Ryan Pollack on Fangraphs

H

Horsehide Harry

<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
Essentially concludes that 2017 is destined to be another down year and that Braves fans should be prepared for that. The payroll flexibility element is what I have been focused on for some time. You don't want to go into your "opportunity years" which happen to coincide with much improved FA opportunities and not have as much payroll flexibility as you can. By his reckoning the Braves enter the third year of the rebuild with about $53M in payroll flexibility, significantly behind what the Cubs and Astros had (difference between current payroll and highest payroll ever adjusted to 2016 dollars).

I think the $53M is an estimated opening day number based upon only what is on the team now adjusted for raises and contract increases. So, assuming the Braves add 2 two WAR SP at an average of $14M each, a starting catcher at $14M, a third baseman at $7M and bench replacements for departing guys like Beckham totaling $4M you've eaten up that $53M in flexibility. Assuming multi-year deals for the SP and catcher and 3B, and the fact that Kemp and Markakis are on the books for two more years, plus inevitable raises for guys like Inciarte, Folty, Wisler, etc. you are committing to a level of payroll through the 2018 season that severely limits your ability to shop in really good FA classes at a time when you would better know your needs as revealed by the success or failure of counted individual young talent currently in the minors.

Conducting the 2017 dog and pony show "contending and competitive" means a likely cut into payroll flexibility just to boost the illusion for the opening of the park and potentially tying organizational financial hands moving through the early years of the first wave of Rebuild Talent. This could potentially stall the flame of excellence for lack of fuel.
 
man, you are criticizing a lot based on a lot of assumptions and things that haven't even happened yet.
 
Just for the record, the conclusion of the article was that the Braves have a very smart front office and the rebuild is going very well so far. Everything after the first sentence of Horsehide's OP is his own conjecture.

Also, $53 million, IMO, is not 'significantly behind' the $63 million the Astros had or even the $66 million the Cubs had. And we could pretty easily clear more space if we wanted to by trading Markakis or someone else.

I can pretty much assure you we aren't going to be going out and signing multiple FAs to 5+-year deals.

Also, as for the article: the Astros 'hit' on the Ken Giles trade? In what world?
 
smootness said:
Just for the record, the conclusion of the article was that the Braves have a very smart front office and the rebuild is going very well so far. Everything after the first sentence of Horsehide's OP is his own conjecture.

Also, $53 million, IMO, is not 'significantly behind' the $63 million the Astros had or even the $66 million the Cubs had. And we could pretty easily clear more space if we wanted to by trading Markakis or someone else.

I can pretty much assure you we aren't going to be going out and signing multiple FAs to 5+-year deals.
Click to expand...

ya but if we extend collmenter for 4 years at $18M per we'd be using a lot of that money so..
 
yeezus said:
ya but if we extend collmenter for 4 years at $18M per we'd be using a lot of that money so..
Click to expand...

I know this is a joke, but interestingly enough he has a mutual option for $2 million next year. If he likes the Braves and the way we worked with him, I could see him being interested, and I'd take him at that figure for sure.
 
smootness said:
Just for the record, the conclusion of the article was that the Braves have a very smart front office and the rebuild is going very well so far. Everything after the first sentence of Horsehide's OP is his own conjecture.

Also, $53 million, IMO, is not 'significantly behind' the $63 million the Astros had or even the $66 million the Cubs had. And we could pretty easily clear more space if we wanted to by trading Markakis or someone else.

I can pretty much assure you we aren't going to be going out and signing multiple FAs to 5+-year deals.

Also, as for the article: the Astros 'hit' on the Ken Giles trade? In what world?
Click to expand...

No way, not with our love of draft picks. Most guys that are going to get paid big bucks are going to have a QO attached to them. Riddick and Chapman will get decent contracts and not cost one, but most will.

I don't even see a SP outside of Hill getting anything other than 2 year deals, and Hill probably tops out at 3 years.
 
That article is pretty spot on, but the author misses one key point: how each organization started their respective rebuild.

The Braves started their rebuild proactively by trading a boat-load of MLB talent. The prospects they got back from trading Heyward, JUpton, Gattis, Kimbrel, Simmons essentially fast tracked the rebuild by 1-2 years. The Miller trade probably skipped them ahead another year all by itself.

There is no reason the Braves can't be a 75-80 win team with a couple moderate additions this offseason, none of which will hamper the team's ability to further improve in the future. Now is certainly not the time to go "all in", but it is definitely time to start getting better.
 
It's time to go all in. We have a chance at a championship with the right moves, so we need to go for it. Is it a little far fetched? Probably, but whose to say that our odds are going to be any better 2-3-5 years from now?
 
yeezus said:
man, you are criticizing a lot based on a lot of assumptions and things that haven't even happened yet.
Click to expand...

The assumptions are based upon Coppy following through with what he said they intended to do - add a couple of SP, address catcher, look at 3B, etc.

I'm just pointing out that this is what it means if he follows through with what he says he wants to do in effort to be competitive in 2017.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Enscheff said:
That article is pretty spot on, but the author misses one key point: how each organization started their respective rebuild.

The Braves started their rebuild proactively by trading a boat-load of MLB talent. The prospects they got back from trading Heyward, JUpton, Gattis, Kimbrel, Simmons essentially fast tracked the rebuild by 1-2 years. The Miller trade probably skipped them ahead another year all by itself.

