regulars could have been split up to other trades, or started for us. I point to again the Peavy deal, the Peavy deal fell through because he didn't want to come to Atlanta if we gave up Escobar, but if we had top prospect Elvis Andrus in the wings we may have been able to get him. That alone would have averted the disasterous Lowe signing.

2. We were not that far behind, but our rotation outside of Huddy and Smoltz was garbage. When you compared us to the Phillies or MEts you could see we didn't compare to the 2. Instead of getting a 1B (which was a need) the Braves could have made a move for a number of pitchers but chose to instead blow their budget on a hitter. Who was great for the Braves and a certain improvement over Thorman. But the Braves had much bigger issues.
Click to expand...

In theory that is a good point, but there is hole or two in your analysis. Chuck James had pitched pretty well for the Braves through July, 2007, posting an ERA of about 3.7 in 22 starts through that point. In fact he had a very good July. However, in early August he was obviously injured, making only three starts for that month with an ERA of over 8, before missing the last two weeks of the month. He did come back in September and was so-so in 5 starts. HIs WAR of the season was 1.8, and was probably at a 2.0 or so, through July. So I guess had the Braves been clairvoyant and seen that he would go into the tank immediately after the Tex trade, I guess you have a point. The other two starters were pretty much ineffective in August and Septemebr, although Buddy Carlyle was semi-decent, and better certainly than Jo-Jo.

Was there a pitcher or two on the market who were available and who would have given us the net 3.0 WAR bump that Teixeira gave us over the last two months of 2007? I'm not sure of that. We did trade Kyle Davies and his 6+ERA and -0.9 WAR to the Royals for Octavio Dotel the same day as the Tex trade to shore up the staff, although Dotel gave us mixed results.
 
I remember kyle Davies' start in Boston his debut... and his game against the mets where he dominated for like 8 innings... what a waste.

Also remember Chuck James just knowing how to pitch. Nothing overwhelming just knew how to pitch. Shame the injuries got to him
 
zitothebrave said:
So a bulleted response here.

1. Factoring in the guys we have/had plays a part, but it doesn't reflect what value we gave up vs received. You should almost always be at a negative value when you make a trade like the Teixeira trade. Because you're trading multiple players for one who's only under control for a short time. The WAR deficit shouldn't be that bad though. through all those players FA years. We traded 4 major league regulars for 1 and a half years of a superstar, that's a bad trade. Those regulars could have been split up to other trades, or started for us. I point to again the Peavy deal, the Peavy deal fell through because he didn't want to come to Atlanta if we gave up Escobar, but if we had top prospect Elvis Andrus in the wings we may have been able to get him. That alone would have averted the disasterous Lowe signing.

2. We were not that far behind, but our rotation outside of Huddy and Smoltz was garbage. When you compared us to the Phillies or MEts you could see we didn't compare to the 2. Instead of getting a 1B (which was a need) the Braves could have made a move for a number of pitchers but chose to instead blow their budget on a hitter. Who was great for the Braves and a certain improvement over Thorman. But the Braves had much bigger issues.
Click to expand...

I always felt like we got lucky and dodged the Peavy bullet. I don't know why, but always felt like that was a great non trade. Was he a better option than Lowe?
 
Jcarbo...it is pointless to have a logical discussion with zito...his logic is that he's always right (which really is almost never the case)...really good post on the Tex trade...I would never say the Braves won that trade either, but I also do not believe it was the disaster people make it out to be.
 
Wasn't there another trade the same day as the Tex deal that was supposed to net us a sp? I think I'd heard we had Bronson Arroyo all lined up, and then it fell through...
 
KeithLockhart said:
I remember kyle Davies' start in Boston his debut... and his game against the mets where he dominated for like 8 innings... what a waste.

Also remember Chuck James just knowing how to pitch. Nothing overwhelming just knew how to pitch. Shame the injuries got to him
Click to expand...

Kyle Davies was awesome in his debut in 2005 in Boston. It was a cold, dreary day and he showed guts and showed potential to be a bonifide starting pitcher. But aside from consistently dominating against the Mets, he totally blew chunks. I don't know what it was about the Mets though that allowed him to dominate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top