And not without good reason.

Restoring Braves' luster will take years
By Mark Bradley | Sunday, August 31, 2008, 04:45 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The era of eminence has ended. The Braves are weaker than at any time since
1990, and they're apt to get worse before they get better.

They geared up for one last stand, but we see now that gearing up was also a
masking action. By banking so heavily on aging pitchers and one high-priced
rental, they sought to hide how threadbare this organization has become.
Then the pitchers got hurt and Mark Teixeira got traded, and as we scan next
season's prospective roster we're moved to ask: Is this all there is?

Frank Wren, the general manager since October 2007, believes his team "has
the resources and the foundation" to retool. "We still need pieces," he
said, "but we don't need a major overhaul."

Hearing, a man asked: "Pieces?"

Said Wren: "They're not little pieces - they're big pieces."

To look at this team is to see only two big-time players, and one of those
will turn 37 in April. Writing for SI.com, Nate Silver of Baseball
Prospectus offered a ranking of the top 50 players around which an
organization could build, and only one Brave - Brian McCann, at No. 11 -
made the list. Chipper Jones, who has missed 24 games since June 1, was
included as an "honorable mention."

As it stands, Jair Jurrjens - who's 22 and who has won two of nine starts
since the All-Star break - would be the 2009 Opening Day pitcher. Three
members of this proposed-but-never-intact rotation aren't under contract
beyond this season: Tom Glavine and Mike Hampton will be free agents, and
John Smoltz failed to reach his vesting option by working the required 200
innings. And Tim Hudson, a fourth member, has had surgery. (As has Smoltz.
As has Glavine.)

Wren: "It's too early to talk to John and Tommy [about possible new
contracts] until we get into the offseason and we have more information.
There's no sense talking about it now."

The outfield is in similar shambles. Mark Kotsay is gone. Jordan Schafer,
the heir apparent, was suspended 50 games for using HGH; now reinstated, he's
hitting .269 in Class AA with more strikeouts than hits. Jeff Francoeur is
fighting to keep his average above .230. Matt Diaz hasn't played since May.
Gregor Blanco and Omar Infante have four homers between them.

Question: Do you see a "foundation"?

Yes, Wren could make a trade (or two, or three) to address deepening
deficiencies, but who among Braves would yield the needed return? Yunel
Escobar? (And who plays shortstop if he leaves?) Casey Kotchman? (Didn't he
just get here?) Jarrod Saltalamacchia? (Whoops, already did that deal.)

Then there's free agency. The Braves have sworn off big-ticket signings for
a decade, but there's really no other option. With the $37 million that's no
longer earmarked for Smoltz, Hampton and Glavine, Wren has to take a look.
He probably won't like what he finds. Can anyone outbid the Yankees for CC
Sabathia? Is Pat Burrell, who has had two 100-RBI seasons, worth $15 million
per annum? Is Adam Dunn, who has had three?

"I don't know what we're going to pay [in free agency], but it has to be a
function of putting together a whole team," Wren said. "Our overriding view
is that you put a team together, not just one player."

That, sad to say, is the point. The Braves, who are 222-239 since Opening
Day 2006, no longer have many real players, nor are they much of a team. The
"great, grand organization" - John Schuerholz's description - is just
another mediocrity. Restoring its luster will take years.

Not months. Years.

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/bradley/entries/2008/08/31/restoring_braves_luster_will_t.html

"Joe Schmoe" <mchome5@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5kIuk.19770$rD2.10602@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> And not without good reason.
>
> >
> Wren: "It's too early to talk to John and Tommy [about possible new
> contracts] until we get into the offseason and we have more information.
> There's no sense talking about it now."
>
Funny he didn't say TOMMY and JOHN.

Nor did he mention Corky Miller's contract has just been purchased.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:22:07 -0400, "Joe Schmoe"
<mchome5@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>And not without good reason.
>
>Restoring Braves' luster will take years
>By Mark Bradley | Sunday, August 31, 2008, 04:45 PM
>
>The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>
>The era of eminence has ended. The Braves are weaker than at any time since
>1990, and they're apt to get worse before they get better.
>
>They geared up for one last stand, but we see now that gearing up was also a
>masking action. By banking so heavily on aging pitchers and one high-priced
>rental, they sought to hide how threadbare this organization has become.
>Then the pitchers got hurt and Mark Teixeira got traded, and as we scan next
>season's prospective roster we're moved to ask: Is this all there is?
>
>Frank Wren, the general manager since October 2007, believes his team "has
>the resources and the foundation" to retool. "We still need pieces," he
>said, "but we don't need a major overhaul."
>
>Hearing, a man asked: "Pieces?"
>
>Said Wren: "They're not little pieces - they're big pieces."
>
>To look at this team is to see only two big-time players, and one of those
>will turn 37 in April. Writing for SI.com, Nate Silver of Baseball
>Prospectus offered a ranking of the top 50 players around which an
>organization could build, and only one Brave - Brian McCann, at No. 11 -
>made the list. Chipper Jones, who has missed 24 games since June 1, was
>included as an "honorable mention."
>
>As it stands, Jair Jurrjens - who's 22 and who has won two of nine starts
>since the All-Star break - would be the 2009 Opening Day pitcher. Three
>members of this proposed-but-never-intact rotation aren't under contract
>beyond this season: Tom Glavine and Mike Hampton will be free agents, and
>John Smoltz failed to reach his vesting option by working the required 200
>innings. And Tim Hudson, a fourth member, has had surgery. (As has Smoltz.
>As has Glavine.)
>
>Wren: "It's too early to talk to John and Tommy [about possible new
>contracts] until we get into the offseason and we have more information.
>There's no sense talking about it now."
>
>The outfield is in similar shambles. Mark Kotsay is gone. Jordan Schafer,
>the heir apparent, was suspended 50 games for using HGH; now reinstated, he's
>hitting .269 in Class AA with more strikeouts than hits. Jeff Francoeur is
>fighting to keep his average above .230. Matt Diaz hasn't played since May.
>Gregor Blanco and Omar Infante have four homers between them.
>
>Question: Do you see a "foundation"?
>
>Yes, Wren could make a trade (or two, or three) to address deepening
>deficiencies, but who among Braves would yield the needed return? Yunel
>Escobar? (And who plays shortstop if he leaves?) Casey Kotchman? (Didn't he
>just get here?) Jarrod Saltalamacchia? (Whoops, already did that deal.)
>
>Then there's free agency. The Braves have sworn off big-ticket signings for
>a decade, but there's really no other option. With the $37 million that's no
>longer earmarked for Smoltz, Hampton and Glavine, Wren has to take a look.
>He probably won't like what he finds. Can anyone outbid the Yankees for CC
>Sabathia? Is Pat Burrell, who has had two 100-RBI seasons, worth $15 million
>per annum? Is Adam Dunn, who has had three?
>
>"I don't know what we're going to pay [in free agency], but it has to be a
>function of putting together a whole team," Wren said. "Our overriding view
>is that you put a team together, not just one player."
>
>That, sad to say, is the point. The Braves, who are 222-239 since Opening
>Day 2006, no longer have many real players, nor are they much of a team. The
>"great, grand organization" - John Schuerholz's description - is just
>another mediocrity. Restoring its luster will take years.
>
>Not months. Years.
>
>http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/bradley/entries/2008/08/31/restoring_braves_luster_will_t.html
>
>
>

How did a great organization fall so far. After the 2000 AOL - Time
Warner merger didn't really increase that much, but it was still among
the upper 25% of the league. Even today it isn't bad if you through
out the obscene payrolls of the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox and perhaps the
Angels.

But what explains the lack of prospects? Did AOL/Time Warner cut
front office and scouting expenses? Where are the non stop flow of
prospects they seemed to have in the 90s?

You hear a lot about payroll, but I wonder if other less publicized
expenses were cut.

I had a bad feeling when AOL got their fingers in the pie. It takes a
long time for a great organization to fall apart. It has been said
that organizations "rot" from the top down. Could this be the case
with the AOL Braves?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:37:26 -0400, PaulMofATL <pm2007@charter.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:22:07 -0400, "Joe Schmoe"
><mchome5@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>And not without good reason.
>>
>>Restoring Braves' luster will take years
>>By Mark Bradley | Sunday, August 31, 2008, 04:45 PM
>>
>>The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>>
>>The era of eminence has ended. The Braves are weaker than at any time since
>>1990, and they're apt to get worse before they get better.
>>
>>They geared up for one last stand, but we see now that gearing up was also a
>>masking action. By banking so heavily on aging pitchers and one high-priced
>>rental, they sought to hide how threadbare this organization has become.
>>Then the pitchers got hurt and Mark Teixeira got traded, and as we scan next
>>season's prospective roster we're moved to ask: Is this all there is?
>>
>>Frank Wren, the general manager since October 2007, believes his team "has
>>the resources and the foundation" to retool. "We still need pieces," he
>>said, "but we don't need a major overhaul."
>>
>>Hearing, a man asked: "Pieces?"
>>
>>Said Wren: "They're not little pieces - they're big pieces."
>>
>>To look at this team is to see only two big-time players, and one of those
>>will turn 37 in April. Writing for SI.com, Nate Silver of Baseball
>>Prospectus offered a ranking of the top 50 players around which an
>>organization could build, and only one Brave - Brian McCann, at No. 11 -
>>made the list. Chipper Jones, who has missed 24 games since June 1, was
>>included as an "honorable mention."
>>
>>As it stands, Jair Jurrjens - who's 22 and who has won two of nine starts
>>since the All-Star break - would be the 2009 Opening Day pitcher. Three
>>members of this proposed-but-never-intact rotation aren't under contract
>>beyond this season: Tom Glavine and Mike Hampton will be free agents, and
>>John Smoltz failed to reach his vesting option by working the required 200
>>innings. And Tim Hudson, a fourth member, has had surgery. (As has Smoltz.
>>As has Glavine.)
>>
>>Wren: "It's too early to talk to John and Tommy [about possible new
>>contracts] until we get into the offseason and we have more information.
>>There's no sense talking about it now."
>>
>>The outfield is in similar shambles. Mark Kotsay is gone. Jordan Schafer,
>>the heir apparent, was suspended 50 games for using HGH; now reinstated, he's
>>hitting .269 in Class AA with more strikeouts than hits. Jeff Francoeur is
>>fighting to keep his average above .230. Matt Diaz hasn't played since May.
>>Gregor Blanco and Omar Infante have four homers between them.
>>
>>Question: Do you see a "foundation"?
>>
>>Yes, Wren could make a trade (or two, or three) to address deepening
>>deficiencies, but who among Braves would yield the needed return? Yunel
>>Escobar? (And who plays shortstop if he leaves?) Casey Kotchman? (Didn't he
>>just get here?) Jarrod Saltalamacchia? (Whoops, already did that deal.)
>>
>>Then there's free agency. The Braves have sworn off big-ticket signings for
>>a decade, but there's really no other option. With the $37 million that's no
>>longer earmarked for Smoltz, Hampton and Glavine, Wren has to take a look.
>>He probably won't like what he finds. Can anyone outbid the Yankees for CC
>>Sabathia? Is Pat Burrell, who has had two 100-RBI seasons, worth $15 million
>>per annum? Is Adam Dunn, who has had three?
>>
>>"I don't know what we're going to pay [in free agency], but it has to be a
>>function of putting together a whole team," Wren said. "Our overriding view
>>is that you put a team together, not just one player."
>>
>>That, sad to say, is the point. The Braves, who are 222-239 since Opening
>>Day 2006, no longer have many real players, nor are they much of a team. The
>>"great, grand organization" - John Schuerholz's description - is just
>>another mediocrity. Restoring its luster will take years.
>>
>>Not months. Years.
>>
>>http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/bradley/entries/2008/08/31/restoring_braves_luster_will_t.html
>>
>>


I meant to say TW didn't increase salary a lot.

>
>How did a great organization fall so far. After the 2000 AOL - Time
>Warner merger didn't really increase Player salary that much, but it was still among
>the upper 25% of the league. Even today it isn't bad if you through
>out the obscene payrolls of the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox and perhaps the
>Angels.
>
>But what explains the lack of prospects? Did AOL/Time Warner cut
>front office and scouting expenses? Where are the non stop flow of
>prospects they seemed to have in the 90s?
>
>You hear a lot about payroll, but I wonder if other less publicized
>expenses were cut.
>
>I had a bad feeling when AOL got their fingers in the pie. It takes a
>long time for a great organization to fall apart. It has been said
>that organizations "rot" from the top down. Could this be the case
>with the AOL Braves?
>

PaulMofATL wrote:
> But what explains the lack of prospects? Did AOL/Time Warner cut
> front office and scouting expenses? Where are the non stop flow of
> prospects they seemed to have in the 90s?

I would guess either (a) a change in staff, or (b) other organizations
got wiser and beat the Braves at their own game. We used to pick up a
good number of international prospects (Andruw, Furcal, Betemit), and
that seems to be where we're lacking. It might be that other teams
started doing more scouting where we used to have more of a monopoly.

we also have traded away a lot of our prospect depth over the last
several years as part of that effort to squeeze a few more years out of
the run of success. I don't know that many of those prospects went on to
do well, though, especially hitting prospects

I suspect though, that the relative "lack of prospects" is a bit of an
illusion. In the early 90s we benefited from two huge gluts of top
prospects, first in pitching (Glavine, Smoltz, Avery, Mercker, Wohlers,
Stanton, etc), and then in hitting (Chipper, Klesko, Lopez). That was a
phenomenal mother lode in terms of prospects actually working out, and
ith that kind of core they then ran for years at a more reasonable pace
of development. If you think of the mid-90s thru, say, 2002, the rate of
prospect development was considerably slower than that - Andruw,
Millwood, Furcal, Giles (we also traded away a few, like Dye and
Schmidt, though long before they became established). Not too shabby,
but maybe one regular player every couple of years, and very little
pitching.

That's where we are today - in recent years we've gotten guys like
Johnson, Escobar, Jurrjens and McCann (and traded away a few, though
only Wainwright stands out as a significant loss). So the farm system
might appear bare at the top levels right now, but it has been providing
prospects. The problem is that we no longer have that huge core that we
had when the farm was doing about as well in the late 90s.

So, i think the farm is not necessarily in much worse shape than it has
been since, say, 1995. however, now it's now more exposed because we are
ina rebuilding phase.

Colin

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:27:58 -0400, Colin William
<colintwilliam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>PaulMofATL wrote:
>> But what explains the lack of prospects? Did AOL/Time Warner cut
>> front office and scouting expenses? Where are the non stop flow of
>> prospects they seemed to have in the 90s?
>
>I would guess either (a) a change in staff, or (b) other organizations
>got wiser and beat the Braves at their own game. We used to pick up a
>good number of international prospects (Andruw, Furcal, Betemit), and
>that seems to be where we're lacking. It might be that other teams
>started doing more scouting where we used to have more of a monopoly.
>
>we also have traded away a lot of our prospect depth over the last
>several years as part of that effort to squeeze a few more years out of
>the run of success. I don't know that many of those prospects went on to
>do well, though, especially hitting prospects
>
>I suspect though, that the relative "lack of prospects" is a bit of an
>illusion. In the early 90s we benefited from two huge gluts of top
>prospects, first in pitching (Glavine, Smoltz, Avery, Mercker, Wohlers,
>Stanton, etc), and then in hitting (Chipper, Klesko, Lopez). That was a
>phenomenal mother lode in terms of prospects actually working out, and
>ith that kind of core they then ran for years at a more reasonable pace
>of development. If you think of the mid-90s thru, say, 2002, the rate of
>prospect development was considerably slower than that - Andruw,
>Millwood, Furcal, Giles (we also traded away a few, like Dye and
>Schmidt, though long before they became established). Not too shabby,
>but maybe one regular player every couple of years, and very little
>pitching.
>
>That's where we are today - in recent years we've gotten guys like
>Johnson, Escobar, Jurrjens and McCann (and traded away a few, though
>only Wainwright stands out as a significant loss). So the farm system
>might appear bare at the top levels right now, but it has been providing
>prospects. The problem is that we no longer have that huge core that we
>had when the farm was doing about as well in the late 90s.
>
>So, i think the farm is not necessarily in much worse shape than it has
>been since, say, 1995. however, now it's now more exposed because we are
>ina rebuilding phase.
>
>Colin


Great post. Can we blame some of the stench on AOL? Perhaps it was
just hanging on to the past too long, like this year with Smoltz and
Glavine. Sad to see it all go.

PaulMofATL wrote:
> Great post. Can we blame some of the stench on AOL? Perhaps it was
> just hanging on to the past too long, like this year with Smoltz and
> Glavine. Sad to see it all go.

The main thing I would hang on AOL/TW is not so much the retraint of
payroll but the suddenness and unpredictability of it. Had JS been asked
to reduce payroll over time that would have allowed the team to
implement a plan for a different approach. However, my recollection is
that the year they dropped payroll it was sudden and substantial, and
came after the team had already committed to several expensive long-term
contracts.

So, while the braves still enjoyed a nice payroll as a number, they were
caught in a position of having committed to large-market contracts
within a middle-market payroll. I think that caused as much of a problem
over the last several years as anything else.

Colin

On Sep 11, 12:45 pm, Colin William <colintwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> PaulMofATL wrote:
> > Great post.  Can we blame some of the stench on AOL?  Perhaps it was
> > just hanging on to the past too long, like this year with Smoltz and
> > Glavine.  Sad to see it all go.  
>
> The main thing I would hang on AOL/TW is not so much the retraint of
> payroll but the suddenness and unpredictability of it. Had JS been asked
> to reduce payroll over time that would have allowed the team to
> implement a plan for a different approach. However, my recollection is
> that the year they dropped payroll it was sudden and substantial, and
> came after the team had already committed to several expensive long-term
> contracts.

Opening Day payrolls for 25-man roster
(salaries plus pro-rated signing bonuses):

2008: $102,365,683
2007: $ 87,290,833
2006: $ 90,156,876
2005: $ 86,457,302
2004: $ 90,182,500
2003: $106,243,667
2002: $ 93,470,367
2001: $ 91,936,167
2000: $ 82,700,000

> So, while the braves still enjoyed a nice payroll as a number, they were
> caught in a position of having committed to large-market contracts
> within a middle-market payroll. I think that caused as much of a problem
> over the last several years as anything else.

And not having high-draft choices. You don't build Anaheim's farm
system unless you suck for as long as Anaheim did. See also Tampa
Bay, 1990 Atlanta Braves.

s/

"Sam Hutcheson" <samh@bellsouth.net> wrote
>>Opening Day payrolls for 25-man roster
(salaries plus pro-rated signing bonuses):
2008: $102,365,683
2007: $ 87,290,833
2006: $ 90,156,876
2005: $ 86,457,302
2004: $ 90,182,500
2003: $106,243,667
2002: $ 93,470,367
2001: $ 91,936,167
2000: $ 82,700,000<<

Any idea how the Hampton contract was counted in 2003/4/5 in these totals?

Colin

Colin William wrote:
> "Sam Hutcheson" <samh@bellsouth.net> wrote
>>> Opening Day payrolls for 25-man roster
> (salaries plus pro-rated signing bonuses):
> 2008: $102,365,683
> 2007: $ 87,290,833
> 2006: $ 90,156,876
> 2005: $ 86,457,302
> 2004: $ 90,182,500
> 2003: $106,243,667
> 2002: $ 93,470,367
> 2001: $ 91,936,167
> 2000: $ 82,700,000<<
>
> Any idea how the Hampton contract was counted in 2003/4/5 in these
> totals?

in the "money well spent" column?

--
zig

"Sides don't adopt nuts, nuts adopt sides."
scott in the coffeeshop

Colin William pisze:
> "Sam Hutcheson" <samh@bellsouth.net> wrote
>>> Opening Day payrolls for 25-man roster
> (salaries plus pro-rated signing bonuses):
> 2008: $102,365,683
> 2007: $ 87,290,833
> 2006: $ 90,156,876
> 2005: $ 86,457,302
> 2004: $ 90,182,500
> 2003: $106,243,667
> 2002: $ 93,470,367
> 2001: $ 91,936,167
> 2000: $ 82,700,000<<
>
> Any idea how the Hampton contract was counted in 2003/4/5 in these totals?

It was told that he will be booked $8M p.y.

pzdr

TRad

On Sep 11, 5:58 pm, "Colin William" <colintwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Sam Hutcheson" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote>>Opening Day payrolls for 25-man roster
>
> (salaries plus pro-rated signing bonuses):
> 2008: $102,365,683
> 2007: $ 87,290,833
> 2006: $ 90,156,876
> 2005: $ 86,457,302
> 2004: $ 90,182,500
> 2003: $106,243,667
> 2002: $ 93,470,367
> 2001: $ 91,936,167
> 2000: $ 82,700,000<<
>
> Any idea how the Hampton contract was counted in 2003/4/5 in these totals?

I suspect the entire yearly amount is factored in. I doubt they split
it out by 8's like the Braves theoretically did.

s/

On Sep 11, 5:58 pm, "Colin William" <colintwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Sam Hutcheson" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote>>Opening Day payrolls for 25-man roster
>
> (salaries plus pro-rated signing bonuses):
> 2008: $102,365,683
> 2007: $ 87,290,833
> 2006: $ 90,156,876
> 2005: $ 86,457,302
> 2004: $ 90,182,500
> 2003: $106,243,667
> 2002: $ 93,470,367
> 2001: $ 91,936,167
> 2000: $ 82,700,000<<
>
> Any idea how the Hampton contract was counted in 2003/4/5 in these totals?

Here's a longer list. First $ is median yearly salary. I think you
can see the hit between 1998 and 1999 in that column. Through 2000 or
so the Braves' payroll was rising steadily with the league average.
In 2001 they tried to cap it at +/- 90 mil. The factor that really
wonks up 2003 isn't Hampton. It's Maddux at 14 mil.

s/

2008 $ 428,750 $
102,365,683
2007 $ 595,000 $
87,290,833
2006 $ 462,500 $
90,156,876
2005 $ 1,000,000 $
86,457,302
2004 $ 737,500 $
90,182,500
2003 $ 800,000 $
106,243,667
2002 $ 600,000 $
93,470,367
2001 $ 1,200,000 $
91,936,166
2000 $ 1,400,000 $
82,732,500
1999 $ 975,000 $
75,065,000
1998 $ 350,000 $
59,536,000
1997 $ 395,000 $
50,488,500
1996 $ 480,000 $
47,930,000
1995 $ 550,000 $
45,199,000
1994 $ 750,000 $
40,502,167
1993 $ 887,500 $
38,131,000
1992 $ 600,000 $
32,975,333
1991 $ 400,000 $
20,423,500
1990 $ 125,000 $
13,328,334
1989 $ 163,000 $
9,551,334
1988 $ 140,000 $
9,967,167