Braves Quote For The Day ... The GM Style Of Frank Wren
From Atlanta Braves General Manager Frank Wren on the eve of the GM meetings:
Wren reiterated that the Braves are reluctant to trade young pitchers or top prospects, regardless of position.
"We're hesitant to trade from our base, which we think is getting stronger all the time," he said. "That's what is going to sustain us for a long time, and we need to be mindful of that."
This may be where Wren begins to distinguish himself from Jon Schuerholz as a General Manager. Schuerholz did not hesitate to trade away top prospects. In the span of a year he dealt away his three top pitching prospects in Jose Capellan, Dan Meyer, and Adam Wainwright. Schuerholz unloaded the entire top prospect list on the Rangers for Mark Teixeira, and easily parted with top prospects like Andy Marte, even though on many occasions those prospects never amounted to much.
Wren has been much less cavalier with the Braves farm system, using only second and third-tier prospects in trades, while actually targeting other teams' prospects when making trades (Jair Jurrjens, Gorkys Hernandez, Arodys Vizcaino, Tim Collins), something Jon Schuerholz rarely, if ever, did with any success. The most notable prospect Wren has traded to date is likely Tyler Flowers, but acquiring Arodys Vizcaino a year later for the same guy that Flowers was traded for greatly eases that hit to the farm system.
While I like holding on to our top prospects, I'm also worried that we're possibly passing up the opportunity to get an impact player that could be the difference in another pennant run or in the playoffs. Schuerholz' style seemed to be postseason as all costs, while Wren seems to prefer being a bit more crafty and less obvious with the machinations of his roster construction. Schu's style can't be discounted because it continually produced playoff teams. Wren's style seems to be more the long con, rather than a quick fix. Waiting around for prospects to develop year after year can cause some windows of opportunity to close, but if the stars do align they would likely do so with much more success than the quick fix rosters of the last few years of the Schuerholtz regime. Or at least we hope they will...
52 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Another key difference..
between Schu and Wren is the owner. Ted Turner was more interested in putting together a team to win a World Series at all costs, kinda like the yankees do now. Wren, being much more limited in terms of payroll, has no choice but to be more crafty and build from a strong farm system.
If all goes well, we should be looking to be darkhorse contenders starting this year, and series contenders by 2013.
What?
If all goes well, we should be looking to be darkhorse contenders starting this year, and series contenders by 2013.
We just played the World Series champions closer than any other team did in the playoffs, and we did it without our 2010 offensive MVP, future hall of famer, #4 and #5 starters, 2nd best lefty out of the pen AND our closer for the final two games.
I’m pretty sure we’ll be World Series contenders in 2011. And not just a darkhorse; one of the favorites.
'Terrible preview...pretty weak, didn't learn anything new. pretty sad." - mastermike
by Scott Coleman on Nov 14, 2010 11:13 PM EST up reply actions
I meant that we have a lot of question marks.
How will Freddie do his rookie season?
Will Chipper return? If he does, what impact will he have?
Will Alex Gonzalez regress?
Who is going to be in LF and CF.
How will Kimbrel and Venters do as closers?
Will Derek Lowe be the pitcher of September, or the pitcher of June-August?
Will Jurrjens be healthy all year?
How will Minor and Beach fair in what will be their first full season?
How will the team function with the new coaching staff.
I was just pointing that we have to have lot things go right for us to be consider anything more than a darkhorse contender. Of course, as a fan, I sure hope everything goes right and we win a 120 games and sweep our way to a World Series Championship.
Oh I see...
but just about every team has questions similar to this.
I honestly think our biggest question mark is Chipper and 3rd base. I don’t know why, but I’m reallllly pessimistic about 3rd in 2011. And when he inevitably gets hurt, I doubt our combo of Prado and Infante will be able to carry the load once again.
I love Chipper, but I secretly wish he’ll call it quits this off-season to retire with Bobby.
'Terrible preview...pretty weak, didn't learn anything new. pretty sad." - mastermike
by Scott Coleman on Nov 15, 2010 2:14 AM EST up reply actions
I’m kinda in the same boat. I like that he had started to get it going when he got hurt. I would like to see us get some kind of young bat for 3rd base. Someone like a Kouzmanoff, maybe Alex Gordon, Mat Gamel, Jorge Cantu, Ty Wiggington.
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to have him back, but I don’t want to see him struggle his way to the end, like Griffey did.
We have plenty of question marks, but...
…not particularly more than last year. And we made the playoffs last year. That made us legitimate World Series contenders. The playoffs are enough of a crap shoot that making them makes you a serious contender—-it is not like anybody was picking the Giants to win it all at the start of the playoffs.
by cavebird on Nov 15, 2010 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The playoffs are a crap shoot. I’ll give you that. What I mean by ‘legit contenders’ are teams that you know have a good shot at making the playoffs. The Yankees, Rays, Twins, Rangers, Phillies. I consider darkhorse contenders to be teams like Red Sox (may move up depending on the offseason) Angels, Braves, Cardinals, Rockies and Giants.
The argument is more semantics than anything. All teams need things to go right in order to do well.
Rock and hard place
We really can’t expect to have our cake, and then eat it too. I don’t think Wren will deal Teheran, delgado, venters, Kimbrel, or Freeman. However, I can see a deal for Viz, JJ, and either minor/Beachy. When you deal from a strength you don’t want to give away your elite guys, but bc we are so deep in SP prospects, we have guys in our system who, in other systems, make their top 5 prospects but still fail to even be in our top 10. If we had a deal in place with Viz, betancourt, and Hoover we could get a pretty good bat, and our depth is still very deep, however we’d lose our one true catching prospect. Just throwing out names though.
by murph35 on Nov 14, 2010 10:49 PM EST via mobile reply actions
It's not fair at all to compare Frank Wren and John Schuerholz.
'Terrible preview...pretty weak, didn't learn anything new. pretty sad." - mastermike
Why not?
Isn’t it relevant to compare their contrasting styles?
I have an inferiority complex, but it's not a very good one.
The difference in payroll...
must be a part of any comparison between them imo. Plus, Wren has Schuerholz above him, Schuerholz didn’t have a veteran GM around to turn to (although he had plenty of good baseball people like Moore, etc).
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Nov 15, 2010 11:44 AM EST up reply actions
JS was the vet
had been GM in KC for about 10 years before he took the Braves job…
Schuerholz had a higher payroll AND players made less back in the 90s
Wren has a lower payroll in an era with ridiculous contracts.
Not fair at all.
'Terrible preview...pretty weak, didn't learn anything new. pretty sad." - mastermike
by Scott Coleman on Nov 15, 2010 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
When our pitching staff was decimated, Wren brought in Lowe, Vazquez and Kawakami, $34M/year worth of pitchers. When we needed a 1st base, he surprised us all by bringing in Glaus. Mid-season trades for McLouth, LaRoche and Alex Gonzalez. When Chipper went down for the season, he brought in Derrek Lee, a 1st baseman. Wren looks at the big picture, thinks outside the box and makes a bold move. Not all of his moves have worked out perfectly, but who knew McLouth would fizzle and Kawakami would implode. He says we need a RH OF power bat. There is no doubt in my mind he will get us one. How he goes about it is a mystery, it always is. But in the end, he makes a trade or signs a player to fill the glaring need.
Write your own recap!.....mvhsbball
LOL...nice signature.
'Terrible preview...pretty weak, didn't learn anything new. pretty sad." - mastermike
by Scott Coleman on Nov 14, 2010 11:24 PM EST up reply actions
ESPN and MLBTR are always ripe for signature worthy material.
'Terrible preview...pretty weak, didn't learn anything new. pretty sad." - mastermike
by Scott Coleman on Nov 14, 2010 11:28 PM EST up reply actions
Did you see my reply to your post about MLBTR comments?
“both GM’s will think the other is crazy”
I thought that was classic.
Write your own recap!.....mvhsbball
lol
it was.
I just laugh/soil my pants at the thought of 3 years of Gonzalez and Bell = 22-25 years of JT, CK, FF and RD.
'Terrible preview...pretty weak, didn't learn anything new. pretty sad." - mastermike
by Scott Coleman on Nov 14, 2010 11:41 PM EST up reply actions
JS, for most of his run, was GMing a team that was regularly among the top 3 in payroll. The Braves were, essentially, a big market team that could afford to deal away top prospects because they’d always have the option to find a big FA to fill a need down the line. By 2004, the payroll started to drop (relative to the big market teams) and he started making big deals (Drew, Shef, Tex) to try to extend the Braves playoff streak.
By the time Wren took over, the Braves were firmly a mid-market team with no playoff streak to continue. It only makes sense that he’d start to focus more on building from within and become more cautious about dealing away prospects.
"They should just give two ROYs in the NL and skip the AL this year." - KLaw
Agreed.
I think that’s the best approach for a mid-market team. Establish a strong foundation, and you can reload rather than rebuild, and still go after the occasional big name, while living within your budget constraints.
I have an inferiority complex, but it's not a very good one.
My thought is
that you need to be willing to part with them if it makes your ballclub postseason-worthy. If I can get another Teixera and I have a hole in my lineup like we did when Chipper went down late, then I go get him. Doing anything less shows youre not committed to winning it all in that year.
As long as you don’t fire the people making draft decisions I think you end up being just fine in the farm system.
I agree with this.
We won the division 14 straight times, no other team in any sport has done that. Out of all those top prospects we dealt, only Wainwright and Andrus are really missable* (unless I’m forgetting someone).
*I left out Feliz because he wasn’t a top prospect at the time. R. Lopez was a bigger prospect in the Lee deal.
"Check out this bitchin' homemade tesla coil!"
by bwellnjonesco on Nov 15, 2010 8:44 AM EST up reply actions
I think Wren knows that:
1. To win championships you need at least a few elite players and a good supporting cast.
2. Mid market teams like the Braves, without a huge measure of luck, cannot buy elite players at a cost that would still allow them to surround them with a good enough supporting cast.
3. To win championships as a mid market you need homegrown players like Heyward, Hanson, Teheran, Freeman, Prado, McCann, etc to be your team while making low level trades and efficient FA pickups to support your stars in a championship run.
Jason Heyward wins at baseball.
by bbxxj on Nov 15, 2010 9:24 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
BJ Upton
is my target. Speed, some power, good defensive OF’er with a good arm, right handed bat. Not to mention, it won’t take us trading away A prospects to get him.
Only downside(s) – possible attitude problem and lack of OBP coming from a leadoff-type hitter.
Eddie V
actually
The Rays would require Delgado to move Upton.
by apoxonbothyourhouses on Nov 15, 2010 10:26 AM EST up reply actions
Is that the asking price?
So much for not costing a lot.
Eddie V
by DolphinNation on Nov 15, 2010 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
I'm not so sure...
All reports seem to suggest that the Rays are intent on cutting costs, and for various reasons this guy seems to be high on their list. The ultimate price will depend (of course) on the overall demand, but I think I would personally be willing to discuss it.
Bobby Cox, advising Jeff Francoeur about being thrown out of a game: "you’ll probably have to write a $500 check. Or you can do what I do, write a $10,000 one and tell them when it runs out, let me know."
Just a thought
I remember reading a quote from JS that the reason he was more likely to trade a prospect is that the future is never guaranteed. (I can’t remember the exact quote) An example of this is the Hudson trade. Seriously, does anybody know where those prospects are now? Granted we’ve been burned by prospects turning into stars but banking on every one of your prospects panning out is a dangerous strategy, though to be fair, one that worked in the early nineties for Atlanta
"What happened yesterday is history. What happens tomorrow is a mystery. What we do today makes a difference - the precious present moment."- Nick Saban
Dan Meyer, Charles Thomas, Juan Cruz...
Meyer has thrown 113.2 major league innings for the Athletics and the Marlins, only seven starts total, all with Oakland. 5.46 ERA with an ERA+ of 79. He’s still got one pre-arbitration season left.
Thomas played 30 games for the Athletics, posting a .363 OPS (that’s right, OPS…batting average was .109). Demoted, eventually traded to Brewers, out of baseball after the 2007 season.
Juan Cruz pitched one year for the A’s, throwing in 28 games, finishing 14. 32.2 innings pitched, 7.44 ERA, ERA+ of 59. He was traded for Brad Halsey, who flamed out the following season…played some AAA ball and most recently pitched in the Independent League. Cruz has since been better, having a 4.15 career ERA w/ an ERA+ of 107. He averages about 9K and 5BB per nine, but he’s also pretty hittable at 7.9 H/9. I believe he’s a free agent, coming off very little use last season in KC.
Yikes.
-C
It’s rough to sit through these games and not have someone that can’t hit a Ball?
by cthabeerman on Nov 15, 2010 12:03 PM EST up reply actions
I think it's a testament to our front office that out of decades of deals...
and several involving us shipping out prospects for vets, that there are just 2 people can complain about. 20/20 hindsight makes moving Wainwright, Andrus, and Feliz hurt pretty bad, but there’s dozens of others that make losing those 3 seem pretty insignificant. Meyer, Thomas, Cruz, Nieves, Marte, and on and on and on.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Nov 15, 2010 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
Braves never get burned
only Wainwright and Andrus are really missable
I’d disagree slightly about Feliz not being a key component of that deal, but the point is made. In 20 years the Braves have never gotten burned, and I am always amazed at how rarely they give up prospects that pan out. As for the difference between JS and FW, I’d say it relates more to the pressure on the franchise to continue/restart the streak that resulted in the Drew/Tex trades. Viewed w/o context, those don’t look good now – I’m sure they’d love to have Wainwright, Andrus, and Feliz now – but the trades were understandable at the time, if pretty aggravating. Now that pressure is gone, relieved by missing the playoffs for awhile. Cox’s retirement should mean that sensible decisions continue (e.g., no rentals of players like Drew).
Go back to McGriff, Neagle, Hudson….are there any examples other than those listed here where the Braves have given up a prospect that panned out?
Neagle
gave up Schmidt to get him. And we could of used Schmidt in the Kyle Davis years.
by apoxonbothyourhouses on Nov 15, 2010 10:26 AM EST up reply actions
Sure, but
Schmidt never made it with the Pirates…he was only OK, and became Cy Young-worthy after signing as FA w/ SF.
by petefalcone on Nov 15, 2010 10:54 AM EST up reply actions
This
By the time he was good, he was no longer cheap.
Don't kiss an ass if it's in the process of shitting on you.
"…aren’t worthy enough to hold his (Pujols) ass cheeks apart while Playboy models wipe him with thousand dollar bills after he craps out the cure to whatever previously-incurable disease." by royhobbs 1/7/09
by buzzdeadwax on Nov 15, 2010 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
“in 20 years the Braves have never gotten burned”.
Really? I guess that depends on what you mean when you say “never” and “burned”. I suppose if you mean “so lopsided that the Braves were destroyed by the deal” like the infamous Len Barker trade, then you have a point. But personally, I would hardly brag about the Wainwright and Texieira deals. In fact, I think Schuerholz’s legacy was tarnished by the Texeira deal as the Braves gave up an awful lot for nothing. And not having those prospects around prevented them from being potentially able to be used in deals to fix other holes that came up in the future
Teixeira
Put up a 6.2 WAR in his 157 games for the Braves. It’s not like he didn’t hold up his end of the bargain, especially when you consider that he had a 1.000+ OPS with us to finish the 2007 season. His 2008 OPS with the Braves was also above .900, so it’s not like he didn’t do his job.
The deal itself worked out pretty well for both teams. The mistake was our inability to resign him, forcing the second trade. One could say the second trade was also a mistake, and I’d have a hard time disagreeing with that notion. Draft pick compensation would have likely been better than Kotchman and Marek, but who knows whom we would have drafted.
-C
It’s rough to sit through these games and not have someone that can’t hit a Ball?
Slight disagreement...
I agree with you completely on the first paragraph.
It’s the following I consider incorrect…
The deal itself worked out pretty well for both teams.
If the purpose of the deal was to simply get better production at 1B, I’d agree. But I don’t think that was the purpose of the deal. The Braves were hoping to make the playoffs, if not a World Series with Tex, and therefore I disagree that it worked out well from our end. I guess it depends on what you consider the reason for the trade, to simply get better at 1B or to help the team into the post season.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
In your scenario, I assume the end goal (make the 2007 playoffs) is the same, regardless of whether the trade occurs or not. It’s the same goal before and after the trade. It would be stupid to pretend that the Braves did not have playoffs as a goal prior to the trade and that this trade alone could magically change the goal of the team’s season.
The end goal of any season for any team is to make the playoffs, first and foremost. You have the NLCS, the WS, etc., but those are merely extensions of the original goal.
Were the players we traded going to play that season in order to help the team make the postseason?? Then how would not making the deal help our chances at the same goal??
How many other players could the Braves have traded for that would have provided 2.3 WAR in 54 games at the first base position?? How about at another position, preferably one of need??
If our end goal was to make the playoffs in 2007, we got maximum contribution out of this trade. The goal of the trade is not to make the playoffs, but to provide the best odds for the team to succeed in making that goal.
The fact that the rest of the team shit the bed has no bearing upon the results of the trade itself. That’s why the deal itself worked out.
Also, saying the goal of the trade was to make the playoffs is far too simplistic and short-sighted. That was obviously the team’s goal prior to the trade, and therefore cannot be the goal of the trade itself.
Let me spell it out. Here’s your scenario.
Pre-trade goal: make the playoffs.
Goal of trade: to make playoffs. Trade occurs.
Post-trade goal: make the playoffs.
Where is the “how” and “why” of this trade scenario?? How does this trade goal help the team make the playoffs?? Why does this trade occur?? These questions are left unanswered if you assume that the goal of the trade is simply to make the playoffs.
The answer to those questions is it gave the Braves the best opportunity to improve its chances of making the playoffs. THAT is the purpose, the goal, of the trade.
Here’s my scenario
Pre-trade goal: To make playoffs
Trade goal: To maximize opportunity to make playoffs. Trade occurs.
Post-trade goal: To make playoffs.
This line of thought is actually logical and complete. You trade not because you want to make the playoffs (they do, in either scenario…that never changes), but to maximize the opportunity of your team to succeed in its goal of making the playoffs. THAT is the goal of the trade.
-C
It’s rough to sit through these games and not have someone that can’t hit a Ball?
Back to the original subject of "the deal worked out well for both teams"...
if the goal was getting better at 1B in the short term, mission accomplished. But if the goal was to improve the franchise as a whole, and increase our overall chances of winning championships, then big fail because we gave up multiple talents on the cheap for ultimately failing to accomplish the goals. Goals that, at the time, our pitching staff wasn’t going to be able to help fulfill in the first place.
IMO, the realistic option wasn’t to buy, and especially not to buy big, but to sell and retool for the future that currently looks so bright.
As said below, it’d be like saying the Royals dealt 5 of their top 10 prospects for Cliff Lee and Franklin Gutierrez in July. Yeah, both make them better, and give them a better chance at making the post season. Both would be significant upgrades over what the Royals have. But neither changes the fact that with or without them, the Royals aren’t making the playoffs, and should focus on stockpiling young talent to get there in future years.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
To put it simply...
The Braves hoped to make the playoffs, if not a World Series, with or without Tex.
They traded for Tex because it gave them the best opportunity to succeed in their goal, not just to simply make the playoffs, as you suggest.
We both agree that Tex did all that was expected and more in his time at Atlanta, so it’s pretty easy to conclude that he maximized that opportunity, which was the goal of the trade.
-C
It’s rough to sit through these games and not have someone that can’t hit a Ball?
We can agree there, but again...
the Braves saw that having Thorman and Craig Wilson at 1B was an impediment to that goal of the playoffs. Trading for Tex, especially the package we gave for him, to me was a move to eliminate that impediment and to give the team what it needed to make the playoffs.
I don’t disagree that the goal was always to make the post season, but feel that Tex was brought in specifically to help accomplish that goal, and in that respect of ACCOMPLISHING the goals, he failed.
This also goes on to the general idea of good trade/bad trade with that move, that you and I haven’t discussed, but has been discussed ad nauseum here. To cut it short, my thoughts are (and will always be), that for the price we gave up for Tex, you only pay that premium to put you over the top. And on that team (and the following year), there were too many holes for Tex alone to fill. In my mind it’d be like say last year’s Royals sending Hosmer, Montgomery, and Mousakas for Cliff Lee. Yeah, Lee makes their rotation instantly better, but even if he throws 20 consecutive complete game shutouts, he’s not going to change the end result and ultimately not be worth the price paid to acquire him.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
Not the same.
The Braves were only 3 1/2 games out with two months to go. The Royals are a bad comparison because they haven’t been that close to the lead that late in the season since…well, as long as I can remember.
It’s not like the Braves were struggling that season…the only position player that had a sub-par season at the plate was Andruw Jones, and he was five years removed from a sub .800 OPS.
McCann and Jones were the only two players on the team that ended with a below-league-average OBP, Chipper was slugging the hell out of the ball, Diaz had a career year, even Francoeur posted a .338 OBP. Renteria was doing well, Escobar was filling in admirably, and Kelly Johnson was very good offensively at the 2B position. The only real hole the offense had was at 1B, and Teixeira filled that hole remarkably well.
Yes, the pitching was a mess that year, but the Braves were still definitely in contention prior to the Teixeira trade.
-C
It’s rough to sit through these games and not have someone that can’t hit a Ball?
Just FYI, the Royals were only one game out of first on September 3, 2003.
The birth of Jason Heyward was God’s punishment for the sins of the people in New York and Philly.
by TonyAlmeyda on Nov 16, 2010 12:10 AM EST up reply actions
I was really just thinking back through the JS era, but thanks for the reminder on the Barker deal. I definitely agree that the Drew and Tex deals were bad. Drew was bad at the time, because it was an obvious desperation reach for a 1-yr bat that was never going to be enough to get anywhere in the postseason, even though Drew had a solid year. I thought the Tex deal was okay at the time – a star bat and glove for 1.5 yrs – though it also seemed like a desperate move, but in hindsight it was bad.
But my point was that, while those deals were bad and I didn’t like them much, I understood why they were made – due to pressure on the organization to try and stay on top. I think they went into those deals with eyes wide open about what they were giving up and what they were getting. The only real disappointment to me, aside from personally wishing the deals had never been done, was that we didn’t get anything back for Tex.

by 

























