I have a sneaking suspicion the new CBA will prevent teams from sticking prospects in the minors for a few weeks and gaining that 7th year of control. I would be willing to bet money they will have to be down there for at least 2-3 months, and maybe even 51% of the season to delay becoming a FA. If that ends up being the case the calculus changes when deciding to promote top prospects.Originally Posted by KB21
The Braves don't play the service time game. When a player is ready and there's an opening, they call them up. I agree with this approach. If a player has earned the promotion then they should get it.
I just don't want them pushing Swanson because they want him to earn the promotion. Don't let the desire to show the rebuild is progressing force us to make stupid decisions.
That being said, if the Braves promote Swanson to AAA next month and he tears up AAA pitching showing he's ready for the show, then you call him up and let him cut his teeth. In fact, letting him get his first experience and get over some growing pains in games that don't matter might be beneficial for him.
I don't believe either Swanson or Albies have to be added to the 40-man this off-season to protect them in the Rule 5. So there is a case for deferring that while adding guys who we might lose in the Rule 5 as well as creating space for us to add some players this off-season.
Braves1976 (05-20-2016), jpx7 (05-20-2016), NYCBrave (05-20-2016)
I don't have the list in front of me, but with all of the guys they have obtained over the past couple of off-seasons, there are probably a few that will have to be put on the 40-man to prevent their being eligible for the Rule 5. Plus, as you say, we may want to keep a spot open to draft someone. If we're planning on winning 50 games, I don't think we need to have Swanson and Albies contribute to the futility. Camargo has to go on the 40-man at the end of the season, so bringing him up would make more sense than bringing in either Albies or Swanson. The trouble is with Albies and Swanson taking all the innings at SS, Camargo isn't getting any time there.
Braves1976 (05-20-2016), jpx7 (05-20-2016)
Hopefully they won't call either player up to Atlanta, since the organization won't be playing any baseball there.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
The Chosen One (05-20-2016)
Here are the noteworthy guys I see that need Rule 5 protection this Winter (if the Braves deem them worthy or protection): Sims, Ruiz, Camargo, Whalen, Lien, Hursh, Janas, Thurman, Bird
Notable guys who don't need protection: Swanson, Albies, Newcomb, Ellis, Povse, Barker, Peterson
50PoundHead (05-20-2016), CJ9 (05-20-2016), jpx7 (05-20-2016), nsacpi (05-20-2016), NYCBrave (05-20-2016), Preacher (05-20-2016), UNCBlue012 (05-20-2016)
Which gets us one less year of Heyward. It's stupid to not play the game. At some the Braves will realize they are a mid market team at best and that they have to do this. It doesn't make sense not to.
The Braves are a Gold Standard Franchise which means that all their practices are Gold Standard. By definition.
JS and Co are living in the past when they had Ted's checkbook to solve a lot of problems.
The 40 man will fill up quickly when you consider they will also eventually have to add back guys currently on the 60 day DL. We have three right now: Jesse Biddle, Paco Rodriguez and McKirahan. Though McKirahan could be released. Even if we release McKirahan and do not add Swanson and Albies, we would not be able to protect all the guys you listed given the need to pick up some major league players for catcher, third, and a couple guys for the bench and pen. My guess is we protect Sims, Ruiz, Camargo, Lien, Whalen and Janas, and take our chances on losing Bird, Hursh and Thurman.
Last edited by nsacpi; 05-20-2016 at 03:15 PM.
Lein's horrible AFL showing compounded by this injury should lead the Braves to take a chance on not protecting him. Agree on the others.
One less year of Heyward did land us Swanson.
Shrugs.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote