I don't believe the team's 2014 record was a true indication of the talent on the roster; that essential group should have won more in 2014 and could have won more in 2015, as far as I'm concerned. Again: some may agree, some may disagree, but neither side's position is absurd and neither side has a monopoly on the factual.Originally Posted by keithlaw
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
cajunrevenge (12-20-2014), Dalyn (12-20-2014)
He said it in relation to the additional slot money.
So keep Jason/Justin, miss the playoffs, watch both walk for nothing, while still having a weak system was the better move?
K.
BedellBrave (12-20-2014)
(a) The Braves could have afforded and could have chosen to extent at least one of Heyward/Upton.
(b) Missing the playoffs was not a foregone conclusion with that roster.
(c) If they signed one and let the other walk after 2015, they'd have netted a pick at the very least, while also taking a serious shot next season; mid-season trades would also have been an option, were the team not well-positioned in July.
(d) The team still has a weak system.
(e) If the Braves chose to retain their young offensive talent, they could have bought themselves time to build up the system through the draft and international signings.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
bravesnumberone (12-21-2014), goldfly (12-20-2014), Hawk (12-20-2014)
I think what he maybe getting at is that we don't know what other alternatives were possible. There could have have been other offers with players that some might have preferred over this one. We don't whether it would have been possible to sign either Justin or Jason after the season. All that's been reported is that those two were going to test the market, but not that it was completely out of the question to resign either guy. To claim either as fact isn't correct.
jpx7 (12-20-2014)
From the Bowman/Hart interview:
Hart: "It was a depth trade. It really helped our system. It might help us short term with Jace Peterson. As we go forward, we picked up what we think are four really good players. In addition, we gained a little more of the international money. We've signed eight guys already with the [$800,000 received via a trade with the Cubs in November]. We've got three more guys we want to get and we were running short on cash. I think this will help us."
jpx7 (12-20-2014)
(d) But now a better system and in shorter time.
(e) But in time to have a team that begins to consistently contend with a good hitting philosophy and good young pitching in 2017/2018? I'd think what you are advocating would likely put that scenario off a few more years.
A- Given the stuff posted by ramadon, Heyward wasnt re-signing.
B- Yes it was, we won 79 or 80 and lost Harang/Santana, who is replacing them with little payroll flexibility.
C- IF.
D- Yes, it still is but without the trades, they dont get the players they get, yes no blue-chippers.
E- Yes, like the Matt Lipkas and Gilmartins of the world.
(a) Possible but very unlikely. The unlikliness matters.
(B) This is defendable. There is a lot of value in going for it when you have a chance. But it is also very defendable in supporting punting today for a better tomorrow.
(C). We are guaranteed draft picks, yes. However we are guaranteed a protected 1st round pick next year if we are really bad next year and decide to spend money on a player who would cost a draft pick. That's in addition to having better draft position through out the draft.
(D) the farm system is better. The degree of which is based on interpretation but it's undoubtedly improved.
(E) This is related to part (a) imo. If (a) was an option than I absolutely agree with you, but by all accounts that was not gonna happen.
Whoever put that title turned the thread into troll bait central.
The Braves purportedly balked at what they believed would be his asking-price come off-season 2015; that's not the same as "Heyward was univocally not resigning." The Braves made a choice.
---
Again, you have a fundamental misapprehension of "fact" and "foregone conclusion," and you conflate your opinions and beliefs with the former two. I have covered my own belief on this very page of this thread:
---
I have doubts if the Braves even loved Jason Heyward and Justin Upton.
---
They've traded two stars and have returned either injured potential or decent depth; I think the extent to which the Braves have, with these two trades, materially positioned their system in a better place for 2017 and beyond is being overstated.
---
So either they gut the team, or are bad at drafting? That's some pretty serious logical dissonance there—and a false dichotomy that seems to be popping up a lot in discussing this off-season, in the context of fielding a competitive club the next few years.
The big ballyhooed reason Wren was terminated was because of the talent-development system, and likewise many evaluators were brought in or brought back to overhaul that weakness; those people could have done the same job without gutting the major-league team. However, it seems like a lot of Wren's harshest critics—and those who most lauded this re-infusion of evaluative talent to the organization—are the ones trusting them least to do their jobs in a timely and effective manner.
Last edited by jpx7; 12-20-2014 at 03:02 PM.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
bravesnumberone (12-21-2014), Dalyn (12-20-2014), Hawk (12-20-2014), Julio3000 (12-20-2014)
Or play it out and if your not in contention at the deadline unload them for what you can get.
yep
terrible offseason
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
That's reasonable but it's not an inherently better plan than doing it now. You leave a lot up to chance either way, but I would argue that you run a much greater risk of not getting as much back in a return. And even worse, eithe Upton or Heyward getting injured and getting no benefit of keeping either guy around in order to contend or rebuild.
While getting worse returns, great idea.
With the possibility of having a good season. That actually carries a lot of weight despite you not thinking so. Let's not act like the returns we got are going to have much of an impact anytime soon if at all.
Everything is a gamble. There is a strong possibility none of the guys we got except Miller provide anything at the major league level. So not only would we still be stuck with crap we would have also given a way a strong chance to contend one more year.
jpx7 (12-20-2014)
I think that's the point many of us are trying to make: neither plan is inherently and entirely unreasonable, there is risk either way, and trading these players is taking a chance just as keeping them would have been. What's annoying are the posters arguing from a position that the Braves had no other choice, their mind-hands were irrevocably shackled, any other path would have been thoroughly ludicrous, et cetera.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
We had a lot of underachievers last year, there is no question about that. But I blame their approach at the plate. Most times it was hack, hack, hack...with zero thought to the game itself. Who is to blame for that? I would rather see young guys who have a clue at the plate, not a bunch of so-called stars trying to power their way to a win. Why did we like Prado so much...cuz he put the ball in play...more of him please.....
BedellBrave (12-20-2014)
I understand - but I hope you do as well that there are posters holding your position that don't come across as judicious as you. And that too is annoying.
Posting Permissions
