Two Scenarios

[NYCBrave]

No I'm saying even at 25M year for 8 years, that would have been a better course than acquiring Markakis, Miller, Jenkins plus an extra $5M/year of financial flexibility.

Is that factoring in the cost it would take to structure the rest of our roster, keeping in mind we have to put together a competitive team? 25/year is somewhere between 1/4 and 1/5 of the overall payroll. Factor in the long term deals we already have signed for multiple players, and the fact we don't have much cheap talent in the pipeline, and it seems like going forward we wouldn't have a great roster talent wise.

 

[nsacpi]

Anyhow the bottom line is this. If you sign Heyward for 25M/year for 8 years (2016-2023, his age 26-33 seasons) the team is likely to be half a win per season better off over the next four years (his age 25-28 seasons). This assumes 4.5 WAR per year from him over this period (his numbers the last 3 seasons are 6.3, 3.4 and 5.1 for an average of 4.7). The interesting thing is the expected advantage of signing Heyward grows to 1 WAR per season over the last five years of his assumed contract (his ages 29-33 seasons) even if you assume a decline in performance to 3 WAR/year. This is why I say that the case for Scenario 1 (keeping Hewyard) gets more convincing as you look beyond a four year horizon. The reasons for this have to do with salary inflation and the fact that in the first four years you have Miller under contractual control at below market rates.

 

[nsacpi]

Is that factoring in the cost it would take to structure the rest of our roster, keeping in mind we have to put together a competitive team? 25/year is somewhere between 1/4 and 1/5 of the overall payroll. Factor in the long term deals we already have signed for multiple players, and the fact we don't have much cheap talent in the pipeline, and it seems like going forward we wouldn't have a great roster talent wise.

I think that you've raised one of the trickiest and most interesting aspects of this whole situation. I alluded to it briefly in one of my earlier posts. In 2015, scenario 1 actually gives you more roster flexibility since Heyward's salary is lower than Markakis and Miller (I haven't seen the details of Markakis' contract but I'm assuming it is 11M each year). But in 2016-2018, scenario 1 gives you less roster flexibility. There are various ways to try to mitigate or deal with that. If there was a way to move part of the Melvin or CJ contracts by 2016, that would be one way to mitigate it. But there is also the possibility (if there is no market at all for Melvin or CJ) that we would have to resort to a less appealing option by 2016 0r 2017 (such as moving or non-tendering some of the guys that will getting more expensive by then (Gattis, Minor, Miller, Teheran, Simmons, Kimbrel). You could also mitigate it by structuring the Heyward contract a certain way. Backloading. Or even the reverse, increasing his 2015 salary for some relief in 2016 or 2017, or some combination of that and backloading.

There are lots of possibilities. One that has particular appeal to me would be to flip Gattis as he gets more expensive to an American League team for a pre-arb outfielder.

 

[Russ2dollas]

Interesting. It seems that the braves think they traded 1 gold glove outfielder with ok offense for a very good 3 to 2, a stud prospect, and a gold glove outfielder with avg offense. I don't agree, but ok.....

Scenario 1: Braves do not believe that defensive metrics are accurate or worth investing in. Not that they don't value defense, but they don't value it above offense. And they think Heyward now is the hitter he's going to be moving forward.

Scenario 2: Braves are frustrated and done with Heyward. He gets hurt. He doesn't live up to hype. He does everything well offensively but nothing elite. He doesn't want to take a huge home town discount after we did him the favor of drafting him and bringing him up so quickly (sarcasm on my part, they may believe it). The Braves way is to sign the extension and make it a priority to be here.....remember Chipper? FF did it. Going to FA years is not the braves way so you have to go. Example set.

 

[50PoundHead]

I think that you've raised one of the trickiest and most interesting aspects of this whole situation. I alluded to it briefly in one of my earlier posts. In 2015, scenario 1 actually gives you more roster flexibility since Heyward's salary is lower than Markakis and Miller (I haven't seen the details of Markakis' contract but I'm assuming it is 11M each year). But in 2016-2018, scenario 1 gives you less roster flexibility. There are various ways to try to mitigate or deal with that. If there was a way to move part of the Melvin or CJ contracts by 2016, that would be one way to mitigate it. But there is also the possibility (if there is no market at all for Melvin or CJ) that we would have to resort to a less appealing option by 2016 0r 2017 (such as moving or non-tendering some of the guys that will getting more expensive by then (Gattis, Minor, Miller, Teheran, Simmons, Kimbrel). You could also mitigate it by structuring the Heyward contract a certain way. Backloading. Or even the reverse, increasing his 2015 salary for some relief in 2016 or 2017, or some combination of that and backloading.

There are lots of possibilities. One that has particular appeal to me would be to flip Gattis as he gets more expensive to an American League team for a pre-arb outfielder.

A minor oversight in your synopsis is that the Braves would still likely sign a pitcher for the rotation, so it would be Heyward + Pitcher vs. Miller + Markakis, making it closer to a push in terms of payroll flexibility. We somehow have to replace 400 IP and Miller is a relatively cheap contribution of 175 - 200 IP.

I'm simply convinced Heyward was going to test free agency unless the Braves totally opened up the vault.

And NYC hits the key point. There is simply not enough talent in the pipeline, which really hinders roster flexibility.

 

[nsacpi]

A minor oversight in your synopsis is that the Braves would still likely sign a pitcher for the rotation, so it would be Heyward + Pitcher vs. Miller + Markakis, making it closer to a push in terms of payroll flexibility. We somehow have to replace 400 IP and Miller is a relatively cheap contribution of 175 - 200 IP.

I'm simply convinced Heyward was going to test free agency unless the Braves totally opened up the vault.

And NYC hits the key point. There is simply not enough talent in the pipeline, which really hinders roster flexibility.

That's a good point regarding Miller and roster flexibility that I had overlooked. So a plus for scenario 2 is the roster flexibility. At the end of the day, that could have been the overriding concern that led Hart to choose the direction he did. Although as I noted earlier there are various choices we could make to increase payroll flexibility. 2015 is not that big an issue under either scenario (assuming Justin gets moved in either scenario). But keeping Heyward would have created a crunch in 2016 and 2017 that likely would have necessitated some choices regarding some of the other guys moving into their more expensive years.

 

[50PoundHead]

That's a good point regarding Miller and roster flexibility that I had overlooked. So a plus for scenario 2 is the roster flexibility. At the end of the day, that could have been the overriding concern that led Hart to choose the direction he did. Although as I noted earlier there are various choices we could make to increase payroll flexibility. 2015 is not that big an issue under either scenario (assuming Justin gets moved in either scenario). But keeping Heyward would have created a crunch in 2016 and 2017 that likely would have necessitated some choices regarding some of the other guys moving into their more expensive years.

I agree. The implications of a long-term contract with Heyward at $25 MM per is what likely precipitated the trade. I don't know whether I agree or disagree with the front office's conclusion, but with little major league ready talent in the upper minors, we are forced to play mix-and-match at more positions than a team supposedly intent on contending should have to.

But a lot of the problem can still be laid at Wren's feet for the Melvin Upton contract and the Chris Johnson extension. I can buy the argument that Melvin's AAV is reasonable given his projection (although I don't necessarily agree), but it was the length of that contract that really closed down any real chance to extend Heyward. So for those of you who miss Frank Wren, don't overlook that fact. For the record, I think Wren would have tried to patch something together for 2015 and then let Heyward and J. Upton test free agency and done a tear down. Of course, I don't know that for fact.

 

[DirkPiggler]

Good analysis, but if I understand right you are leaving out an important factor - how a potential Heyward contract affects the remainder of the payroll. Does his $25 million per year cause the team to have to settle for replacement level or worse performance at another position because of limits imposed on total team payroll? If you're getting a 5 win player at one spot but that causes you to get a 0 win player at another, wouldn't the team be better off spending that same amount on two players that total more than 5 wins between them, keeping an automatic out like Bad Upton from getting at bats?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, would the team be better off with a superstar and a couple of turds in the lineup, or would it be better off with three decent players but no stars and no automatic outs?

Heyward is going to be a tremendous value to some team, but barring an ownership change I don't see the Braves being able to afford him. You could offer me 100,000 shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock for 1/4 the normal price, and even though that would be a great deal I wouldn't have the money to take advantage of it. Such is the reality of being a Braves fan in the post-Turner era.

 

[thewupk]

Good analysis, but if I understand right you are leaving out an important factor - how a potential Heyward contract affects the remainder of the payroll. Does his $25 million per year cause the team to have to settle for replacement level or worse performance at another position because of limits imposed on total team payroll? If you're getting a 5 win player at one spot but that causes you to get a 0 win player at another, wouldn't the team be better off spending that same amount on two players that total more than 5 wins between them, keeping an automatic out like Bad Upton from getting at bats? I guess what I'm trying to say is, would the team be better off with a superstar and a couple of turds in the lineup, or would it be better off with three decent players but no stars and no automatic outs?

Heyward is going to be a tremendous value to some team, but barring an ownership change I don't see the Braves being able to afford him. You could offer me 100,000 shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock for 1/4 the normal price, and even though that would be a great deal I wouldn't have the money to take advantage of it. Such is the reality of being a Braves fan in the post-Turner era.

Normally yes. But one player who performs at a 5 WAR level is going to cost less per year than two players who perform at a 2.5 WAR level for example. Yes you are filling two spots instead of one but you are paying more for it. This is where you need a good farm system to supplement the other spots with young cheap talent that aren't making market value yet.

 

[nsacpi]

Good analysis, but if I understand right you are leaving out an important factor - how a potential Heyward contract affects the remainder of the payroll. Does his $25 million per year cause the team to have to settle for replacement level or worse performance at another position because of limits imposed on total team payroll? If you're getting a 5 win player at one spot but that causes you to get a 0 win player at another, wouldn't the team be better off spending that same amount on two players that total more than 5 wins between them, keeping an automatic out like Bad Upton from getting at bats?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, would the team be better off with a superstar and a couple of turds in the lineup, or would it be better off with three decent players but no stars and no automatic outs?

Heyward is going to be a tremendous value to some team, but barring an ownership change I don't see the Braves being able to afford him. You could offer me 100,000 shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock for 1/4 the normal price, and even though that would be a great deal I wouldn't have the money to take advantage of it. Such is the reality of being a Braves fan in the post-Turner era.

The way I accounted for his effect on the rest of the team was to note that under scenario 2 you have about 5M more/year to spend and asking how much you can get for that on the market. And my conclusion was not enough to make up for the difference in expected WAR that works in favor of scenario 1.

A different way of looking at it would focus more on the roster adjustments that might have to be make in 2016-2017 to get us to budget. If we can't move Melvin or CJ, then we might have to move Minor and/or Gattis for example for a cheaper player.

 

[nsacpi]

Normally yes. But one player who performs at a 5 WAR level is going to cost less per year than two players who perform at a 2.5 WAR level for example. Yes you are filling two spots instead of one but you are paying more for it. This is where you need a good farm system to supplement the other spots with young cheap talent that aren't making market value yet.

Yeah I made this point in another thread. Which is that two Markaki (the plural of Markakis according to Dalyn, our resident classical scholar) would cost about the same as one Jason. So are we better off with Jason in right and a minimum salary replacement level player in left or are we better off with the two Markaki. My answer is we would be better off with Heyward and the scrub.

 

[weso1]

I think it's probably less risky when the WAR is spread out amongst multiple players. I mean if Heyward is out for the year with an acl tear or something then there goes 5.5 WAR for the year. If Markakis is hurt then there goes 1-2 WAR. But you still have Miller and the WAR from the other pieces you get with the Heyward money. Now there's probably less risk that Heyward gets hurt than the chance that one of the players the Braves got due to trading Heyward gets hurt, but still having that WAR spread out means the impact is much less.

Basically what I'm saying is that I like my WAR spread out amongst multiple fronts.

 

[nsacpi]

I think it's probably less risky when the WAR is spread out amongst multiple players. I mean if Heyward is out for the year with an acl tear or something then there goes 5.5 WAR for the year. If Markakis is hurt then there goes 1-2 WAR. But you still have Miller and the WAR from the other pieces you get with the Heyward money. Now there's probably less risk that Heyward gets hurt than the chance that one of the players the Braves got due to trading Heyward gets hurt, but still having that WAR spread out means the impact is much less.

Basically what I'm saying is that I like my WAR spread out amongst multiple fronts.

Yes. I agree about risk being diversified downward by spreading the money over multiple players. There is some offset from Markakis being older (and riskier than a younger player like Heyward) and Miller being a pitcher (and being riskier than a position player like Heyward). But I suspect it isn't enough to offset the benefits of diversification.

Also there is a reduction in risk if you take Miller year-to-year through the arb years. You have the option of non-tendering him or paying him a lower salary if things go badly. An option we threw away with the CJ extension.

 

[50PoundHead]

I tend to subscribe to the "core player approach" (my term) where you invest heavily in two or three guys and build around them. I wanted Heyward to be part of our core, but budgets are what budgets are.

And I know I'm a broken record on this, but that is where Wren really screwed up. Even if Melvin Upton would have performed better than he has--and I would say significantly better--he wouldn't have been a core player for the team in the long-term. Wren's investment in Melvin made an extension for Heyward extremely difficult to achieve. You can only spend a dollar once and every dollar going to Melvin can't be spent somewhere else and Heyward's long-term value greatly exceeds Melvin's. And again, it's length of contract that caused the problem. Not necessarily the AAV on Melvin's contract.

 

[nsacpi]

I tend to subscribe to the "core player approach" (my term) where you invest heavily in two or three guys and build around them. I wanted Heyward to be part of our core, but budgets are what budgets are.

And I know I'm a broken record on this, but that is where Wren really screwed up. Even if Melvin Upton would have performed better than he has--and I would say significantly better--he wouldn't have been a core player for the team in the long-term. Wren's investment in Melvin made an extension for Heyward extremely difficult to achieve. You can only spend a dollar once and every dollar going to Melvin can't be spent somewhere else and Heyward's long-term value greatly exceeds Melvin's. And again, it's length of contract that caused the problem. Not necessarily the AAV on Melvin's contract.

Yeah the extra year on Melvin's deal is turning out to be a killer.

 

[weso1]

Yes. I agree about risk being diversified downward by spreading the money over multiple players. There is some offset from Markakis being older (and riskier than a younger player like Heyward) and Miller being a pitcher (and being riskier than a position player like Heyward). But I suspect it isn't enough to offset the benefits of diversification.

Also there is a reduction in risk if you take Miller year-to-year through the arb years. You have the option of non-tendering him or paying him a lower salary if things go badly. An option we threw away with the CJ extension.

About that CJ extension...

 

[NYCBrave]

Thanks for the discussion guys, this has been really interesting to read. In fact, a lot of this is how I envision the discussions go in the front offices when deciding on how to structure the future.

 

[gilesfan]

Anyhow the bottom line is this. If you sign Heyward for 25M/year for 8 years (2016-2023, his age 26-33 seasons) the team is likely to be half a win per season better off over the next four years (his age 25-28 seasons). This assumes 4.5 WAR per year from him over this period (his numbers the last 3 seasons are 6.3, 3.4 and 5.1 for an average of 4.7). The interesting thing is the expected advantage of signing Heyward grows to 1 WAR per season over the last five years of his assumed contract (his ages 29-33 seasons) even if you assume a decline in performance to 3 WAR/year. This is why I say that the case for Scenario 1 (keeping Hewyard) gets more convincing as you look beyond a four year horizon. The reasons for this have to do with salary inflation and the fact that in the first four years you have Miller under contractual control at below market rates.

That assumes that Miller and Jenkins replaces replacement level players?

 

[Dalyn]

Which is that two Markaki (the plural of Markakis according to Dalyn, our resident classical scholar)

Mukaki.

 

[Carp]

Projections for Markakis are fairly pessimistic, imo. He's been a 2 WAR player practically every yr aside from 2013 (was pacing for 2.5 WAR in 2012 before the injury).