Braves Quote For The Day ... No To Sheffield, Drew, And Tex, But Yes To Uggla

And then we’ll all be blaming the move to Atlanta to be the downfall of the Braves.

I’m very curious to why many people were down on Frank Wren, when he was anointed GM of the Braves; I theorize that a lot has to do with the pre-conceived notion that he was the one who ruined the Baltimore Orioles, and this reputation has stuck with him. Some were hoping for a stat-geek like Theo Epstein or a revolutionary like Billy Beane, which is a valid reason to be down on the decision to go with Wren. To be perfectly honest, I wasn’t aware that so many people were even this savvy about GMs in general to have a formulated opinion on Wren upon his arrival, or just how many people saw others bash Wren, and pile on?

I don’t blame Wren for Baltimore, because living in Virginia during the pre-Nationals days, I got a good wind of just how much Peter Angelos meddled and likely was more to blame for the mis-management of the O’s than Wren could be.

Since he’s been the Braves GM, I’ve been fairly content as a whole; his coup of Detroit, getting Jurrjens and Infante, which has already panned into Uggla, I personally like, and I’m not sure for what, but I’m hoping when Jurrjens is traded, it will be for something quality. The Braves had one injury-decimated year, one near-miss playoff season, and one playoff season; sure, he’s not the one pitching and batting, but there have been worse GMs to over-meddle, and over-manage their way into tanking teams in the past, I’m guessing, than Frank Wren.

but come on. Wren has obviously done a very good job. We made the playoffs last year and look like we’ll be contenders for years to come. What more do you want with our budget constraints? Nobody’s perfect—not even Wren’s predecessor.

we’re all just using our “gut feelings” and different interpretations of the available evidence.

Saying this deal isn’t as bad as the Ryan Howard extension, however, is like saying some movie wasn’t as bad as Battlefield Earth. True, but kind of pointless, because what isn’t?

if there were signs of decline already, this would be a terrible deal instead of just a worrisome one.

Here’s his career page…You’ll note he was a good 2nd baseman initially, trailed off to average as he got into his 30’s, and wasn’t really a liability until he turned 37. Kent’s 31-37 seasons were above average defensively when added up, and he still had an average wOBA over that span better than Uggla’s best ever season. It’s not really a good comp.

depends on if the CBA changes between now and then. Quite a few think those picks will be out in the next bargaining agreement.

Here is a great one (long though). Here is another fantastic one. You’ll note that players in general start to decline at the 29-30 age range, and their collective performances tend to drop dramatically at that point. There are exceptions, but generally speed and defense type players tend to make up the majority of those. There is actually tons of evidence to suggest that Uggla will decline dramatically by the end of this deal, and almost nothing to suggest he won’t.

first off, use the reply button, it makes it easier to know who and what you are talking about.

Second, having tons of muscle and looking natural are not things that make sense in determining how his skills will deteriorate.

any time you are predicting, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty, bc past instances are only slightly predictive of future instances. That said I’ll side with statistics and understand we are taking about the most probably outcome, not a guarantee. Uggla has a high strikeout rate, poor contact skills, and a good walk rate. As his physical skills diminish his bat will slow down, and subsequently his power will diminish. When the power diminishes pitcher’s will not be as scared to throw strikes to him, and his walk rate will fall. Uggla has two very good skills offensively, power and the ability to take a walk. Once his bat slows both those things will go away and we will be left with a guy with middling power and a low avg, and a guy who isnt great defensively. Now these things are not really debatable they are certain outcomes, its just a matter of when this will happen. I tend to think it will start at about 32-34, but ultimately we will have to wait and see.

1) Jeff Kent played in the only era in baseball where above average players were constantly able to play beyond 35 or 36. Not saying he was juicing necessarily, but that it is a possibility and it is at best rash, and at worst stupid, to assume that Uggla will stay that productive for that long.

2) Everybody needs to stop assuming this mythical fielding improvement. Let’s wait and see if it actually happens, since all available evidence suggests he’s awful and even the guy that invented UZR has said the magic splits don’t actually amount to much.

3) The contract has, and will be, debated ad nauseum for its length, not its dollar value, for the reasons I already discussed in point 1.

4) Everybody knows what his numbers look like, but saying Uggla is a second baseman is kind of like saying Jim Thome is a centerfielder. Technically you can stick him out there, but the reality of the situation is that there is no way on earth he should be fielding there. He needs to be in left, period. And the decline everyone fears is not entirely unprecedented. Again, in the post-steroid age, you’re going to see the overwhelming majority of guys be done at age 35-36, just like through the rest of baseball history until the late 80s to early 00s. However, saying someone will be done at 35 doesn’t mean he’ll flip a switch and go from his prime years numbers to below the Mendoza line overnight. You’ll be seeing guys begin their declines as early as 32, the best ones slowly ticking down and calling it quits, but the harder-hit ones declining in a year or two and maybe not even making it to 35. When the decline begins and how long it takes to completely play out is virtually impossible to predict, so you don’t really have any space to be calling people “dangerously insane” for pointing out the guy we just signed may turn into a pumpkin well before that fifth year is over. We all hope that he doesn’t, but if he begins an early decline, it’s going to be more than just that last year that we’re left holding the bag for. That’s why everyone who keeps telling us we can punt the fifth year and be OK is sorely lacking in logic. The unpredictability of his end point is the driving force behind this entire debate. If he holds up for the next three years, we’re probably golden, but if he starts heading down the hill during that time, the back half of that contract may get ugly.