Grade the Gausman Deal

[99ct]

1 hour ago, Ruzious said:

I'm a Braves fan, and I've been following their minor leagues very closely for years, so I'm not talking out of my ass.

These are starting pitching prospects that were ahead of Wilson at the time of the trade:

Touki Toussaint

Kolby Allard

Mike Soroka

Ian Anderson

Kyle Wright

Luis Gohara

Joey Wentz

Max Fried - maybe not technically a rookie, but he's played most of the season in the minors, and they are still very high on him.  

That's 8 young guys that were not in the Braves rotation rated ahead of Wilson, and some would have put Kyle Muller up there with Wilson.  And if they had signed their high 1st rounder - Carter Stewart - he likely would have been rated up there, as well.  Instead, they get the 9th pick in next year's draft.  The Braves have the best group of young pitchers that any organization in baseball has - maybe the best they've ever had - and they once had Glavine, Smoltz, and Avery.  

If anyone says they expected Wilson to pitch in the majors this early, they're lying.  The Braves were and are in a pennant race, and Gausman was a huge get for them for which they gave up basically nothing of value to them.  And they have him for 2 more years - so this was no rental move for them like a lot of the trades before the deadline were.  And that's a major reason why the trade package should have been much bigger than it was, imo.          

With all due respect, I am having a hard time believing that Wilson jumped ahead of 8 other prospects in a matter of 3 weeks. This is especially true in view of his minor league started of August 4 and 9, where he combined for 10 ER in 12 IP. He subsequently had one great start in the minors, and then got called up. More likely, the Braves were high on him all along. 

[Frobby]

Actually, the Bud Norris trade is a pretty good comp for the Gausman trade.   Norris had 2+ years of control remaining, same as Gausman.   He had a 4.33 career ERA (91 ERA+) in 689.2 IP.   He was having a good year at the time of the trade, 3.87 ERA, 103 ERA+.    He also was already under contract through 2015, at $3 mm (1/3 paid by the Orioles), $5.3 mm and $8.8 mm.   Gausman had a 4.22 ERA (100 ERA+) in 763.2 career innings, and this year was at 4.43 (95).   He is being paid $5.6 mm this year ($1.9 mm by Atlanta), and we can assume he’ll be significantly more expensive than Norris over the next two years.

Norris netted LJ Hoes (one of our top 5 prospects, fully baked, but not a top 100 guy by any means), Josh Hader (having a very good season at Delmarva at 19, probably considered a top 10 guy in our system but not top 5 at that point), and a 1st round supplemental pick that turned out to be the no. 37 pick.   

So, putting aside the hindsight on Hader, how good was that package compared to what the O’s got for Gausman?    I’d say they’re very similar, not knowing how Encarnacion etc. will turn out.   Gausman is probably considered to be a bit better than Norris, and I’d say the package we got was a bit better, too (again, setting aside how Hader has turned out and just considering what he was at the time).    

[Ruzious]

17 minutes ago, 99ct said:

With all due respect, I am having a hard time believing that Wilson jumped ahead of 8 other prospects in a matter of 3 weeks. This is especially true in view of his minor league started of August 4 and 9, where he combined for 10 ER in 12 IP. He subsequently had one great start in the minors, and then got called up. More likely, the Braves were high on him all along. 

I didn't say he jumped ahead of 8 prospects.  I said he was behind 8 prospects at the time of the trade.    

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Actually, the Bud Norris trade is a pretty good comp for the Gausman trade.   Norris had 2+ years of control remaining, same as Gausman.   He had a 4.33 career ERA (91 ERA+) in 689.2 IP.   He was having a good year at the time of the trade, 3.87 ERA, 103 ERA+.    He also was already under contract through 2015, at $3 mm (1/3 paid by the Orioles), $5.3 mm and $8.8 mm.   Gausman had a 4.22 ERA (100 ERA+) in 763.2 career innings, and this year was at 4.43 (95).   He is being paid $5.6 mm this year ($1.9 mm by Atlanta), and we can assume he’ll be significantly more expensive than Norris over the next two years.

Norris netted LJ Hoes (one of our top 5 prospects, fully baked, but not a top 100 guy by any means), Josh Hader (having a very good season at Delmarva at 19, probably considered a top 10 guy in our system but not top 5 at that point), and a 1st round supplemental pick that turned out to be the no. 37 pick.   

So, putting aside the hindsight on Hader, how good was that package compared to what the O’s got for Gausman?    I’d say they’re very similar, not knowing how Encarnacion etc. will turn out.   Gausman is probably considered to be a bit better than Norris, and I’d say the package we got was a bit better, too (again, setting aside how Hader has turned out and just considering what he was at the time).    

Gausman 10.5 rWAR  Norris 4.3 rWAR

Gausman  10.8 fWAR  Norris 7.8 fWAR

Gausman is 27 Norris was 28.

I'd say the talent gap is a bit more pronounced than you think it is.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Gausman 10.5 rWAR  Norris 4.3 rWAR

Gausman  10.8 fWAR  Norris 7.8 fWAR

Gausman is 27 Norris was 28.

I'd say the talent gap is a bit more pronounced than you think it is.

I’d say the fWAR ratio is pretty close to my subjective opinion of the relative merits of the two pitchers at the time.    rWAR, not so much.   

[99ct]

1 hour ago, Ruzious said:

I didn't say he jumped ahead of 8 prospects.  I said he was behind 8 prospects at the time of the trade.    

Yeah, fair enough, but how do you reconcile that with the fact that he just got an MLB start, despite being younger than most (or all?) of the dudes on your list? To me, his promotion is evidence that he was not, in fact, the 8th man down, as you believe.  

[Can_of_corn]

25 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’d say the fWAR ratio is pretty close to my subjective opinion of the relative merits of the two pitchers at the time.    rWAR, not so much.   

At the time I figured Norris for a two pitch guy that was better suited for the pen so I'll go with the BBR total.  In either case Gausman was both younger and more accomplished.

[wildcard]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Why refurbish your bathroom before you put your house on the market?

Because you think the money you are spending will be recouped with the sale.

The new buyer (if there is one) would probably want his own scouting system.  I doubt improving the scouting system would be a good investment if the O's are being sold and I doubt the Angelos would spend that money on scouting if they are selling.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

The new buyer (if there is one) would probably want his own scouting system.  I doubt improving the scouting system would be a good investment if the O's are being sold and I doubt the Angelos would spend that money on scouting if they are selling.

I don't think the team is for sale.

I was just explaining how having a sinkhole in the middle of the organization might be a turnoff for potential buyers.

[LookitsPuck]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

I think people are naive when they treat financial considerations and talent as though they’re separate and unrelated.    When you save $15 mm in salary, that’s $15 mm that can be used to acquire talent later.  Or, to develop the infrastructure necessary to find and assess talent.     So, the fact that Gausman didn’t bring back any players currently in the top 100 doesn’t mean that the $15 mm won’t be used to acquire that level of talent later.    

Also, if I may say so, there’s no telling if Encarnacion or someone else we acquired might be considered a top 100 talent later.   Josh Hader wasn’t on anyone’s top 100 list when we traded him.   He was just a promising 19-year old in A ball.   He was traded in 2013 and didn’t crack any major top 100 lists until after the 2015 season, and wasn’t a consensus top 100 guy until after the 2016 season.   So, we’ll see how some of the guys we acquired develop.   

Well, it very likely means that if it's a salary dump (and the O'Day inclusion coupled with the rushed trade indicates it truly was), the $15m saved won't go towards anything next year.

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

Well, it very likely means that if it's a salary dump (and the O'Day inclusion coupled with the rushed trade indicates it truly was), the $15m saved won't go towards anything next year.

It doesn’t have to be next year.    There’s a time to hold money in reserve, and there’s a time to spend it.    

[wildcard]

2 hours ago, hoosiers said:

I don't think there is any question that a primary motivation behind dealing Gausman was to dump salary for next year and beyond and believe that motivation is severely under-appreciated here.  Sure, Gausman and Schoop could have been dealt in the off-season, but the certainty of dealing them now and saving even more $ was probably enticing.  Also, regarding payroll, the opportunity to shed O'Day at the same time may not have surfaced in the off-season.  Lower payroll should help the front office make appropriate investments outlined in prior DD interviews around international scouting and spend as well as technology upgrades going forward.

One key aspect of the Gausman trade that gets lost in the complaints IMO is that this was a competitive bidding process.  Multiple teams inquired and supposedly several teams made offers for Gausman.  It is even likely we told teams we would value shedding O'Day and receiving international slots more than top end prospects.  It is easy to look at the pitching-rich prospect depth of the Braves and wish we could have obtained one of them, but either that was not our ask or it was not offered by the Braves or another team. 

Look at what we received - lesser prospects, shedding of salary and international slots.  Could A + B + C have been traded for a high quality Braves SP Prospect?  Possibly, perhaps likely - though we don't know what the Braves would have parted with.  I believe dealing Gausman enabled the FO to check key objective boxes in lowering salary (O'Day) and obtaining slots (very likely or even clearly at the expense of obtaining a better prospect haul) and I am fine with that.  I think it was a very good trade.

There is probably little need to do a salary dump on O'Day and Gausman.  Just look at next years salary

Davis 23m

Trumbo 13.5m

Cashner 9.5m   (Probably traded at the deadline lower the salary to 6.5m)

Villar 4m

Bundy 5m ( Could be traded.  If they traded Gausman there is little reason to keep Bundy)

And   20 players at 545K = 10.9m

So that is somewhere between 58m and 66m.   There is room there for another 9m for O'day that could be 6m if he traded at the deadline.

Heck between the money the O's get from the MLB and the money they get from MASN included in cable contracts they would not need any attendance at all to break even.

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, wildcard said:

Heck between the money the O's get from the MLB and the money they get from MASN included in cable contracts they would not need any attendance at all to break even.

I believe most MLB clubs operate this way. Attendance is not what makes them profitable.

[clapdiddy]

Just now, wildcard said:

There is probably little need to do a salary dump on O'Day and Gausman.  Just look at next years salary

Davis 23m

Trumbo 13.5m

Cashner 9.5m   (Probably traded at the deadline lower the salary to 6.5m)

Villar 4m

Bundy 5m ( Could be traded.  If they traded Gausman there is little reason to keep Bundy)

And   20 players at 545K = 10.9m

So that is somewhere between 58m and 66m.   There is room there for another 9m for O'day the could be 6m if he traded at the deadline.

Heck between the money the O's get from the MLB and the money they get from MASN included in cable contracts they would not need any attendance at all to break even.

Keep in mind that a big chunk (I believe 10M?) of Davis' money is deferred.

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, clapdiddy said:

Keep in mind that a big chunk (I believe 10M?) of Davis' money is deferred.

To me, 10m is a very very big chunk.

But, to an organization worth over a billion. Its all relative.