Julio Teheran and Hidden Inflation

Today, Julio Teheran joined the ever growing ranks of young players to sign long term deals early in their careers, agreeing to a six year contract with the Braves that guarantees him $32.4 million, according to Ken Rosenthal. Because he has just one year of service time, this deal buys out two remaining pre-arb years, three arbitration seasons, and then his first free agent year, while also giving the Braves an option for a second free agent year at just $12 million.

The easy comparison is the Madison Bumgarner deal signed in April of 2012. Because that deal was completed after opening day, it’s officially only a five year extension, but in reality, it covers the same time period as this deal for Teheran, and could be more accurately described as a six year deal since the extension didn’t kick in for 12 months from the signing date. Bumgarner got $35 million in guaranteed money for those six years, and he gave up two free agent years as team options for $12 million. Teheran got a little less in guaranteed money, but also surrendered one fewer free agent year. Regardless, the two deals are very similar, and there’s little question that the Braves used Bumgarner’s contract as something of a template for this Teheran deal.

Given how close these two deals are, and the fact that we’re two years removed from Bumgarner’s contract, it’s easy to see this deal as a bit of a rebuke of the rapid inflation suggested by contracts like the one Freddie Freeman got from the Braves last week. In my analysis of that contract, I called his deal a market correction, and suggested that perhaps that deal would make it more difficult for teams to convince players to sign more of these team friendly pre-arb deals that have become so popular in the last few years. Freeman’s deal certainly didn’t stop the Braves from getting Teheran to sign for a price that fits right into the Bumgarner framework.

So, is Freeman’s contract just an outlier, with Teheran’s deal providing evidence that the extension rate for players with no leverage isn’t actually going to explode? That’s a reasonable argument, and maybe even the correct one. But I think we should also keep in mind that inflation isn’t identified just by each new contract being larger than successive contracts, but by players signing similar deals to players who had better performances than their own. And I think that describes this situation pretty well, as Bumgarner was simply a more accomplished pitcher at the time of his extension than Teheran is now.

Here are their career totals through the point at which the extension was announced.

Name IP BB% K% GB% BABIP LOB% HR/FB ERA- FIP- xFIP- WAR RA9-WAR
Madison Bumgarner 337.0 6% 21% 46% 0.317 77% 7% 84 82 85 6.3 6.5
Julio Teheran 211.2 6% 21% 37% 0.285 79% 10% 93 103 103 2.4 3.7

Teheran’s been an above average starter by runs allowed and an average starter by FIP/xFIP, and has thrown basically one year’s worth of innings at the big league level. Bumgarner had been an above average starter by any measure you wanted to use, and had sustained his performance for an extra 120 innings at the big league level. Teheran’s track record is nothing to sneeze at, especially given his age, but Bumgarner’s was better, longer, and he was actually younger at the time he signed his deal than Teheran is now.

Now, this isn’t to suggest that Teheran’s deal is bad for the Braves, simply because he probably isn’t as good as Madison Bumgarner. Not many pitchers are, and Bumgarner’s deal is one of the most team friendly contracts in baseball right now; he rated #19 on the trade value series last year, for reference. Bumgarner’s deal shouldn’t be the standard that other pitchers use to set their own prices, because the deal is skewed heavily in the Giants favor. Players of Bumgarner’s ilk should get more than Bumgarner signed for, and not just because everyone is getting more money nowadays.

So, in one sense, it’s easy to suggest that Teheran’s deal doesn’t reflect a large inflationary adjustment, since he got less than Bumgarner did two years ago. But because he’s both not as accomplished as Bumgarner was, and because he only gave the Braves one team option year instead of two, I actually think this contract does represent some continued upwards adjustment over prior contracts, especially when you look at other deals for pitchers with one year of service time.

For instance, the most recent deal signed by a player with similar service time was actually Martin Perez‘s contract with the Rangers signed three months ago. Perez, with five years to go before free agency just as Teheran has now, signed a four year deal that guarantees him just $12.5 million in total, and then gives the Rangers three team options: one for his last arbitration year, and then two for his first two years of free agency. Even if those first two options were guaranteed, making his deal the same six year commitment that Teheran got, his total would only come to $23.5 million, and then the option year is for $9 million.

Teheran got significantly more than Perez got just a few months ago, even though he’s statistically closer to Perez than he is to Bumgarner. Take a look at the comparison between these two:

Name IP BB% K% GB% BABIP LOB% HR/FB ERA- FIP- xFIP- WAR RA9-WAR
Julio Teheran 211.2 6% 21% 37% 0.285 79% 10% 93 103 103 2.4 3.7
Martin Perez 162.1 7% 15% 48% 0.303 73% 11% 95 99 104 2.1 2.1

By any of ERA/FIP/xFIP, Teheran and Perez have been pretty similar big league pitchers to date. Teheran has an extra 50 innings pitched, so he’s done it for a bit longer, but there are a lot of similarities here. And again, Perez got $12.5 million guaranteed, or $20 million less than Teheran.

Perez’s deal was in line with most of the other contracts for pitchers with one year of service time that we’ve seen. Matt Moore got $14 million guaranteed, Wade Davis got $12.6 million, Brett Anderson got $12.5 million, and Cory Luebke got $12 million, with all of those deals signed between 2010 and 2012. Realistically, these are the guys that Teheran is actually more comparable too, but he ended up getting something close to the Bumgarner deal instead.

By itself, Teheran’s deal doesn’t look like massive inflation, especially compared to Bumgarner’s contract. But I think there is inflation/market correction here, as Teheran got close to the largest contract ever for a pitcher at this service time level even though he isn’t at that level. Inflation isn’t just escalation in total dollars, but also the ability for lesser players to sign deals that were reserved for better players in the past. And while Teheran is a good young arm, the fact that he was able to move out of the Perez/Moore/Davis/Anderson/Luebke group and into the Bumgarner group suggests that prices are continuing to rise, even for high risk pitchers that are nowhere near free agency.

As we’ve noted, these previous early career extensions have been heavily team friendly, so there’s plenty of room for growth in guaranteed dollars while still remaining a good strategy for the teams to pursue. Teheran may be less of a bargain than some other pitchers in his position, but that doesn’t make him not a bargain. Had he stayed healthy for the next few years, he likely would have been setup to receive something close to $25 million in arbitration, so a healthy Teheran sold his first free agent year for something like $7.5 million, and then gave the Braves an option that could cover his second free agent year for an additional $11 million over the buyout. These are nothing prices, and if Teheran stays healthy, this deal will work out wonderfully for the Braves.

Even if he pulls a Ricky Romero, the costs just aren’t that high that they’ll do any real damage to the Braves payroll flexibility. With any pitcher, there is injury risk and downside, and Teheran is certainly no guarantee to continue to pitch well for the next five or six years. But the Braves risk here is pretty limited, and their upside is pretty high if Teheran does stay healthy.

That’s why these deals so often work out for the clubs. The risk/reward balance is still skewed towards the reward side for the signing team. But the needle is moving. Freeman’s deal moved the needle a lot. This moves it a little. But it’s still movement, and I think we can expect fewer and fewer of the $10-$20 million guarantees in the future. To sell off a free agent year or two, players should get more than they have, and Teheran’s deal shows that even the non-premium arms are moving that direction.




Print This Post



Dave is a co-founder of USSMariner.com and contributes to the Wall Street Journal.


58 Responses to “Julio Teheran and Hidden Inflation”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. triple_r says:

    My big takeaway from this is that the Braves seem to be going with an anti-stars and scrubs approach. As you talked about with the Orioles earlier in the offseason, having two 2-WAR players is usually better than having one 4-WAR player. Instead of giving a huge extension to Jason Heyward (who will probably be at least a 4-WAR player for years to come), the Braves have elected to extend two lesser talents for about the same amount of total money in Freddie Freeman and Teheran (who should consistently provide at least 2-WAR seasons). Perhaps the SAS system is on the way out.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • LHPSU says:

      Freddie Freeman was a 4+ WAR player last year, is expected to be a 4-WAR player this year, with no reason to expect any decline in the next few years.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Kogoruhn says:

        No reason except a regression in his BABIP. I don’t think he will regress to a 2 win season but assuming he will be a 4 win player going forward also seems suspect when his 1279 PA’s before last season resulted in 2.3 WAR.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

        • Jason B says:

          “No reason except a regression in his BABIP”

          Yes, there is. His BABIP last year was .371. The number of players with 3,000+ PA all-time with a BABIP north of .370 is…three.

          Not saying it will regress to .250. Not saying he’s not quite good. But *of course* his BABIP is very, very likely to regress.

          Vote -1 Vote +1

        • Anon21 says:

          Jason: read that again, preferably in the context of the comment it replied to. You misunderstood.

          Vote -1 Vote +1

        • jpg says:

          Yeah it looks like Jason read it as “expect” rather than “except”

          Vote -1 Vote +1

        • Jason B says:

          Right you are! Reading is hard.

          Apologies! Carry on.

          +6 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Cardinology says:

      I don’t know that these deals suggest an overall philosophy for the team. I think they probably just liked the prices that Freeman and Teheran were willing to accept and couldn’t get Heyward at a price they liked. I’m sure they would have signed one Mike Trout instead of Freeman and Teheran if that were the alternative.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • John C says:

      I think the last few seasons of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim are definitive proof that stars-and-scrubs doesn’t work very well. And the success of the decidedly anti-SAS 2013 Red Sox reiterated the point.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Daniel says:

      think Freeman and Teheran are stars in the making…. 1.) you have to watch Freeman at least 100 ab’s to simply tell he will be an elite hitter for a very long time… 2.)The Braves have watched Julio Teheran since he was 16-17 years old, if he reaches potential he is a no. 1 starter and a probable top 10 pitcher in the league… and I think the Braves know that

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jason B says:

        Be careful about basing much of a long-term conclusion off of a 100-AB sample. Yuni Betancourt looked decent, if not good, over 100 at-bat stretches, too.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Daniel says:

      And ok fair ya’ll are saying about Freeman’s BABIP.. but you just have to watch him just to see he is an amazing hitter.. and will win a batting title one day.. he will.. so while ya’ll say his BABIP will come down and he will regress because its too high… I say it’s not that far off from his Batting average and Watching Freeman I just say that’s about right because he is a really special young hitter

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. Oliver says:

    I agree with the premise of this article generally, that there’s been some modest, hidden inflation. I think all it shows though is how much of an outlier the Freeman contract actually was.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. jpg says:

    We’re dealing with a short sample here. At this point, this we’re still only talking about two contracts, both furnished by a single organization. Now, if over the next couple of months, another ten teams come out of the woodwork and offer Freeman type deals to young players with multiple years of team control, then we may be onto something here. At this point, I think the safe answer is that Braves are just blazing their own trail. Sports are a copycat world. If these deals work out, other teams will start to follow suit. I just don’t see enough yet to suggest that the entire market has shifted.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • larry says:

      i agree with you in that this does seem to be caused by the specific situation that the Braves are in at this point in time. They are in a unique position as they are one of the youngest teams in the league and have been successful with that young core. add in the lack of a possible new TV deal and they have to use a different strategy than a lot of other teams.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • coldseat says:

      watch out – Mike Trout is coming, albeit I tend to believe nothing gets done unless the Angels absolutely break the bank, in which case there’s little reason for the Angels to not ride out the arb years & not risk a Trout injury/decline.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. Cardinology says:

    Hadn’t Teheran and Perez both had at least a little elbow trouble before signing their extensions, too, whereas Bumgarner was pretty clear of that? T

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Brendan says:

      No injury issue for Teheran that I can recall. He did have a terrible year at the AAA level in 2012 which you might be thinking of. Either that or you might be confusing him with Vizcaido. He was another highly touted prospect a couple years ago rated 2nd behind Teheran in the Braves org. But he’s had lingering issues that have cost him a couple years and was traded to the Cubs.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Cardinology says:

        Thought I remembered him having a little elbow soreness in the minors at one point, but, yeah, I couldn’t find any reference to it with just a quick search.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

        • pft says:

          Braves tinkered with his delivery in 2012 since he had violent mechanics they feared put additional strain on his elbow. That may or may not have been prompted by actual elbow soreness, or was just a proactive move on their part

          Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. Hank says:

    I fail to see how this moves the needle further AT ALL, and this article reads like an author that feels the need to fit any data point to a narrative he is driving.

    Gone is the objective analysis, consistent methodology of contract evaluation and it has been replaced with an article that read like “well this doesn’t disprove my narrative” complete with a whole lot of qualitative handwaving about skill level (but no actual analysis of it).

    It seems the narrative has become more important then the analysis of late.

    -5 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Dan Ugglas Forearm says:

      I thought he did a perfectly good job of explaining how the needle has moved. He even addressed that it wasn’t a drastic movement. Players that are a tier below their more accomplished counterparts are now getting what those top-tier players were getting. How does that not signify inflation? Do you have anything to argue Dave’s point that would suggest it’s something else?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Hank says:

        Completely missed the point. Saying something doesn’t disprove a theory, doesn’t prove the theory. But to answer your question:

        Is the surplus value teams are getting in these deals shrinking? If only the SABR community had a way to put a model together and track that objectively without “well he’s a tier below so he should be cheaper”. So the Teheran deal has even less surplus value than the Freeman deal?

        The Freeman deal is a data point the needle moved. How exactly does this show it has kept moving.., if anything this has move it a bit in the other direction. If one had looked at the expected surplus value in the deals it may even be able to look at it somewhat objectively.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

        • tz says:

          But then we could get into arguing over the assumptions behind the surplus projections etc.

          I think the real point is the last sentence of the article. Ever since Longoria signed that super-team-friendly deal with TB years ago, it was inevitable that teams would witness the value of that deal and try to do the same with their best young players. This gave the Bumgarner generation reason to demand a bit closer to fair value, and now the Teheran generation is squeezing even closer to getting “fair” value for this kind of deal.

          Vote -1 Vote +1

        • Hank says:

          As to the conclusion – I think ~7.5mil for one FA and a 12mil option is a pretty damn good team friendly deal and a great move by the Braves, and not evidence that the market is shifting in the player’s direction on these extensions.

          (The Freeman deal on the other hand, would indicate that)

          Vote -1 Vote +1

        • NS says:

          “I think ~7.5mil for one FA and a 12mil option is a pretty damn good team friendly deal and a great move by the Braves, and not evidence that the market is shifting in the player’s direction”

          Why are you starting there, instead of engaging the argument in the post? That argument used actual data, since whether or not those numbers are team-friendly depends directly on Teheran’s performance.

          Disagreeing is fine, but pick it up where the post left off.

          Vote -1 Vote +1

        • Dan Ugglas Forearm says:

          There is a way we can objectively determine who is in what tier, something Dave did in the article by putting their stats side-by-side and showing that Bumgarner outperformed Teheran in every regard. They had almost identical amounts of service time, and Bumgarner was even a little younger. The less-accomplished pitcher got nearly identical money at just about the same point in their careers. That is completely objective.

          In regards to surplus value, we have no way of knowing if that gap is shrinking. This is an exercise in trying to predict the market and its inflation rates. It’s not something we’ll be able to definitively label until a few years down the road. If it is inflating, like Dave assumes, then the surplus value gap will probably remain pretty stable. You may be paying more money, but a win is worth more money. That’s pretty much the definition of inflation. Value costs more dollars, but everyone is paying more dollars, so the margins remain virtually the same.

          Vote -1 Vote +1

    • coldseat says:

      OTOH: If forced, I would bet Dave is more right than wrong on the issue. It’s kind of unfair to expect perfect data when anticipating the future – that’s the difference between those ahead of the curve and historians.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Shawn says:

      I actually think he is showing further needed analysis. He presented his point regarding the Freeman signing, and had a good supporting opportunity to write on when it came to this extension. It is a pitcher extension as well, so you have the different perspective from a hitter. It was very insightful follow up to further explain a previous point, which always makes the overall message clearer. The fact that it is an analysis in good narrative form is actually what you want in something you write.

      As a braves fan, I am excited to see this, mainly because one needle that is not hardly going to move anytime soon is our budget increasing. Its gonna be nice to have a staple in the order and now in the rotation, and while neither may be of the uber elite, I think it makes sense to overpay a bit for consistent above average production. Sometimes, that is all that is needed to get to the next level and succeed in the playoffs.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • bilbovibrator says:

      hes trying to say braves are trying save some money by signing steady(albeit inflated) contracts to young, likely to overacheive, players. like kimbrel and simmons guys so good they gonna cost a fortune in arb years. i think. lowball your talented farm prospects and make big splashes in free agency all whilst building a new stadium in a new county. AYYY MUST BE DA MONAYYYY

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. Antonio Bananas says:

    I think this deal shows the risk factor of a first baseman and a pitcher more than anything. Freeman, because of position and skill set (like most 1B) is more likely to produce a high volume of plate appearances than Teheran or any other early 20s pitcher is to complete innings. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the trend we see moving forward with pitchers coming at a cheaper price due to the risk of them tearing their rotator cuff and throwing 0 innings

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Ruki Motomiya says:

      I’m not a big Freeman fan, but I think it is more because Teheran has only had 1 season while Freeman has had multiple ones and is coming off a larger WAR season.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Simon says:

      And the comparison is kind of apples and oranges given that Freeman has a lot more service time than Teheran.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. NS says:

    Time for a thread full of defensive Braves fans. Somehow Andrelton Simmons being underrated will be worked into the conversation.

    -14 Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. James says:

    Aren’t we looking at the whole risk/reward thing in a way that’s kind of skewed towards the team’s point of view? Teharen just guaranteed himself $32.4 million. Certainly enough to set him up for life if he doesn’t mismanage things. If he doesn’t take the contract, and blows out his arm, he gets ~$500K for next year. A lot of money, but he’d still have to keep working at something with a bum arm. If you told me tomorrow that I could either keep working year to year at something I enjoy with the possibility of hitting the jackpot, or be guaranteed 60 times my current annual income with the possibility of hitting a somewhat smaller jackpot six years from now, I’d take the smaller jackpot every day. I think the risk/reward model typically discussed on fangraphs works really well if you’re talking agents vs. clubs. For an individual player though, it’s would I rather become super-rich now, or flip a coin between being another working stiff or super-super-rich in five years. Personally, I’d take the guaranteed super-rich over the coin flip. I’d be telling my agent, “You work for me [Boras]. Get me as much as you can guaranteed tomorrow, and we’ll worry about the 9 figure contract if my arm is still attached to my body when this one runs out.”

    +6 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Dan Ugglas Forearm says:

      Also, this is a guy the Braves have had in their system since he was 16. They know better than anyone whether or not his results were real, and what he may be able to achieve as he gets into his prime. There also seems to have been a priority within the Braves organization to obtain some cost certainty in the coming years. Before these extensions, they had virtually nothing on the books past 2016, and knowing what you’re going to be paying is extremely helpful when trying to plan your next move. The Atlanta roster, over the past couple seasons, has been filled with guys in arb or on rookie contracts, and they haven’t had a firm understanding of how much money they could spend on the market. With an ownership group that doesn’t seem at all interested in going over a set-in-stone payroll, they’ve likely been forced to err on the frugal side, potentially walking away from useful players they weren’t sure they could afford, only to find a little money left over after the arb process.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Cardinology says:

      All that we’re looking at is the actual contract against Teheran’s market value. We’re not asking whether it’s awesome for Teheran to be rich now. It’s totally effin’ awesome. Good for him.

      We don’t have to go saying that every contract that makes you rich is perfect from the players perspective. Any player wants to be a) rich and b) paid in accordance with their market value. If the Angels offered Mike Trout this deal, would you say he should take the guaranteed payout and it would be great for him?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Baltar says:

      Wow! What a brilliant and well-written account of why it is smart for a young player to take a “team-friendly” contract.
      Guaranteeing yourself over $30M means that you will have more than enough money for anything you could reasonably want for the rest of your life. Why risk it for the possibility of even more?
      In case any team is interested, I’m available for only one year guaranteed at the MLB minimum.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Cardinology says:

        Good call, Baltar. Mike Trout should definitely sign for $30 mil right now and Bryce Harper, Jason Heyward, and Manny Machado should all do the same, too. I mean, why wait to get a contract like Freddie Freeman just got? Even if you are a better player than Freddie, you should definitely take $30 million guaranteed as soon as it’s offered. That makes so much sense, I just can’t figure out why all those guys haven’t signed deals like that, yet.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Cardinology says:

        And on behalf of all the MLB teams – no one is interested.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. Dan says:

    If you look at just the platform season, Bumgarner and Teheran are pretty similar. If I’m Teheran, I wnat to be paid based on the platform season, not 19 innings from two years ago when I gave up a bunch of homeruns (that may or may not have been fluky). Bumgarner was clearly better, but the gap between the full seasons of Teheran and Bumgarner is much closer than the gap between 2013 Martin Perez and 2013 Teheran. If I’m Teheran, and you want to extend me for Martin Perez dollars, I would say no way. However, if I’m getting close to Bumgarner $, of course that’s a good deal.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. Jim says:

    I think people forget how horrible Teheran was in AAA in 2012. He was considered a bust heading into last year. He was also pretty inconsistent the first couple of months last year. I think the risk to the Braves on this contract is very high in comparison to the Giants on that Bumgardner deal.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • steve says:

      “he was considered a bust heading into last year”

      I think that was the consensus by people outside the Brave organization. They tried tinkering with his mechanics during the 2012, which led to the horrendous AAA numbers. While his stock clearly dropped after that season, I think most in the organization thought he could return to his previous form once he was able to get his mechanics right again. He also had a great ST in 2013 which secured the starting job.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jim says:

        Once the calendar flipped to May he started pitching we’ll but he didn’t start we’ll at all in 2013. He was horrendous in April. In his five starts in April he gave up 16 runs in 28 1/3 innings.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Dan says:

      Bumgarner had a weird drop in velocity in either 2009 or 2010. At the time the Giants signed him to the extension, that velocity drop was not that far in the rearview mirror, and was certainly a perceived risk. Hindsight being 20/20, it has worked out great. But that doesn’t mean that the Bumgarner contract in 2011 was far less risky than the current Teheran one.

      No matter how you slice it, you’re talking about relatively small samples of good to very good performance for Teheran. If you think it’s too much risk, then you are weighting the 2012 performance fairly heavily compared to the 2013 performance. At some point you have to ask if the 2013 success is sustainable. Based on his K% and BB%, I would bet that it is, and that 2012 was an anomaly. If Teheran goes out and has a similar year in 2014 as he did in 2013, this deal is significantly more expensive. If the changeup gets back to where it was in 2011, Teheran probably takes a step forward, and the peripherals start to look like an ace (and you’re looking at $30mm for the arb seasons, and FA seasons at $22mm. Even if he has a lost year due to TJ surgery, the Braves are fairly likely to come out ahead on this deal.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • (not that) James says:

      I don’t think anyone reputable thought he was a “bust.” After several terrific minor league seasons, including one in AAA, he had a poor season – after team initiated tweaks to his delivery. He rebounded fairly soon thereafter in winter ball. Who writes off a still very young prospect based on that?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Simon says:

      On the other hard, you’re completely ignoring the years of good performance in the minors.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. pft says:

    Pitchers who sign extensions do so as insurance, more so perhaps than position players simply because injuries are more of an risk for pitchers than position players. You simply can’t compare what position players are offered with pitchers at that age. Apples and Oranges.

    I would say that the friendlier an extension seems to the team for a pitcher that pitchers who sign such deals may be experiencing some warning signs healthwise

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. DuPu says:

    Developmentally, the Braves had to like what they saw from Teheran in 2013. Teheran lost the feel for his changeup (which among scouts was rated a consensus plus pitch when he was a prospect and during his 2011 call-up) and by necessity he became a different pitcher. Teheran was allowed to employ his pre-2012 mechanics, and in addition he added a two seam fastball and a slider. His curveball was much more consistent in 2013, but most of all, his fastball command guided his success. This is a departure from Julio Teheran, the prospect, who used mid 90s heat to throw past batters and a plus changeup to keep them off balance.

    The fact that Teheran pitched a full season which should mostly be regarded as a success, without his best pitch, seemed to avail to the Braves front office. Should Teheran find the feel for his changeup again, I will be excited to see what he can do going forward with his broader selection of pitches.

    I like the deal, and in the end Teheran doesn’t have to dazzle for this contract to pay dividends. The biggest caveat, as with all pitchers, will be injuries.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. TKilgore says:

    I might be off base, but considering Teheran was ranked in the top 5 of all prospects in baseball at one time and posted a very good season last year that seemed to get better as the year progressed, it seems like his potential for being a great pitcher is high. Isn’t Atlanta betting on this proposition and if the downside is that “he’s not a good as Bumgarner”, that’s a pretty good situation. I think Teheran has a really good chance of being better than Bumgarner over the next 5 years.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Matt says:

      I think, in general, the Braves are putting bets on Freeman and Teheran both taking big steps forward. I can’t justify the Freeman deal other than the Braves wholeheartedly believe Freeman hasn’t fulfilled his potential yet. I feel there is an undercurrent that Freeman just had his career best year and the rest is downhill from here. We won’t really know the results of that until the deal plays out. On the Teheran deal, barring total collapse, I can’t see that one really being a bad deal for the Braves, especially with that 12 mil option.

      I do understand that the point is that the Braves are paying premiums for something they may not have needed to pay for, but at the same time we need to recognize that they are betting heavily on their players.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Simon says:

      I think it’s a significant omission from the article that it ignores Teheran’s prospect pedigree, which suggests that there may well be more upside from his 2013 numbers. Not that he’s likely to be significantly better than Bumgarner, but there’s still room for growth.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current ye@r *