There is no reason the Braves can't be a 75-80 win team with a couple moderate additions this offseason, none of which will hamper the team's ability to further improve in the future. Now is certainly not the time to go "all in", but it is definitely time to start getting better.
Click to expand...

I think that is a good point about the Braves proactively trading. But I would say that at least the Cubs did that as well acquiring Arrieta and Strop and then Russell via trade.

I would also say that the timing for those teams was better as far as FA classes, at least for the Cubs, because they needed a guy like Lester and he was available via a FA signing when they needed him. This coming FA class is not friendly to the Braves rebuilding efforts and trading for significant players is unlikely due to minor league talent cost IMO.
 
smootness said:
I know this is a joke, but interestingly enough he has a mutual option for $2 million next year. If he likes the Braves and the way we worked with him, I could see him being interested, and I'd take him at that figure for sure.
Click to expand...

At this moment, that looks like a pretty good gamble.
 
Chico said:
No way, not with our love of draft picks. Most guys that are going to get paid big bucks are going to have a QO attached to them. Riddick and Chapman will get decent contracts and not cost one, but most will.

I don't even see a SP outside of Hill getting anything other than 2 year deals, and Hill probably tops out at 3 years.
Click to expand...

I never said they were going to sign guys to 5+ years deals. That's not necessary or even part of the point. Signing guys to 3, (three), III, 2 less than five, year deals at the going rate per WAR for players who will make a reasonable contribution to increasing the win total from this year to next by 15 or more, will seriously damage the payroll flexibility through the 2019 season, all to improve a team in 2017 where the vast majority of the talent collected in the rebuild action won't be ready.
 
msstate7 said:
Well frick, I'm not even gonna watch a game in '17 now
Click to expand...

The point is that IMO trying to rush the process inevitably damages the process in some way. What I have presented is a monetary model where improvement for next season severely limits payroll flexibility in the next couple of seasons which happen to be two of the better FA classes in recent times and also happens to be the timeframe where it is reasonable to expect a significant number of the young minor league guys to be ready (of course not all), but a first wave.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Essentially concludes that 2017 is destined to be another down year and that Braves fans should be prepared for that. The payroll flexibility element is what I have been focused on for some time. You don't want to go into your "opportunity years" which happen to coincide with much improved FA opportunities and not have as much payroll flexibility as you can. By his reckoning the Braves enter the third year of the rebuild with about $53M in payroll flexibility, significantly behind what the Cubs and Astros had (difference between current payroll and highest payroll ever adjusted to 2016 dollars).

I think the $53M is an estimated opening day number based upon only what is on the team now adjusted for raises and contract increases. So, assuming the Braves add 2 two WAR SP at an average of $14M each, a starting catcher at $14M, a third baseman at $7M and bench replacements for departing guys like Beckham totaling $4M you've eaten up that $53M in flexibility. Assuming multi-year deals for the SP and catcher and 3B, and the fact that Kemp and Markakis are on the books for two more years, plus inevitable raises for guys like Inciarte, Folty, Wisler, etc. you are committing to a level of payroll through the 2018 season that severely limits your ability to shop in really good FA classes at a time when you would better know your needs as revealed by the success or failure of counted individual young talent currently in the minors.

Conducting the 2017 dog and pony show "contending and competitive" means a likely cut into payroll flexibility just to boost the illusion for the opening of the park and potentially tying organizational financial hands moving through the early years of the first wave of Rebuild Talent. This could potentially stall the flame of excellence for lack of fuel.
Click to expand...

I read the same article and I have no idea how you turned what was a hugely positive piece into something negative.

Link for those interested: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-to-judge-the-atlanta-braves-rebuild/
 
smootness said:
Just for the record, the conclusion of the article was that the Braves have a very smart front office and the rebuild is going very well so far. Everything after the first sentence of Horsehide's OP is his own conjecture.

Also, $53 million, IMO, is not 'significantly behind' the $63 million the Astros had or even the $66 million the Cubs had. And we could pretty easily clear more space if we wanted to by trading Markakis or someone else.

I can pretty much assure you we aren't going to be going out and signing multiple FAs to 5+-year deals.

Also, as for the article: the Astros 'hit' on the Ken Giles trade? In what world?
Click to expand...

This.

Harry's summary of the article isn't actually a summary of the article, but a summary of his own opinion mixed in with some interesting interpretation of Pollack.
 
smootness said:
Just for the record, the conclusion of the article was that the Braves have a very smart front office and the rebuild is going very well so far. Everything after the first sentence of Horsehide's OP is his own conjecture.

Also, $53 million, IMO, is not 'significantly behind' the $63 million the Astros had or even the $66 million the Cubs had. And we could pretty easily clear more space if we wanted to by trading Markakis or someone else. 16% behind the Astros, 20% behind the Cubs, so a 1.5 to 2 WAR player.If you trade Markais, you have to replace him. I guess you could say move Kemp to RF and play Mallex in LF but you still have to sign another guy who probably is a $2-$4M bench guy, or 20-40% of Markakis money and since Markakis comes off the books first (after the 2018 season) he's contract is less long term hindrance.

I can pretty much assure you we aren't going to be going out and signing multiple FAs to 5+-year deals.Never said that. It doesn't take that to cause harm. Three year deals are enough.

Also, as for the article: the Astros 'hit' on the Ken Giles trade? In what world?Not me. You were clear about my speculation, I would ask that you be clear that the discussion about the Giles trade was FROM the article.
Click to expand...

Above
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top