The Braves Rebuild, Part 4: Outgoing vs. Incoming Value, 2016 In-Season Trades

*For those that have been following this series, I made a fairly large clerical error in Part 2 of this series and have corrected said mistake. Check that piece before moving ahead as it will provide clarity*

Today’s piece, “The Braves Rebuild 2016 In-Season Trades” is part 4 in our 7-part series. Here are links to the first 3 Parts:

The 2016 in-season trades have the least amount of flair that we’ve seen thus far in this series, and it likely has to do with the hyper-focus on the international signing class, where the Braves went all in on many high-end prospects. We all know how that ended and we’ll not re-hash that nightmare.

Braves Rebuild, 2016 In-season Trades:

Braves Rebuild, 2016 In-Season Trades: Value Outgoing

Outgoing Production Value: 17.6 MM

Total Cost: $35.25 MM

17.65 MM of gained production (that’s weird to say)

Braves Rebuild, 2016 In-Season Trades: Value Incoming

*In the Kelly Johnson and Jason Grilli deals, the Braves were responsible for paying roughly 3 MM of the salaries.

Incoming Production Value: 7.6 MM

Total Cost: 28.825 MM

20.625 MM of lost production.

Conclusion

Since we can see into the future and rid ourselves of the financial commitment to Matt Kemp starting in 2018, the Braves only committed 24 MM to him and saved this exercise. Somehow, grouped together, the Braves were able to absorb the Olivera trade and only come out on the negative by 2.975 million all the while adding Phil Pfreakin Pfeifer to the mix of unknown future value, which now consists of:

Adding all 4 outcomes in our first 4 parts of the series:

  • +59.03 MM of gained production in Part 1
  • -79.5 MM of gained production in Part 2
  • +27.9 MM of gained production in Part 3
  • -2.975 of gained production in Part 4

Total: 4.455 MM of gained production

Looks like we’re still in the +, people!

Thanks for reading on “The Braves Rebuild: Outgoing vs. Incoming Value, Part 4: 2016 In-Season Trades”. Check out all of our posts on the Rebuild here!

Author: Ryan Cothran

Ryan is the site editor and manager of Braves Journal. Follow him on Twitter.

13 thoughts on “The Braves Rebuild, Part 4: Outgoing vs. Incoming Value, 2016 In-Season Trades”

  1. This is meticulous work, Ryan. Thanks.

    $65MM over 3 years is equivalent to about a 5% annual revenue increase. That’s not too shabby.

  2. @1
    I thought so, too…that is until there was a need to rid themselves of Kemp and consolidated all of his remaining salary into one year. That Olivera deal was a lesson that took 4 years to undo.

    I think I’ve got a clerical error here that I may need help with. Kemp was owed 64.5 MM over the next 3.5 years from the Padres. They sent 10.5 MM in the deal, which was applied to each year between 2017-19 to reduce the annual cost. The Braves owed $28.5 million to Olivera and that portion was completely absorbed by the Padres.

    64.5-10.5= 54
    54/3= 17MM/year for 2017-19

    Due to the trade with the Dodgers that comes next, Olivera’s future salary was not included in that deal and Braves absorbed all of Gonzalez’s, McCarthy’s, and Kazmir’s salary (51.5 MM) to offset the cost of Matt Kemp.

    But the Braves kept the 10.5 MM from the Padres and Olivera’s 32 MM (obviously) which totals 42.5 MM of the deal, but then took on 51.5 MM in salary to get rid of Kemp and his full salary, which was $43 MM for the next 2 years. What a mess.

    Follow my math and see if I’m correct.

    •Braves save 28.5MM in the Olivera trade
    •Braves pay Kemp ~24MM for 1.5 seasons
    28.5-24= +4.5 MM

    •Braves pay McCarthy, Gonzalez, and Kazmir 51.5 MM
    •Dodgers pay Matt Kemp 43MM
    43.5-51= -7.5 MM
    -7.5+4.5= -3
    (Braves now in the hole -3 MM)

    •Braves keep 7MM sent from the Pads for next 2 years.
    -3+7= +4 MM

    •Braves end up 4 million up from the initial trade, so in total, they only lost $25.5 million in this whole debacle.

    That right?

  3. I’ve worked it out now. Having to backlog pieces now. Once again, damn you Hector Olivera.

  4. Agree with Jonathan — thanks so much for going through this. So far as I can see, purely on baseball terms, we were hugely positive in part 1, highly negative in part 2 (Olivera more than canceling out Touki), somewhat positive in part 3 (Dansby/Ender/Newcomb balancing out losing Andrelton), and mildly negative in part 4, which was essentially spare parts for spare parts.

    This series helps to illustrate the pitfalls of teardown-rebuilds: sometimes the guys you get are the wrong guys, and sometimes the guys you give up are the wrong guys. All the Rio Ruizes in the world won’t make up for losing Andrelton Simmons.

  5. @5 HA! Very funny.

    Ryan, love this series. Very insightful. Thanks so much.

    Let’s sort this little mess out and just play some ball, okay?

  6. You guys…I made a HUGE error in part 2. Fixed it, but it changes everything. Looking back is always good.

  7. Put a show on for my kids and corrected every piece 1-7. The problem in the part 2 stemmed from a calculation in lost value. Totally blew it.

  8. Gosh…that was such a mess. The mishap in Part 2 and the way I calculated the Olivera/Kemp trade then the Kemp/Old Dodgers trade was piss-poor research. All numbers are updated and accurate. Part 2 is worthy of reading again if you’re keeping up on the piece as conclusion is totally different.

    However, I will say that I’ve now finished the series and the conclusion is quite fascinating.

  9. My lack of engagement on this series is not apathy, Ryan. I was just waiting for the series to conclude, and I’m going to try to consume it at one time now. Looks great so far.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *