Loading ...Notes and Thoughts From Today’s Terry McGuirk Interview
By Franklin Rabon | January 26, 2012
Surprisingly frank. That was my first thought when reading today’s interview by Tim Tucker of Braves “Franchise Control Person” Terry McGuirk. I never expected that we’d ever get a firm, confirmed number on the Braves payroll unless it was unearthed in some leaked Liberty internal memo or tax filing. While it was surprising to hear that the Braves payroll is officially $94 Million, the actual number was completely unsurprising.
McGuirk also confirmed that Liberty is not looking to sell now that they are able to do so under the agreement they made with MLB (such an agreement likely wouldn’t have been enforceable anyway had Liberty really wanted to sell). Whether this is true or not is hard to say. First of all, if they were looking to sell, there’s no reason they’d need to tell Terry McGuirk that. You make money in MLB not by making money, but by raising team value, and that’s been what the team has been trying to do all along anyway. So whether or not Liberty would be selling would have little to no effect on the way the day to day operations were run. Second of all, even if McGuirk knew they were trying to sell, he’d have no interest in divulging that information.
McGuirk also commented that the mode of operations going forward is through player development and the farm system, saying effectively that free agency should only provide minor enhancements and that the core of your team should be built through prospects and the occasional trade. McGuirk, correctly, views free agents as overvalued compared to the value received from prospects.
However, the most surprising aspect of the interview was McGuirk’s admitting just how hamstrung the Braves are by their current television and radio deals. McGuirk divulged that during the waning years or the Ted Turner/Time Warner era the team signed, at the time, near 30 year deals for all TV and Radio (currently about 25 years remaining). At the time, McGuirk said, those deals were at the going rates. However, in the intervening years the market price of television and radio deals has exploded. When Tucker pushed McGuirk on whether or not this would be a disadvantage, McGuirk simply stated “let’s just say it won’t be an advantage.” Perhaps worse, McGuirk revealed that the contracts do not provide for opt out or renegotiation clauses, meaning that the Braves really are more or less stuck with their deals for the next 25 years unless both sides decide they want to part ways (not likely an option, since Fox Sports South and Sports South, being the biggest players, would have no incentive to do so).
First, you have to really question the outgoing management for these deals and wonder if the Turner/Time Warner people saw the writing on the walls and just didn’t care what these deals would look like 25 years down the road. While we don’t know the actual numbers, we do know that recent television deals for MLB, the NFL and NCAA Football have taken staggering leaps forward. Regardless of the dollar amount, signing a deal for 30 years without opt out or renegotiation clauses just seems irresponsible. While the businessmen at AOL Timewarner might not have been the world’s greatest, even they had to have known that this deal would likely end up looking awful in 30 years and were just taking a hit on the backend (which they knew they wouldn’t be around for) for a bump on the front end.
One area where I think McGuirk may have let slip even more than he meant to was when admitting that the contract does allow for cost of living increases. While this comment isn’t in and of itself remarkable, it is remarkable in what it probably doesn’t mean. It probably means that the Braves’ deals don’t contain clauses for increases in value based on incoming revenues. For instance, it would have been possible to structure the deal such that it was tied to viewership numbers, ad revenue generated during the games, etc, but this apparently is not the case, since when clauses such as those are added in, cost of living increases generally aren’t. This means that the amount the Braves are getting for their broadcasting deals are likely set, except for relatively minor (usually 2-3% maximum) increases based on inflation.
So, putting the blame game aside, which is pointless by now, what does this mean for the Braves? Not great things. While it doesn’t necessarily mean that the Braves will be confined to Pirates-like mediocrity, it does mean that they will have to work increasingly hard to remain competitive. It will likely also mean that the Braves are going to be stuck with Turner Field for a long time. I don’t forsee the state of Georgia financing a stadium any time soon (the Braves got lucky with the olympics allowing for a retrofit, netting them Turner Field, or we may well still be playing at Atlanta Fulton County Stadium). Not that Turner Field is terrible at this point, by any means, but 25 years from now? And while it is incredibly difficult to predict exactly what the market will be for TV contracts 25 years from now, it’s possible that towards the last 15 years the Braves could very well be today’s equivalent of the Oakland A’s. Worse still, they couldn’t even do anything about it, as even if more people tuned in and came to the games, the flat rate TV contract would still severely inhibit payroll.
Right now, things aren’t necessarily bad. A lot of teams are currently locked into broadcast deals they signed four or more years ago, before the current boom. The problem lies in the fact that a few aren’t, and each year more teams will shed those contracts and negotiate (or renegotiate) lucrative TV deals that will push the Braves payroll further and further towards the bottom. You also have the teams that own their own broadcast deals, which have made a fortune for the most part (it’s no coincidence that the Yankees and Red Sox both own YES and NESN, respectively).
This also would put a damper on any new, individual, owner coming in as a white knight to save the team, as many Braves fans want, because the locked in TV deal likely means that a new owner wouldn’t simply be able to spend on the team and significantly raise revenues. As now that TV deals are the primary revenue drivers in MLB, there isn’t a whole lot that can be done. Any new owner would likely have to plan on holding the team for close to 25 years before they would adequately be able to profit from the expiration of the current TV deal, either through selling the team or directly reaping the actual revenues.
This may actually mean that the current ownership structure, where Liberty Media really doesn’t care that much about how much the Braves are making, could actually be a best case scenario for the team. An owner or ownership group that had a substantial portion of their assets tied up in the Braves may well be forced to slash payroll even more in the coming years, while Liberty will likely just let them continuously break even, until they believe that the coming expiration of the TV deal will let them sell the Braves at an enormous profit. Because if the Braves brand can be maintained over that time period, towards the end, the value of the franchise will see an enormous jump, when they could negotiate a new deal. Liberty may well even run the Braves at a small loss for a while under such a scenario, where an individual owner might not be able to.
However, this can, in no way, be spun as a positive for the Braves. Not only will it likely keep them out of the big ticket free agent market in future years, it will also likely mean that they will only be able to retain a very few of their prime developed prospects much past their arbitration years. This will put an enormous burden on the farm system to churn out top prospects every 5 years at nearly every position. While the Braves do have a good record in terms of getting value out of their farm system, that’s a lot to ask of any system.
The final question I’ll pose is why did Terry McGuirk divulge this information? Was it to get in front of an emerging public relations fiasco, as more and more Braves fans clamor for payroll increases? Effectively (and perhaps justifiably) blaming it on “the old guy”? That’s the most reasonable answer I can think of, especially for an organization that has been so guarded with information of that sort. But it’s still curious.
edit: To explain a little bit more why this is such a raw deal, I’ll lift something I said in the comments, for those who don’t wade through comment sections:
When striking up long term, fixed term, deals, you look at where the risk is going if the deal turns out bad. The Braves took almost 100% of that risk, with no way to mitigate it, for a really, really long time. Then, on top of that, the market for sports shifted away from gate revenues to TV revenues, and that shift doesn’t look like its going to reverse any time soon. Especially not in an area where the fan base is so spread out geographically and transportation costs (ie gas) continue to rise.
follow me on twitter: @fjrabon
Topics: Atlanta Braves | 39 Comments »
Which Is The Better Prospect, Salcedo or Bethancourt?
By Franklin Rabon | January 24, 2012
So, as some of you may know, we’ll be putting up our top 25 prospects post later this week. In the meantime a question I’ve been mulling over with a lot of fellow prospect geeks (primarily Scott Coleman of Talking Chop) is who is the better prospect of Edward Salcedo or Christian Bethancourt?
My choice is Bethancourt, because I believe both his ceiling is higher and he’s currently shown more than Salcedo. First, elite catchers are more valuable than third basemen, in my view. And Bethancourt has the defensive prowess and skill to certainly be elite behind the plate. He has always been amongst the best (if not the absolute best) minor league catchers at throwing out runners. However, he has vastly improved the other aspects of his defense the past season as well. He’s extremely athletic for a catcher and has finally translated that into being a very good defensive catcher who also has an all world arm. Additionally, while the AFL is certainly a hitter’s environment and a short sample size, he accounted for himself well there with the bat. This was believed to be coming, as anyone who has seen Bethancourt take BP could attest, he certainly had the raw power, but just needed to be able to translate that to in game power, and take more walks. So he’s already a good defender and the promise he showed in the AFL was certainly a good sign.
Salcedo, while still possessing all the skills, hasn’t really shown that he can translate any of his substantial tools to real baseball games. He’s something of an unusual case though, as most international signees sign younger than he did (the Braves signed him at 18). So, he lacked the polish of an American player that had played tons of AAU ball, but is at the age of a typical high school draftee. This has led to some understandable growing pains. It makes him very hard to project accurately, because you can’t simply look at his age and level, since he is still learning the American approach to the game and refining his game in a way that an elite HS player probably already would have. That all being said, he has the best power potential of any of the Braves prospects, and has the athletic ability to be a very good defender at third. Next year will be a telling year for him, either he’ll start to put it all together and develop as a legitimate impact prospect, or start to fade into the oblivion of raw talent that never translated.
So, what are everybody else’s thoughts? This post is as much to generate some discussion as anything else, so we’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments section.
Topics: Atlanta Braves | 35 Comments »
Are We Slightly Overpaying O’Flaherty? (and other arb agreements thoughts)
By Franklin Rabon | January 18, 2012
So in the last 24 hours the Braves reached agreements with the last of their arb eligible players; Eric O’Flaherty, Jair Jurrjens and Michael Bourn. Ben gave the relevant details in a brief posting earlier today here.
Bourn’s agreement is completely uninteresting and pretty much exactly what was expected. Sure, it’s a discount, but in the same way almost all great defensive players have their value discounted in arbitration.
Jurrjens’ figure was about what was to be expected as well. However, it is interesting that his agreement included IP bonuses. I’m sure this has happened before, but I honestly can’t recall another arbitration eligible player getting IP bonuses. This indicates that the Braves are concerned with Jurrjens’ durability coming off his knee injury. You have to believe that Boras was asking for more than the $5.5 Mill base that the Braves ended up giving him, and talked him into a discounted base rate with the bonuses to cover the difference, provided Jurrjens is healthy. However, I wouldn’t read too much into it one way or the other, and I would say it has little to no bearing on whether or not Jurrjens will be traded.
On the surface O’Flaherty’s raise, though substantial, seems relatively ordinary as well. Sure, it was a big jump (last year he made $895K), but EOF did put up insanely good numbers last year. Though that 389 ERA+ that Baseball Reference has him down for can’t actually be correct, can it? So in some sense, sure, he deserves his raise.
However, you don’t pay for past performance and deserves ain’t got nothing to do with it, you pay for current performance. And I’m not 100% sold that EOF will be worth the $2.49 Mill he’ll receive this year. This worry is based on 4 prongs:
First, I think it’s undeniable that O’Flaherty got lucky last year. He did put up excellent peripherals, but a 3.19 K/BB rate with a .2 HR/9 rate, while outstanding, don’t often equate to a 0.98 ERA. Such numbers, even for a groundball pitcher, will usually equate to somewhere around a 2.40 ERA. In my opinion, if O’Flaherty pitches exactly like he did last year, a 2.40 ERA is about the number we should expect.
Secondly, I don’t know that we can or should expect O’Flaherty to pitch as well as he did last year. In the point above, I was saying that given how he pitched O’Flaherty had better results than could rightly be expected. Here I’m saying that we shouldn’t expect him to pitch the same way. O’Flaherty lowered his batting average allowed, lowered his slugging percentage allowed, lowered his walk rate, raised his K rate and lowered his homeruns allowed rate. Basically everything a pitcher can do on his own to improve, O’Flaherty did last year. Not all of that can be sustainable. Sure, he probably made some real, sustainable improvements, but it’s also likely that he never ran into a rough stretch and managed to pitch as well as he possibly could, for virtually the entire year. That can’t be expected from relievers on a year to year basis. There is just too much volatility when you pitch 1 inning at a time. So, I expect EOF’s peripherals to also regress, not just his results.
Thirdly, our infield defense projects to be worse this year. The only change is from Alex Gonzalez to Pastornicky. Now, I’ve seen the kid play, and he’s a good defensive shortstop, defensively he’s certainly at a ML level. But he’s no Alex Gonzalez, few are. Even if Pastornicky keeps his head about him and plays as well as he possibly can defensively, we will take a step back at the most important infield defensive position. Furthermore, Chipper and Uggla will continue to lose range. Our 2nd base and 3rd base defense will almost certainly be, combined, the worst in MLB. So, we’ve gotten worse at 3 of the 4 infield positions. Two because of aging, one because of personnel change. Freeman should be the same slightly below average guy he was last year. Decent enough hands, but poor range. Best case scenario, the Braves are average at SS, well below average at 3rd, way below average at 2nd and below average at 1st. This doesn’t bode well for O’Flaherty, who isn’t a huge K guy and depends on a lot of double plays.
Finally, the presence of Venters and Kimbrel limit the amount of high leverage situations that O’Flaherty can appear in. While this certainly isn’t O’Flaherty’s fault, it does lower his value to the Braves. If O’Flaherty was the 8th inning guy or even the closer, he’d face higher leverage situations, making his performance worth even more. However, he’s not and the whole reason relievers are valuable is because late inning high leverage situations are worth more than earlier inning lower leverage situations. Otherwise they’d just be dudes who don’t pitch much. O’Flaherty, in a well managed bullpen, would be third in the pecking order for high leverage late inning situations. This fact limits how much he can be worth to the Braves.
Now, that all being said, I’m not sure that O’Flaherty still won’t be worth what he gets this year. 2.5 mill isn’t a huge deal, and there are worse things in the world to spend your money on than a reliever coming off the year O’Flaherty just had. I’m certainly glad he’s on the team. I just don’t think it’s an absurdly team friendly deal, like some had been saying earlier today. When you consider the four factors I outlined above, it’s at least possible that we may be slightly overpaying for a 7th inning guy who just had an anomalously good year last season.
follow me on twitter: @fjrabon
Topics: Atlanta Braves | 57 Comments »
Bourn, O’Flaherty, Jurrjens Avoid Arbitration
By Ben Duronio | January 17, 2012
Michael Bourn, Jair Jurrjens, and Eric O’Flaherty have avoided arbitration with the Braves and come to terms on their contracts for this season. Bourn will get $6.845m, which is more-or-less what I projected two weeks ago. O’Flaherty and the Braves agreed to a $2.49m deal. Jurrjens and the Braves agreed to a $5.5m deal with incentives at 175, 180, 190, 200, 210, and 215 innings, according to MLB Trade Rumors.
Franklin will have more on the contracts later tonight.
Topics: Atlanta Braves | 23 Comments »
Our Long National Nightmare Over, Seth Smith Traded to A’s
By Franklin Rabon | January 16, 2012
While I’m as anxious as any of you for something to happen in Braves world worthy of in depth discussion and analysis, I am very happy to no longer have to read of speculative trades involving Seth Smith, a ‘prospect’ (to use the term loosely) whose only real virtue is being ‘ML ready’. It became apparent that the Rockies believed he was worth Prado without throwing in an additional top prospect, which was fairly absurd. Billy Beane solved this issue for all of us by inexplicably trading for Seth Smith in an apparent belief that fourth outfielder guys are the road to division titles. Also questionable was the Rockies targeting two pitchers whose peripherals would seem to suggest they’d be a poor fit in Colorado. Colorado got more upside in the deal, they’re just a weird fit for Colorado, unless they’re already planning on flipping them. The A’s get a reasonably okay fringe 4th outfielder guy that Beane has to believe can play every day, despite everything seeming to the contrary.
See parent site ESPN for the details of the trade.
follow me on twitter: @fjrabon
Topics: Atlanta Braves | 25 Comments »
Interview With Jon “Boog” Sciambi
By Ben Duronio | January 16, 2012
Jon Sciambi, former Braves broadcaster and current ESPN commentator, was kind enough to answer a few questions for the site. As many know, Jon is partial to sabermetrics and is not shy to admit it. He contributed a guest post to Baseball Prospectus in 2010, which is certainly a worth while read (some funny stuff about Chipper Jones is included). Anyway, here is our Q&A. Enjoy.
———————————————————————————————————————————
1) Jon, we know you are a saber-friendly broadcaster and we are a saber-friendly site. Research is a big part of sabermetrics and I am sure it is a big part of announcing as well. What do you typically do to research a game you’re scheduled to announce? How far in advance do you start?
The research part of the process really never stops because I’m doing stuff almost every day. I think sometimes people in the saber-world forget that I am not an analyst; I’m a play-by-play guy who likes to analyze. Overall, I’m doing two types of research—first, I’m trying to find stories and nuggets that are entertaining, enlightening and help humanize the players. Also, I’m doing specific statistical research that is more straight-up informational. The people at ESPN research provide amazing support on both ends. For my Sunday games I usually begin on Tuesday with the starting pitchers (who are usually going that night) and I see what peripherals jump out to me. I’ll look at stuff like run differential, DE, OBP, SLG and just get a basic idea of strengths and weaknesses and go from there. Ultimately, I have a pretty good idea of what I want and the themes I’m going to hit on. I know going into a Braves game that it seems one of the consistent issues over the last 5 years has been lack of offensive production from the outfield and so I’ll do work on that and see if that’s correct(last in MLB in outfield OPS since ’07).
2) With that said, which stats do you think are the most misleading for other broadcasters?
I can’t speak for other guys, I just try to avoid “the noise” as I call it—RBIs or wins if at all possible, stuff like that. I don’t like using RISP much because I think it misleads the average fan into thinking that it has predictive value. I despise team batting average because the game is not a hitting contest, it’s a scoring contest. If a guy has a low ERA but a high FIP, I’ll mention both and how they relate. I try to stay away from team record in 1-run games…I think there’s a ton of stuff that leads people to think, “hey, they’re good at this,” when it’s not really reflective of skill.
3) You manage to make advanced statistics comprehensible to the average fan, what do you think is the key to using the advanced metrics, but in a way that your audience can digest?
I think one of the fundamental issues with sabermetrics is that people on the “outside” think it’s about stats as opposed to knowledge. I’m never thinking in terms of explaining a stat, it’s more about relating a concept. I will rarely say, “this guy has a good FIP, here’s what FIP is.” I think it works best with some context or a specific example—If a guy has pitched poorly according to ERA, I’ll talk about how there are factors that go into that stat outside of a pitcher’s control and that can give me an entrée to FIP. So, the specific intent isn’t to explain FIP as much as it is to show that a guy has had some bad luck or at least been affected by things outside his control…but I am using the opportunity to explain FIP. I’m always wary of lulling people into a coma with too many stats and if I can’t explain it in an efficient way, It’s probably not going to get used much.
4) With the Hall-of-Fame vote just closing, and many of next year’s group of eligible players having ties to performance enhancers, what is your stance on putting players tied to PEDs in the hall of fame?
The Hall of Fame is a joke. Start with this…How about the fact that no one has ever been elected unanimously? It’s absurd. If you didn’t vote for Mike Schmidt or Babe Ruth or Willie Mays, you should have your vote taken away. The whole “first ballot” thing is just ridiculous. Everybody has a different feel on the PED thing but I’d put them in. Do I want people to cheat? No. But I get it. I think more than anything, I despise how sanctimonious some writers are on the topic. The Bagwell thing is especially galling—never been linked in any way and guys won’t vote for him because his body got bigger? Look, I’m not naïve but c’mon, that’s the evidence? The best player I’ve ever seen is Barry Bonds and if he had a press conference tomorrow admitting PED use, I wouldn’t change my answer. The game is really difficult, I’m just not “offended” by the cheating.
5) Now we will get into more Braves related questions. What did you make of Fredi Gonzalez’ first year in Atlanta?
I thought it was fine. I thought he bunted a little too much and the lineup criticisms were probably fair but man, people love to complain about the manager. It probably won’t go over well in these parts but I think a manager’s biggest impact is intangible, it’s managing and leading people. I say that in part because I think tactically, the vast majority of managers are the same. The one area where I thought Fredi was in a tough spot was the bullpen because it’s easy to say you have to rest those guys but sorting out how to do that and still win games isn’t so easy. Ultimately, I don’t think a manager has a huge effect on wins and losses.
6) What do you think fans should fans expect from Jason Heyward this season?
I’m still a believer. I was amazed last year how quickly people jumped off the Jason Heyward bandwagon and onto the Freddie Freeman bandwagon. I think his numbers will be similar to his first year with a tad more power and maybe less OBP. Talking to scouts last year, multiple guys said they didn’t think he could succeed with that swing because it’s so different…and I didn’t hear that once in 2010. I just think we have a tendency to get caught up in short term results.
7) Do you feel the Braves need to do anything to remain competitive for the NL East this year?
I think the pitching keeps them competitive but they need to score and I don’t love the defense. It’s hard to imagine them being an above average offensive team because I think you know what you’re getting from 3 spots—CF, 2B and C. To say you know what you’re gonna get from Freddie after 650 PA is a stretch to me (please see Jason Heyward). There are obviously payroll constraints, so adding a bat seems unlikely and I worry about Chipper’s durability/ production and to a lesser extent, Prado’s too.
8) What was your favorite part about broadcasting Braves games?
Working with Joe Simpson. We had fun every single game. Joe’s got the best laugh and a great sense of humor and I loved our old school/new school discussions. I’d also have to say the fans were (and still are) so amazing to me, it just blows me away.
9) Do you recall how heavily sabermetrics are weighed in the Braves’ front office?
I really couldn’t say. John Capolella, the Braves Director of Pro Scouting is extremely savvy in regards to advanced metrics but I couldn’t really give you an idea as to how they are put to use in the organization.
10) Lastly, what was your favorite call for a Braves game, or your most memorable moment during a broadcast?
Not to take the air out of the balloon but in my 3 years we didn’t make the playoffs and I swear, on FSN or SS games I think I called like 5 walk-off wins over that whole period. There just weren’t many really dramatic, crazy games that I did—I can remember feeling multiple times that the few big comebacks or wild games were always on Peachtree or TBS. As far as a call…Yunel Escobar hit an absolute bomb in Arizona that landed on the Fridays porch near the tables and I randomly shouted, “Mind your nachos!” I believe that was my proudest moment.
Topics: Atlanta Braves | 35 Comments »
Chipper is Incredible
By Ben Duronio | January 14, 2012
I was bored on twitter last night and started researching some Chipper Jones numbers (always a fun thing to do if you ever get bored on your computer, by the way). I started tweeting some interesting notes and stats, so I figured I would share them with those of you who for some reason do not have twitter.
Chipper Jones is 45 walks away from joining the 1,500 walk club. He will be just the 18th player to accomplish this feat. For comparisons sake, 28 players have 3,000 hits.
Only 11 players in MLB history have more than 1,500 walks and less than 1,500 strikeouts. With just 1,358 strikeouts, Chipper can join this group by season’s end.
With a minimum of 1,600 plate appearances, the only players to ever have an OPS+ of 165 or greater during their age 34-36 seasons combined are Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Babe Ruth, Chipper Jones, Tris Speaker, and Honus Wagner.
In Chipper’s age 36 season he hit .364 and had an OBP of .470, making him only the fifth player in MLB history to reach those plateaus in a single season at age 36 or higher. The others are Barry Bonds, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, and Tris Speaker. Each of them have done this just once.
Chipper has reached base 4,087 times. He is one of only 43 players to reach base 4,000 times (does not include reached on errors), and currently ranks 36th.
Chipper is one of seven players in MLB history to have a line of .300/.400/.500 or better in over 10,000 plate appearances. The others are Babe Ruth, Frank Thomas, Mel Ott, Stan Musial, Ty Cobb, and Tris Speaker.
Only nine players compiled a line of .300/.400/.500 in their age 30-39 seasons, minimum 5,000 plate appearances. Chipper is one of them. The others are Barry Bonds, Babe Ruth, Manny Ramirez, Stan Musial, Edgar Martinez, Ken Williams, Tris Speaker, and Ty Cobb.
Chipper is one of fifteen players to hit over 200 homers and bat over .300 during throughout his 30′s.
Chipper is one of thirteen players to hit over 200 homers and have an OBP over .400 throughout his 30′s.
Chipper’s OPS+ of 142 in his 30′s ranks 17th all-time. His OPS of .925 over that span ranks 13th all-time.
Chipper’s bWAR of 44.4 in his 30′s ranks 20th all-time.
If Chipper nets 200 total bases this season (had 214 in ’11), he will be ranked 28th on the all-time list. He is currently ranked 40th at 4,579 total bases.
Topics: Atlanta Braves | 28 Comments »
« Previous Entries