The Braves and Padres have settled on two pieces of the package that Atlanta would send to San...

Locke

I say that if Locke is all that is holding this deal up, then it will happen pretty soon. But, if the Braves are trying to replace Yunel with KJ as a condition to including Locke, then this may take a few days.

by JFP on Nov 11, 2008 2:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Kelly should be in the deal instead

I know he is going to be more expensive than Yunel will be for atleast this year. However I don’t get why the Padres would not be as interested in the combination of Kelly and Brent instead of Yunel. It’s not even about saying one is better than the other, it’s simply the fact that Kelly can be easier to replace since there’s Prado sitting on the bench. The Braves don’t have alternative plans at shortstop after Yunel, atleast not longterm ones.

by ChipperTeixeira89 on Nov 11, 2008 6:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Padres have Matt Antonelli and they believe he is ready to be their second baseman. They don’t want another second baseman, they want another shortstop instead of Kahlil Greene.

by cbwilk on Nov 11, 2008 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Locke

I say to hell with it and go ahead and make the deal Locke can be replaced by the Arm that we will get with our early draft pick this season. Make the damn deal then we can shift our focus to FA

by mauck98 on Nov 11, 2008 2:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Really wish...

…I knew what Wren had planned for our SS vacancy.

I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.

by Smoltz's Beard on Nov 11, 2008 2:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The impulsive shopper in me says he should look at J.J. Hardy. But my practical side (and our farm system) would gently weep at the cost.

by soup du jour on Nov 11, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yunel...

….is probably going to be an unhappy camper, and we know how that can be….

by sddbaker on Nov 11, 2008 3:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

DO ITTTTTTTTTTTT

if we can get peavy without trading any of our top 5 prospects, you MUST do the deal. i don’t even care anymore if we get rid of a starting position player. if you can get an ace like jake peavy for bit players, you do it.

Following the Braves...one long hard drink at a time.

by bigjoe on Nov 11, 2008 3:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

from the way its written at MLB.com…it appears the braves are offering morton or reyes, while the padres want locke…its not a “locke as the fourth man” as the sticking point, its the third wheel being morton/reyes/locke

Following the Braves...one long hard drink at a time.

by bigjoe on Nov 11, 2008 3:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I dont understand the logic behind trading Yunel Escobar. Kid is a stud. Think of it this way, he is still as young as many other prospects so lets just for the sake of argument say that he is a prospect right now. Why would you trade a prospect like that when you already know how good he is and can only get better. I hope to GOD we can include kelly johnson instead of Yunel. Otherwise i say no deal

by bravesguy95 on Nov 11, 2008 4:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yunel is 26.

I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.

by Smoltz's Beard on Nov 11, 2008 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We had good timing on that one.

by get swoll yunel on Nov 11, 2008 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Kelly Johnson will only be invoked if there's a third team involved.

Padres won’t take an arbitration eligible player unless he’s getting flipped elsewhere. There’s going to have to be a 3rd team for KJ to be in the deal.

This.

by Blicks on Nov 12, 2008 1:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The more I think about this deal

The more I am hesitant to give up Yunel. I was pretty huge on acquiring Peavy initially, and I realize we’re going to have to give up something big to land a former Cy Young winner, but Yunel’s absence will leave a massive hole at SS when they’re isn’t a particularly appealing back up plan, and we’ll still have more holes to fill in the rotation and in LF.

I mean what are our options at SS? Staying in house and letting Infante and Lillibridge fight it out in the spring? No thanks. Sign maybe Orlando Cabrera? Probably will cost a little more than we’d like for a declining player (say 3/27 million?). Take a flyer on Rents again on maybe a 1 year/5mil offer (optimistically?) I loved the guy when he was here, but the guy has absolutely no range anymore and would need to put up a .750 OPS in my opinion to make up for the defensive deficiencies. A guy like Cesar Izturis could be an option, but at that point I’d rather just hand Infante the job.

Let’s say we land Peavy for the presumed package including Yunel…. Peavy’s makes 11 million next season leaving us around 30 million to fill three big holes on a team that will more than likely be competitive, but probably wouldn’t be able to pull off 90+ wins.

We’ve had a habit the past couple of seasons of clinging to these outside shots at making the playoffs (the Tex deal, Kotsay deal, bringing Glavine back, etc.), and they have backfired miserably. I’m not saying we need to clean house and start a full on youth movement or anything, but giving up an extremely valuable, cost effective piece like Yunel seems very counter productive to me.

Not to mention I’ll have to find a new screen name!

by get swoll yunel on Nov 11, 2008 4:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

For this especially “We’ve had a habit the past couple of seasons of clinging to these outside shots at making the playoffs (the Tex deal, Kotsay deal, bringing Glavine back, etc.), and they have backfired miserably.” Seriously we don’t have to buy every year.

And I don’t want to get a new avatar.

by VictorW on Nov 11, 2008 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m sorry, but I still don’t think the Tex trade was a bad move. We had a legitimate chance to contend and our front office took a chance. People and here are still faulting them for that. Why? Injuries and bad luck crippled us, but I don’t see how that trade backfired.

I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.

by Smoltz's Beard on Nov 11, 2008 10:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

both sides

I get the point…Tex didn’t get us in the playoffs, and we ended up with Kotchman for a bunch of prospects. In the long-term, it seems like we got the short end, but the Tex deal wasn’t bad at all. I’m glad we did it, because sure we’d like for things to have ended differently, but as said, better luck and injuries and its a different story. We had him for 1 full year and an attempt to get to the playoffs twice. It was a good move, but didn’t end up being enough.

"Have you ever had your heart broken?"
"Yeah, when we lost the pennant in '87."

by jug on Nov 11, 2008 11:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is really the only thing you have to critique about my whole post?

That I claimed the Tex deal was a bad move? Seriously?

So not making the playoffs that year and winning 70 games last year was what we were aiming for? Were those results entirely because of the Tex deal? Of course not. Did the deal help us to accomplish any of our goals? No, it didn’t at all… and in the process we gave up a lot of minor league talent.

Then, as well as now, people like to point out that guys like Salty and Andrus were “blocked” prospects, but from my perspective, those guys would have still been valuable assets to our system that could’ve potentially been used in deals to acquire talent in other areas of need (namely, young starting pitching). “Making a run” that year seemed ill-advised to me mainly because that team had more flaws than adding Tex could address. That’s not even mentioning the guy we gave up in that deal I miss the most, Neftali Feliz. So yeah, given what’s transpired, I think the deal didn’t work out well at all, and I’m definitely not the only one who feels that way.

I understand the motive behind the “win now” approach we had with the Tex deal, but I feel like that philosophy is starting to dominate our FO thinking and hurt us long term. This team as currently constructed has a lot of holes that need to be filled, and Jake Peavy anchoring our rotation is not going to all of a sudden turn us into the contender that we continually like to think we are.

by get swoll yunel on Nov 12, 2008 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

First off…maybe some decaf coffee is in order for you? I wasn’t trying to critique your post in any way. Stop trying to make some smartass response. Of course we weren’t aiming for a 70 win season. I was simply making a blanket statement to the many people on this site who still view the Tex trade as a big mistake, when only two of the players we traded have been in the majors to this point:

2008 Stats
Salty: 18% Caught Stealing, .253/.352/.364
Harrison: 83.2 IP, 100 H, 12 HR, 31 BB, 42 K, 5.49 ERA, 1.57 WHIP

I’m not even going to bother posting the minor league stats of the other people we gave up because I’ve done it a hundred times already. They’re not doing all that great. Sure Feliz is a stud, but at the time we traded him no one was giving him the love that he’s receiving now. You can’t win all the trades. But to say that the deal didn’t help us “accomplish any of our goals” is retarded. The goal is to win games, right?

2007 Stats
Mahay: 28 IP, 19 H, 7 ER, 16 BB, 23 K, 2.25 ERA, 1.25 WHIP
Tex: 54 games, .317/.404/.615, 27 XBH, 56 RBI

2008 Stats
Tex: 103 games, .283/.390/.512, 47 XBH, 78 RBI

That right there, what I just posted, it helped us win games. All the while the players we traded away were putting up mediocre numbers in the minors (aside from Feliz). For all we know, Jones, Andrus, and Feliz may never reach the majors. Not to mention the fact that we got Duvall for Mahay, and Kotchman and Marek for Tex. So don’t act like we just pissed the prospects away and got nothing but L’s in return.

And why would you not want people to point out the fact that several of the prospects were blocked? The entire point of organizational depth is to deal from strengths…which SS and C were at that point. Just because you feel there were other areas that they could have been used to address doesn’t mean shit to me, because I thought the trade put us in very good contention. I wasn’t the only one on this site that thought that, and there were several of the big names in the mainstream media that felt the same way. On top of that, you have no idea whether or not Andrus or Salty could have fetched us a young starter in return. You think that the FO didn’t look into that before renting Tex out?

I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.

by Smoltz's Beard on Nov 12, 2008 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Great post.

by cbwilk on Nov 12, 2008 12:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My biggest problem is mainly with how condescending you come across in some of your posts. I appreciate the counter argument and the stats you use to back up your claims. In fact, that’s what I’ve always dug the most about your posts…. they always seem well-informed and thought out. My biggest point in the original post was not to point out how bad the Tex deal was but rather to use it to illustrate a FO philosophy we’ve had over the past couple of years in always trying to “win now”. With regards to the Peavy deal and that philosophy, I fear that giving up Yunel could be counter-productive to what we’re trying to accomplish both next season and long-term. The ramifications of the Tex deal are really pretty irrelevant in that context.

Also, I don’t really see the need in insulting and belittling what I’m trying to say by labeling it “retarded”. Last I checked, we root for the same team, even if we do disagree. Save the trash talk for Mets and Phillies fans.

by get swoll yunel on Nov 12, 2008 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And us retarded folk prefer "Developmentally Disabled".

by buzzdeadwax on Nov 12, 2008 4:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Strange that we posted basically the same response at the same exact time.

We must have ESPN.

haha

by get swoll yunel on Nov 12, 2008 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m sorry if you find some of my responses condescending, but with quotes like “so not making the playoffs that year and winning 70 games last year was what we were aiming for?” I can make the same claim about some of your posts.

I wasn’t even aiming the venom completely towards you, I was just lobbing it in the general direction of the group of people on this site that continually mark the trade in the loss column. It boggles my mind how you can see the situation as black and white as you do. Of course the season didn’t turn out the way we wanted it to, but it’s hardly that particular trade’s fault. And until the remainder of those prospects pan out we’ll never truly know.

I was on board with the FO’s decisions in the past year to “win now” (except the Kotsay trade) because I honestly though it was going to be the best opportunity for us to capture a title. After the end result I’ve been arguing that we should NOT be making moves like that anymore and that we do in fact need to rebuild, if you will, for at least a year (not sure if that really qualifies as a rebuilding process). I can see us putting together a strong team in 2010, but not next year.

To be honest I don’t even know why we’re arguing about this because in that regard I believe we’re on the same page. Upon first hearing about acquiring Peavy I was pumped, but once I leanred Yunel would be traded I immidiately took a step back. The more I think about the Peavy deal the less I want it done, because trading Escobar just doesn’t make sense. Yeah, it would be nice to watch Peavy carve up opposing lineups when it’s his turn in the rotation but then you’ve got to watch some other lackluster SS the other 4 days and wonder if it really was the right move.

I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.

by Smoltz's Beard on Nov 12, 2008 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This sounds like what I said several weeks ago...

It’s not how the players performed in the ML, or whether the Braves have depth at a particular position. All 5 players would have had trade value to the Braves in their quest to get a good young pitcher like Peavy, Greinke, or Matt Cain. Young pitching is far more valuable than overpriced hitting. Furthermore, when JS pulled off the Great Desparation Move of 2007, hitting was NOT the problem. We had two capable starters and three batting practice-caliber ones. Instead, JS was so desparate to go out on top and preserve his legacy that he traded for Tex in the hope that the Braves could just outhit everyone else. Obviously, that strategy didn’t work (and almost never does). So, now this team has to be rebuilt, because JS was not patient enough to bide his time and address the true needs of his team.

by buzzdeadwax on Nov 12, 2008 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Were Peavy, Greinke, and Cain available at the time of the Tex trade? I know that Cain has had the “untouchable” lable on him for quite some time now.

And to call Tex an overpriced hitter is once again, retarded. Because slick fielding 1B with power and patience are in much more of an abundance than young pitching, right?

I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.

by Smoltz's Beard on Nov 12, 2008 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for calling me retarded

Usually my wife is the only one who does that, so having stranger do it is refreshing. But seriously, I think Frank Wren and the Braves said pretty clearly that Tex is overpriced, otherwise they would have signed him long-term, right?

Second, I understand that Peavy, Greinke, and Cain were not available at the time of the Tex trade. My point was that since no pitchers of this caliber were available, no trade should have been made. Furthermore, when you make this kind of trade, you don’t have as many players available when your true need becomes available. Are you going to argue that making a trade for Peavy, Cain, or Greinke would be more difficult if the players traded for Tex were still around?

This whole thing has been beaten into the ground; I just wanted to chime in with my recycled $.02. I didn’t realize my opinion (which is no more correct than yours, by the way) was going to touch a nerve. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

by buzzdeadwax on Nov 12, 2008 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wren may have said that Tex is overpriced in so many words (if he ever flat out called him that, I apologize that I havn’t seen it), but I simply took that as he just cannot fit into the Braves pricing plans. So yes, in that sense I understand your point. I guess my point was that in the broader sense of the term his value is right in line with where it should be. Does that make sense? I feel like I’m explaining it poorly. Retardedly, even.

My additional point was that seeing as how they (Peavy, Cain, Greinke) were not available at the time why would Wren not use those pieces in another trade? He felt that pitching was not as much of an issue as you seemed to believe it was. And according to the stats I posted it appears he was correct. It’s easy now to see how it would have been better to hold off considering all the injury trouble we had out on the mound last year.

Of course it would make things easier now to have those additional prospects in our system, but it’s impossible to say. For all we know they could have been used in the Kotsay trade instead of Devine. Maybe instead of Kotsay we would have gone after another outfielder all together, thus changing the outcome of our season in the process. Why are bushes bushy? Why are long pants long? If you want to play that game we could be here all week.

I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.

by Smoltz's Beard on Nov 12, 2008 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Everyone knows why bushes are bushy...

…to get to the other side. (huh?)

When the Tex trade happened, it seemed like a bad idea, but I was hopeful. Obviously, things didn’t turn out as we all hoped. My biggest problem with the trade was that it seemed a bit desparate – they needed starting pitching (IMO), but since none was available, they traded for a big bat and crossed their fingers. I guess it doesn’t matter at this point – what’s done is done, and the system seems to be in excellent shape. The new question is whether FW can add enough pieces to the 2009 team to make it competitive without hamstringing (is that a word?) the Farm and the Budget. We shall see.

by buzzdeadwax on Nov 12, 2008 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also...

Pre-All Star Break 2007
Atlanta OPS: .756 6th in NL
Atlanta ERA: 4.27 8th in NL

Post-All Star Break 2007
Atlanta OPS: .795 5th in NL
Atlanta ERA: 3.93 2nd in NL

Based on those numbers you could argue that the pitching problem fixed itself without the inclusion of a new pitched added at the trade deadline, while Tex’s addition certainly helped out the offense.

