I agree. But sometimes you make an investment in the future by giving young players more playing time. You don't send them out there with instructions to lose. But you accept that you might not be putting your best "win now" lineup out there. We did this with guys like Glavine and Pete Smith in their rookie seasons. We should have played Ruiz, Mallex Smith and some of our young pitchers more.Originally Posted by thethe
Last edited by nsacpi; 03-31-2017 at 10:28 AM.
Is it really trying to lose when you play for the future? Seeing what we have in Ruiz and Blair for example is not a bad thing even if they suck it up and are actually worse than what we had out there. Again there are steps they could have taken that doesn't scream 'we are tanking', still look at guys that might one day be useful, and not manage every game like it's win or go home. And if they still happened to just play well then so be it. But that's not what happened.
You're making the assumption that Ruiz and Mallex Smith were worse options than what we were running out there. I would argue they were not.
mfree80 (03-31-2017)
So just tell the guys you don't want to win games. That works with the competitive spirit they have had their whole lives.
I would have loved to see some youngsters get more shots... also to let JT rest.. I am just saying that it doesn't guarantee anything. I understand odds are better..but..
other thing people have to consider is that dumb unwritten rule to play your best against playoff contenders. You also have to consider who is on your 40 man roster.. You just can't call up some random quad A guys if they are not added to the roster.
Yes, it is possible that we win more games playing those guys. The point some of us are arguing still stands. The team should have been managed differently last September.
We had some series against non-contending teams where we could have been more experimental in terms of our lineups.
exactly.
Nobody is talking about calling up GCL players or telling the players on the field to throw the game. Its not hard to look towards the NBA where teams down the stretch have 'shut-down' some of their key veterans so they can 'get a better look at their younger players'. Not only are they improving their draft stock, but they in all actuality are getting a better look at their younger players in games that aren't must-wins. It gives their young guys a chance to play at the highest level and build experience, their vets get rest and they improve their draft stock.
I ask the question again, would it have really been that bad to have JT take a couple weeks off and keep some innings off his arm in a dead season? Maybe we could have had Gant get a couple starts down the stretch and got a better feel with what his future role could be.....
Once again, you aren't telling players to throw games, you are putting your youngsters in a position to get more reps/experience while sitting guys that are helping you win meaningless contests. JT/FF/Mark/Kemp...ect.... are big boys - they'll be OK.
Nothing is a guarantee and nobody is talking about tanking 100% to lose except when someone makes a strawman argument like thethe. But things should have been managed differently at the end of the year but they weren't. It cost the Braves some slot money and 3 spots in the draft. We will see how big of an impact that will be.
Like Swanson?
I hope we would know the difference between players like Ruiz and Blair who are hopefully future roleplayers and have value before they get expensive and someone like Swanson who can be a cornerstone player on the team. They shouldn't be treated the same.
not really. The Phollies was the only one down the stretch really. The Fish were technically out of it but not mathematically.
Even with that, we did call up Jenkins and MoCabrera to pitch.. Blair got 3 starts at the end and Wisler and Folty were still pitching. Mallex got several starts in the Phollies series.. Castro played a bunch.
Swanson is a different matter. How to manage the service clock of someone who projects as a core player. That's a whole different discussion.
No one would have been bent out of shape if we had rested some guys against the Marlins.
We should have that discussion sometime in the future.. should be interesting.
I wouldn't have..
We've had it several times already and it is disheartening how many people have tossed out the old "the front office knows what it is doing" saw.
is your sarcastic meter broken today?!?!
Please no humor in this discussion. This is serious business... once we all come to a consensus, escheff will present it in a PowerPoint presentation to the FO
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote