Acuna

[smootness]

I claim Coppy is an average GM, not a buffoon. He clearly knows the cost associated with promoting Swanson early.

There has undoubtedly been pressure to put a "winner" on the field in time for the new ballpark. They probably knew Swanson was part of the "winner" they were going to sell to the ignorant fan base to open the new ballpark since the moment Dave Stewart gifted him to the Braves. This is why we see Swanson's face everywhere in interview after interview leading up to this season.

Knowing Swanson would be the SS on opening day 2017, there was no service time to lose by promoting him last season. So in s sense, yes, they said "what the hell" and promoted him to replace Aybar.

That's why it happened, but that still doesn't mean it was the optimal way to handle one of the Braves most valuable assets.

It doesn't mean it was optimal, but it doesn't mean it was sub-optimal, either. I have talked to plenty of casual Braves fans and other people who aren't really even much of a baseball fan at all, and pretty much all of them have mentioned Dansby when the Braves and the new stadium has come up.

How much in additional revenue will that drive? We don't know. But I can pretty much guarantee you it isn't insignificant and could easily surpass whatever we lose by not having the additional year of control.

[smootness]

Yeah, I hated that move and you can pretty
much bet it lost us three draft spots...THREE. This new ballpark really threw a wrench in the rebuild plans. Now they are announcing the rebuild is over. How do you win 68 games and announce that?? It's all bull crap to put butts in the seats.

I haven't heard anyone say 'the rebuild is over'. I have heard them say that it's time to start building a team, which I think is true. It's time to start seeing the young guys come up and play on the MLB team, not necessarily to acquire them in bulk like we have been.

That doesn't mean it's time to start competing for championships.

[thewupk]

It doesn't mean it was optimal, but it doesn't mean it was sub-optimal, either. I have talked to plenty of casual Braves fans and other people who aren't really even much of a baseball fan at all, and pretty much all of them have mentioned Dansby when the Braves and the new stadium has come up.

How much in additional revenue will that drive? We don't know. But I can pretty much guarantee you it isn't insignificant and could easily surpass whatever we lose by not having the additional year of control.

I agree that it's a revenue increaser. The attendance did go up at the end of the season after he was hyped and promoted. With that being said I doubt the additional revenue at the end of last month and the first couple of weeks this season is going to be that big of a deal. The same people you have talked to would still be mentioning Dansby a month from now if he was hyped and promoted then.

[smootness]

I agree that it's a revenue increaser. The attendance did go up at the end of the season after he was hyped and promoted. With that being said I doubt the additional revenue at the end of last month and the first couple of weeks this season is going to be that big of a deal. The same people you have talked to would still be mentioning Dansby a month from now if he was hyped and promoted then.

There's an argument to be had, no doubt. I have no issue with someone who disagrees with calling Dansby up when we did, and the reasons people have listed as negative consequences are, in fact, negative consequences.

My issue, and the general issue I have with a lot of the criticism of the FO on this board, is that there is an argument to be had. It's not as simple as, 'Calling Dansby up last year cost us a few draft spots and a year of control, therefore it is a fact that it was a stupid move.'

As Enscheff himself said, it's not as though the Braves' FO didn't know the negative consequences of calling him up. So why would they do it? Well, there are positive consequences as well. I'm just trying to balance the discussion by talking about what those positive consequences may be.

The point you make is a good one, and should be considered. Will revenues increase that much more than would have happened opening a new stadium and then calling Dansby up later? I don't know, to be honest. There is also a risk that ending last year terribly with no hope and then starting this year with a similar roster alienates fans further, and you get the uptick in attendance initially but then they come once or twice and then stop because they don't believe the FO cares about winning.

Winning will generally solve your attendance problems, but in order to complete the rebuild and fill in gaps at the MLB level, we need payroll to increase sooner rather than later. So every little bit counts on some level.

[jpx7]

It doesn't mean it was optimal, but it doesn't mean it was sub-optimal, either.

If it's not optimal, it's sub-optimal (unless it's super-optimal, which can't really be a thing), because that literally means less than optimal. The question we're debating vis-à-vis Swanson is how sub-optimal the decision was, and it sounds like your take is "only a little sub-optimal"—which is fair, but I think ultimately wrong, even if the Braves don't end up being burned too bad by the mistake.

[TheBravos]

I haven't heard anyone say 'the rebuild is over'. I have heard them say that it's time to start building a team, which I think is true. It's time to start seeing the young guys come up and play on the MLB team, not necessarily to acquire them in bulk like we have been.

That doesn't mean it's time to start competing for championships.

Optimistic Braves believe rebuilding is finally behind them

Facebook
Twitter
Email
AP
3 days ago
ATLANTA (AP) — The Atlanta Braves hardly sound like a team coming off a last-place finish.
These guys are talking playoffs...

Article goes on from there...

[sturg33]

My issue is the homers will go out of their way to defend the FO... even an unquestionably poor decision of promoting Swanson is brushed off as "it's not a big deal"

It will end up costing us a lot. A year of peak control, 3 draft pick slots, and a whole lot of draft slot money. I don't see how any of the positives can offset that. Matter of fact, I'd argue it would make financial sense to wait to call him up after the newness of the park wears off... would give the fans another reason to come see a bad team

[smootness]

If it's not optimal, it's sub-optimal (unless it's super-optimal, which can't really be a thing), because that literally means less than optimal. The question we're debating vis-à-vis Swanson is how sub-optimal the decision was, and it sounds like your take is "only a little sub-optimal"—which is fair, but I think ultimately wrong, even if the Braves don't end up being burned too bad by the mistake.

No, my point is that it isn't set in stone either way. It may not have been optimal, or it may have been. Most of the posts here focus only on the negative aspects, not the positive ones. So when I say 'it doesn't mean it's optimal' I'm acknowledging that it's possible it wasn't optimal, not that it definitely wasn't optimal.

[smootness]

Optimistic Braves believe rebuilding is finally behind them

Facebook
Twitter
Email
AP
3 days ago
ATLANTA (AP) — The Atlanta Braves hardly sound like a team coming off a last-place finish.
These guys are talking playoffs...

Article goes on from there...

So Braves players being optimistic about the season and talking playoffs = the Braves announcing the rebuild is over?

[jpx7]

No, my point is that it isn't set in stone either way. It may not have been optimal, or it may have been. Most of the posts here focus only on the negative aspects, not the positive ones. So when I say 'it doesn't mean it's optimal' I'm acknowledging that it's possible it wasn't optimal, not that it definitely wasn't optimal.

Could you illustrate how it might turn out to be truly optimal? Because, as you note, it's certainly been demonstrated how—even if Swanson is eventually signed beyond his arbitration years, becomes a great star for Cobb County, et cetera—the promotion timing would still represent a sub-optimal way of handling him as an organizational asset.

[4maddux_cy's]

I keep clicking on this thread thinking maybe it is back to discussing Acuna. haha

[bravesfanMatt]

My issue is the homers will go out of their way to defend the FO... even an unquestionably poor decision of promoting Swanson is brushed off as "it's not a big deal"

It will end up costing us a lot. A year of peak control, 3 draft pick slots, and a whole lot of draft slot money. I don't see how any of the positives can offset that. Matter of fact, I'd argue it would make financial sense to wait to call him up after the newness of the park wears off... would give the fans another reason to come see a bad team

It most certainly started his clock.. But there is nothing.. I mean nothing that can prove it cost us draft slots. You will never prove that we would have won more or less with out him, because that is a complete unknown. You have no idea how the person replacing him would have done.. Point to his great plays and I will point to his errors. So just put the cost us draft picks back in your pocket and keep it tucked away for another day you are feeling salty. keep blowing the service clock horn all you want.. that is 100% correct.

[CJ9]

I keep clicking on this thread thinking maybe it is back to discussing Acuna. haha

You aren't the only one.

[thewupk]

It most certainly started his clock.. But there is nothing.. I mean nothing that can prove it cost us draft slots. You will never prove that we would have won more or less with out him, because that is a complete unknown. You have no idea how the person replacing him would have done.. Point to his great plays and I will point to his errors. So just put the cost us draft picks back in your pocket and keep it tucked away for another day you are feeling salty. keep blowing the service clock horn all you want.. that is 100% correct.

I mean Aybar hit 250/340/350 and was worth 0.1 WAR in 29 games with the Tigers. Swanson hit 302/361/442 and was worth 0.8 WAR in 0.8 WAR in 31 games with the Braves. I think it's safe to say we would have lost more games if we kept Aybar on the team.

[bravesfanMatt]

I mean Aybar hit 250/340/350 and was worth 0.1 WAR in 29 games with the Tigers. Swanson hit 302/361/442 and was worth 0.8 WAR in 0.8 WAR in 31 games with the Braves. I think it's safe to say we would have lost more games if we kept Aybar on the team.

Aybar also OPS .852 with the Braves after Kemp arrived. Next...

[thewupk]

Aybar also OPS .852 with the Braves after Kemp arrived. Next...

I forgot. Kemp makes everybody hit better. What was I thinking.

[bravesfanMatt]

I forgot. Kemp makes everybody hit better. What was I thinking.

There is as much evidence of that being true as there is that Swanson cost the braves draft slots.

[thewupk]

There is as much evidence of that being true as there is that Swanson cost the braves draft slots.

Not true but it's clearly it's pointless to try and argue that with you.

[chop2chip]

I mean Aybar hit 250/340/350 and was worth 0.1 WAR in 29 games with the Tigers. Swanson hit 302/361/442 and was worth 0.8 WAR in 0.8 WAR in 31 games with the Braves. I think it's safe to say we would have lost more games if we kept Aybar on the team.

I was going to point out that difference is only one game then I realized we missed out on #2 by one game.

Oops.

[smootness]

Could you illustrate how it might turn out to be truly optimal? Because, as you note, it's certainly been demonstrated how—even if Swanson is eventually signed beyond his arbitration years, becomes a great star for Cobb County, et cetera—the promotion timing would still represent a sub-optimal way of handling him as an organizational asset.

Because he isn't just an organizational asset, and the business side has to be taken into account, especially because that will directly impact future payroll. The FO obviously knows the negative consequences, as an organizational asset, of calling him up earlier. And they clearly aren't trying to make sub-optimal moves. That means there have to be other factors here. It doesn't mean they made the right move, but it does mean it isn't as simple as, 'He lost some back-end value as an organizational asset, ergo the move was stupid.'