I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.

by Smoltz's Beard on Nov 12, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Offseason

I think what we end up doing is, aquiring peavy, trading Francoeur for Hochevar & aviles, Trading KJ for Ankiel, signing Juan Rivera, and signing, Ben Sheets or Lowe.

by mauck98 on Nov 11, 2008 4:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don’t see how Francoeur could net us Hochevar and Aviles.

by DMac142005 on Nov 11, 2008 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

offseason

actually it was supposed to say Francoeur and a Low level pitcher

by mauck98 on Nov 11, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

o that makes it better.. IM sure KC will trade thier best MI and one of their best Pitching prospects for a guy that had the fourth worst VORP rating in baseball and a low level prospect… I mean i like Francouer and think he still has potential but seriously.

if we are gonna make unrealistic trades cant we at least make them for high level players… like Evan Longoria or Ryan Braun

"We win today, that's two in a row... if we win tomorrow, that's called a winning streak. It has happened before..."

by Swo12bv on Nov 11, 2008 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What about

Francoeur for Justin Upton? Or B.J. Upton?

"Have you ever had your heart broken?"
"Yeah, when we lost the pennant in '87."

by jug on Nov 11, 2008 11:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

we have no interest in ben sheets.

Following the Braves...one long hard drink at a time.

by bigjoe on Nov 11, 2008 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ya i think someone affiliated with the organization said that… some dude named Wren or soemthing

"We win today, that's two in a row... if we win tomorrow, that's called a winning streak. It has happened before..."

by Swo12bv on Nov 11, 2008 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

anybody say we aren’t interested in C.C.?

"Have you ever had your heart broken?"
"Yeah, when we lost the pennant in '87."

by jug on Nov 11, 2008 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And we aren’t trading both Yunel and KJ in the same offseason.

by dwbrave on Nov 11, 2008 5:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i don't hate it

but i don’t love it

by son.of.sourman on Nov 11, 2008 8:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I really want to keep Yunel and Kelly. Someone said it earlier, we don’t have to always be in buy mode every year.

The Braves need a lot more than pitching and I don’t see how getting Peavy and whatever FA’s this year can make us a contender.

With our luck, we get Peavy, and he’ll have to have Tommy John surgery in his first year.

I don’t want to be a pessimist, but I think we are better with Kelly and Yunel.

by Sparhawk on Nov 11, 2008 9:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yunel

Is 1 of my favs, because he’s a fiery player that makes great plays and can hit the ball. He has a good understanding of the game, and is a solid player all-around. Is he Han-Ram or Reyes or Rollins? No, probably not and probably won’t be. I don’t like giving him up for a pitcher with question marks.

KJ, well, I like him but he is easily replaceable. I think Prado is an improvement in the field and could develop a bat to replace him. I just wonder if Yunel is replaceable, and if so, what cost? Lilibridge has yet to impress me, and Infante is pretty much a utility guy, not an every day solution.

Just my $0.02…Which doesn’t really mean anything.

"Have you ever had your heart broken?"
"Yeah, when we lost the pennant in '87."

by jug on Nov 11, 2008 11:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Most defensive metrics have KJ rated as a better second basemen than Prado, and I have to disagree that a left-hand hitting 2B OPSing in the .800 range (even if he doesn’t improve) is “easily replaceable”. There is a reason why so many teams covet the guy.

by get swoll yunel on Nov 12, 2008 12:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Outsider here, honest question.

No, I’m not trying to swing over some hypothetical trade scenario. But, will someone please explain to me the intelligence/logic behind trading Yunel in a Peavy trade? Along with other prospects. You guys have done more pondering over this trade than I want to do, ever, and I fail to see the logic. Or the caffeine is wearing off/I’m a moron/I overvalue cost-control/whatever. It would really be appreciated.

1. Escobar is a top 10 SS. Yes, Peavy is also a top 10 pitcher. But, Escobar is already one of the elites. You’re also adding prospects on top of Escobar.
2. Pitching is always a bigger risk than position players. There are very few teams that can get through the season having maintained their opening day rotation. Hell, even 4/5 of their opening day rotation making all their starts is rare. Guys get demoted, guys get hurt, etc. And, to boot, Jake Peavy has elbow problems.
3. Jake Peavy may add a total of 2 wins over Escobar per year(although they were pretty damn even this year). One can estimate the going rate for an added win over replacement level as about 5MM. So, if Peavy costs 10MM more than Escobar does per year, you’re paying fair market value for those added wins. If the delta is more than 10MM, you’re overpaying for Peavy’s services relative to Yunel. And, this is not including whoever else gets given up (which widens the delta).

I know the Braves need pitching, and that it would be nice to see the playoffs before Smoltz retires, but still. I might be overvaluing Yunel, since my team has had an incompetent SS for way too long now.

Beyond the realm of “Peavy is a top 5-10 pitcher and the Braves need pitching,” what would be the logic, since “pitching” can be obtained from other sources.

This.

by Blicks on Nov 12, 2008 12:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

You gave a pretty good summary of why I’m against the move if it means giving up Yunel (besides the moniker). Nice post.

by get swoll yunel on Nov 12, 2008 12:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nope.

I call BS on not one, not two, but all three of your points. Peavy (51.6 VORP) was TWICE as valuable as Escobar (25.6 VORP) in 2008, and that doesn’t even count his 6 VORP has a pitcher at the plate. Jake was 13th out of 140 pitchers with 100 IP (top 9th percentile) while Yunel was 13th among 71 SS (top 18th percentile). Peavy won’t cost more than $10M/year than Escobar in 2009 because Jake will earn $8M for that season; Yunel will hit arbitration with a vengeance in 2010 and beyond. Oh, and I’m pretty sure that Escobar has already missed more time due to injuries than Peavy has in his career… Isn’t actual research awesome?

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Nov 12, 2008 1:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Except Escobar also plays the field.

Peavy’s FIP was 3.60, average NL pitcher’s ERA was 4.54. He threw 173.7 IP, so that’s +18 PRAA based on ERA. Using his tRA would change that a bit, but I use FIP because it’s based on the ERA scale and because it removes the defense from the equation. BP has him at -2 BRAA, so we’ll give him a total contribution of +16 RAA or about 2 WAA.

Escobar was worth about 10 BRAA according to BP. Dewan has him at +21 plays which is 16 FRAA. That’s +26 RAA or about 3 WAA.

Factor in that Peavy had a down year for him and Escobar was not anywhere near this good with the glove next year and that gap probably will close and emerge with Peavy in the lead.

Reasonably next year, I’d have Escobar at about 15 BRAA and +10 FRAA and count on Peavy to produce post a 3.00 FIPand pitch 200 IP = ~35 PRAA. That’s a gap of 1-1.5 wins, or $5-7.5 million in value.

That’s approximately the difference in salary between the two next year ($8 M to $400 K), but the gap grows as Peavy enters what would’ve been his free agent seasons whereas we can expect the production to decline as Peavy ages and Escobar passes through his peak. The Padres will win big in 2010 as the salary difference will be over $14 million, it will be ~$12 million in 2011, ~$10 million in 2012, and ~$13 million in 2013. If the two players maintain their current preformance as they age, the Braves will at best break even in value twice while losing substantially in three seasons. And this completely ignores any value provided by other players in the deal – it’s not hard to imagine Reyes turning in a handful of pre-arb seasons of #4 starter quality in that spacious ballpark.

This deal is a loser for the Braves unless Escobar’s value is projected to drop precipitously. Peavy is not likely to be much better than he is already – he peaked at +46 PRAA in 2007 and has been worth -8, 28, 35, 29, 46, and 18 PRAA for his career. Expecting him to stay at a ~30-35 PRAA level throughout the contract wouldn’t be a bad guess, but remember that we acquired Hudson only a year older than Peavy and he’ll end up pitching for only 3.67 of the 5 seasons after we acquired him.

by 17843 on Nov 12, 2008 2:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think my head just exploded

I’m glad someone is crunching the numbers, but the problem is, if you’re not fluent in Statistic-ese, whose numbers do you trust?

by buzzdeadwax on Nov 12, 2008 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Look numbers up. FIP is posted on fangraphs.com and uses peripherals (GB rate, K rate, BB rate, etc.) to construct what a pitcher’s ERA should’ve been with the defense removed from the equation.

BRAA (batting runs above average) can be found from a number of sources – using EQA from baseballprospectus.com and wOBA from statcorner.com. It’s basically the number of runs above what an average hitter would produce.

I calculate FRAA using John Dewan’s +/- system using a scale to turn plays above/below average into runs.

I calculate PRAA using ERA or FIP/9 * IP to find runs allowed and League ERA/9 * IP to find the runs allowed by an average pitcher in the same number of innings.

A run above average is worth about 0.11 wins.

A marginal win (win above average) is worth something like $5 million or a bit more on the open market.

The stat dump was a result of being bored doing statistics homework at 2 AM. Should’ve explained better.

by 17843 on Nov 12, 2008 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I'll just ask your opinion

You seem pretty knowledgable. And besides, if I looked all that stuff up, I wouldn’t have time for Scrubs re-runs, old Bond movies, and video games. I’m very busy man.

by buzzdeadwax on Nov 12, 2008 5:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Haha, classic.

If you don’t mind me asking what video games are you into? I’m a huge video game nerd myself.

I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.

by Smoltz's Beard on Nov 12, 2008 9:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I play whatever Final Fantasy game interests me at the time and/or MVP Baseball 2005 or NCAA Football 2008 – whichever is in season. I play for escape from reality and to pass the time. I’m not a bona fide video game nerd.

by buzzdeadwax on Nov 13, 2008 11:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cool. Just curious. I havn’t played a FF game since X, as I went with the 360 instead of the PS3. Great game though.

I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.

by Smoltz's Beard on Nov 13, 2008 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

New systems are too expensive

I’m not allowed to spend hundreds of dollars on that kind of stuff – that’s my wife’s job. And I only buy used games (hence, MLB 2005…although I won’t buy a new baseball game until EA comes out with a new MLB game). I guess I can’t justify spending $ on games when it could be better spent on dog clothes or new plants for the yard (sigh).

by buzzdeadwax on Nov 13, 2008 7:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

mvp 05

Was that the last mvp baseball game(excluding the college games)… because the last mvp game was the greatest baseball game i think

by DMac142005 on Nov 13, 2008 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

MVP 05 was great

If EA had been allowed to make more MLB’s I’m sure they would have perfected the minor leagues and their draft. As it is, I just play during the real ML season, and adjust the Braves roster accordingly.

by buzzdeadwax on Nov 14, 2008 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My condolences. If it makes you feel any better the price of the XBox 360 has dropped to $199. Maybe you can trick your wife into getting it? I mean…dog clothes, really?

MVP 05 was an amazing baseball game. MLB2K7 and MLB2K8 were horrible by comparison.

I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.

by Smoltz's Beard on Nov 14, 2008 9:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks.

That’s a whole lot of info and I’ll readily admit that I have a ways to go before I can understand that sort of post without having to look things up. I’m firmly in the camp that believes we should offer three or four redundant prospects to the Pads for their ace (say, Flowers/Gorkys, Morton/Reyes, Locke/Rohrbough and a lesser prospect/player) and tell them to take it or leave it. They have to deal him more than we have to acquire him.

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Nov 12, 2008 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Definitely agree. Even Flowers, Gorkys, Locke, and Reyes wouldn’t be a terrible loss. Reyes might well be a #4 in San Diego, but he also might be a middle reliever if we keep him. Locke, Flowers, and Gorkys all have enough question marks to make them expendable. I just think trading an established stud is the height of stupidity.

All that’s relevant from my post is finding a player’s total value and seeing what they’d cost on the open market for similar talent. VORP is a step in the right direction, but doesn’t include fielding which is such a gigantic portion of Escobar’s value.

by 17843 on Nov 12, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Question for 17843

Nice post, tons of information here – though a large majority is over my head. Regardless, and i’m not 100% sure this is applicable, but why did you not include the possible replacement player in your equation? My point being, Peavy will obviously be bumping someone from the rotation if we trade for him just as Lilli will likely serve as our SS is we lose Yunel. The Braves may luck out and sign 2 very good FA pitchers, but I think a more realistic outcome is that we end up using a Parr or a Glavine in the 5 hole in the event the Peavy deal falls through.

Is it fair to compare the difference in projected performance between Peavy and Parr/Glavine, as well as the difference in Escobar and Lillibridge, when considering the value, or lack thereof, to the Braves over the next 5/6 years?

by scstrato on Nov 12, 2008 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just what it would cost to replace the wins on the open market. If we’re going to pay Peavy $10 million more every season for not much more production we’ll have less money available to fill holes and have to devote resources (prospects and players) to fill such holes. I was measuring their value as an asset – Peavy projects to be worth his salary of the next five years, Escobar projects to be worth tens of millions more than his salary. As an asset, Escobar + prospects is far more desirable to have than Peavy because he’ll produce much more revenue than he’s worth.

If we base it off what player they’ll replace, we’ll set Parr’s baseline at 5.50 ERA and 150 IP plus 50 IP from the bullpen at a 5.00 ERA. Peavy projects to be ~50 runs better than him. Projections out for Lillibridge so far have him as barely above replacement level offensively (ZiPS has him at a .231 EqA). That sets him as ~20 runs below average (-20 BRAA). If his defense is equal to Escobar’s his total value will be -10 RAA or 35 runs inferior to Escobar. That expands the gap between the two to around 1.75 wins or ~$9 million.

Using replacement level the Braves would break even this year and lose value in every season thereafter unless Lillibridge takes a big step forward before he enters arbitration.

Rough math says Lillibridge has to turn into roughly an average ML hitter and sustain equal defense to Escobar over the length of the deal to win it for the Braves.

All of this is ignoring anything else the Padres get which will be cost-controlled talent. This is a trade to make if an ace starter will push you over the top, but not when you’re still a lot of pieces away from contending.

by 17843 on Nov 12, 2008 7:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Love it.

It’s like I’m in math class all over again, except I’m not falling asleep this time. Thanks, 17843.

I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.

by Smoltz's Beard on Nov 12, 2008 9:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Imagine kids learning math through baseball statistical equasions. By the time all these kids hit 30, they won’t know how to pay their mortgage, but they’ll know how to financially prepare for a 15-year amortized adjustable rate mortgage with the potential for fluctuating interest, banks merging/bailed out, and loans switching hands between institutions.

But I concur with the mass-schooling of the numbers here, I’m more interested than bored.

No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.

by royhobbs on Nov 13, 2008 8:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just for clarity

I’m pretty sure Peavy makes $11 million in 2009 due to the fact that he won the Cy Young.

by get swoll yunel on Nov 12, 2008 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Correct.

I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.

by Smoltz's Beard on Nov 12, 2008 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oh it’s all about the research man. numbers and numbers and numbers

by ATLBravesYouthMovement on Nov 12, 2008 2:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

New Rumor Form Rosenthal

No kidding: The Padres want Flowers instead of Gorkys.
“The Padres again have asked the Braves to revise their proposal for right-hander Jake Peavy, requesting that the team substitute Single-A catcher Tyler Flowers for Single-A center fielder Gorkys Hernandez, according to major-league sources”

The full article is here.

by secondbass on Nov 12, 2008 5:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Really

If that’s the case then I say pull Escobar off the table and move on. Trade Kelly for a LF bat and pursue two frontline SP FA. The Braves clearly have a better package than anything the Cubs can put together and the Padres are being rediculous.

by JFP on Nov 12, 2008 8:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs