Page 459 of 579 FirstFirst ... 359409449457458459460461469509559 ... LastLast
Results 9,161 to 9,180 of 11579

Thread: 2018 Offseason And Targets

  1. #9161
    NL Rookie of the Year CrazyTrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    2,523
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    57
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    245
    Thanked in
    191 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CrimsonCowboy View Post
    I’m getting tired of the back and forth crap. Stop all of it right now. I’m getting tired of seeing this thread constantly derailed by the same nonsense. Now get back on topic.
    He's the one who provokes it constantly. I have no idea why the mods allow him to derail this thread so often.

  2. #9162
    NL Rookie of the Year
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,469
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    431
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    577
    Thanked in
    376 Posts
    https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/02/14...ns-are-idiots/

    Braves think their fans are idiots...Love the title

  3. #9163
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10,000
    Thanked in
    6,108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTrain View Post
    He's the one who provokes it constantly. I have no idea why the mods allow him to derail this thread so often.
    http://www.chopcountry.com/forums/sh...l=1#post566938

  4. #9164
    Hessmania Forever
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    13,995
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,887
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7,678
    Thanked in
    4,941 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by msstate7 View Post
    Are we postive that markakis will regress? I mean he was a good player last year. Maybe that improvement is tied to the new focus on analytics... maybe it was pure luck.
    I don't have that much of a problem with Markakis, but I think he has to sit more (especially against LHP). He's not a 162-game guy anymore (although he probably thinks he is).

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to 50PoundHead For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (02-14-2019)

  6. #9165
    "What is a clvclv"
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Nebo, NC
    Posts
    9,634
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,354
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,340
    Thanked in
    1,628 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry View Post
    I've essentially been predicting this for 3+ years. It's why I wanted to trade Freeman (+Inciarte, +Teheran (when he had value), +Markakis, plus anyone else that could bring something back). If they would have done that, then they would have had a clear plan of a true rebuild - gather as much high end talent as possible in waves and when the waves begin to reach the majors have a huge amount of payroll space and positional flexibility to make moves with an eye on short and long term success.

    Instead, they kept all those guys with Freeman now being a non starter for trade because of the supposed closeness of the team, with Inciarte beginning to show signs of decline but also being in a position of hard to trade from an internal standpoint because of where the team is on the field, and Teheran having regressed into negative value but eating needed payroll space.

    Now they've reached purgatory status - not good enough to really win and sustain winning, not bad enough to admit a bad plan and throw in the towel and start over. And they don't have the payroll space to just buy what they need on a short term basis which puts them in a trading position of weakness against teams wanting to trade because those teams know the Braves have to improve only through trade. This puts AA in a defensive position of protecting his assets which earns him the praise of "not panicking" and wasting his assets.

    Everyone says they'll wait until mid season. What if they are 5 games below .500 at mid season? Or, even AT .500 but with the Nats and Phillies fighting it out at 8-10 games OVER .500? Is that the right time? Or, do they look at attendance, influenced by the record, and say " revenue isn't meeting projections so no justifiable reason to add payroll.

    Even if they DO add at the deadline, what are they buying? 3 months of an Aroldis Chapman? A couple of years of a back end reliever like a Miller?

    The overall plan sucks and has always sucked. Sure, there have been some good things. But the waste and lack of vision is just disheartening.
    Try paying down the debt on the new park and The Battery with the Marlins' lineup - I promise you can't.
    Has there EVER been a statement and question a certain someone should absolutely never have made and asked publicly more than...

    Kinda pathetic to see yourself as a message board knight in shining armor. How impotent does someone have to be in real life to resort to playing hero on a message board?

  7. #9166
    "What is a clvclv"
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Nebo, NC
    Posts
    9,634
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,354
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,340
    Thanked in
    1,628 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTrain View Post
    Literally this guy spends half his time doing analytics that he's not paid for and just brings up the same tired, BS to try and make fun of people with the other half.

    What does he do for work? Does he have a family?

    I struggle to understand why the mods allow him to just make fun of people all the time. The funny part was when that one guy proved that he was wrong once and he just tried to wiggle out of it.

    Mindboggling.
    What's "mindboggling" is the people who continue to have the same tired arguments with him - if you'd quit provoking him, he'd have very few people to do that with.
    Has there EVER been a statement and question a certain someone should absolutely never have made and asked publicly more than...

    Kinda pathetic to see yourself as a message board knight in shining armor. How impotent does someone have to be in real life to resort to playing hero on a message board?

  8. #9167
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10,000
    Thanked in
    6,108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Chico View Post
    https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/02/14...ns-are-idiots/

    Braves think their fans are idiots...Love the title
    If the time to add isn't immediately after winning the NL East with a young core, I don't know when that time is.

    If the time to spend isn't immediately after revenue increases, I don't know when that time is.

    I suppose all we can do is hope these guys are as smart as they think they are, and The Plan isn't understood by us plebs.

  9. #9168
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Chico View Post
    https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/02/14...ns-are-idiots/

    Braves think their fans are idiots...Love the title
    Regardless of what you think of their rationale, pretending that they are claiming financial flexibility as a positive solely as it relates to their own bottom line and not to winning on the field is disingenuous.

    You can think they didn't do a good job or weren't aggressive enough, and that the financial flexibility won't end up helping as much in the future as signing someone like Michael Brantley would now.

    But they're arguing that having financial flexibility will allow them to make good moves toward winning, not so that they can make a bigger profit. "Dude, fans don’t root for “flexibility.” “Flexibility” flags don’t fly forever. The alpha and omega of fans’ concern about “financial flexibility” — the only reason any of us care about payroll and budgets and stuff — is the degree to which those things make it more or less likely for the team we root for to acquire good players and win consistently. We’re not rooting for your bottom line or your ability to go into a meeting with your bosses and say that you still have some budget left over for fiscal 2020." ---- That's just dumb. They are saying the financial flexibility will make it more likely the team we root for will acquire good players and win consistently. You may disagree, but that is the argument. Not so they can brag to their bosses about the budget left over.

    That's an easy article to write, but it's also stupid itself.
    "Acuna is getting lucky, just like CJ did when he batted .321 and won a batting title. He is unlikely to get lucky at the MLB level over an extended period of time. He will settle in around .300-.320 just like everyone else, and when he does, he won't be within shouting distance of the 1.000 OPS he is posting in AAA...more like low .700s in 2018." -Enscheff 8/25/17

  10. #9169
    NL Rookie of the Year
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,469
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    431
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    577
    Thanked in
    376 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post
    Regardless of what you think of their rationale, pretending that they are claiming financial flexibility as a positive solely as it relates to their own bottom line and not to winning on the field is disingenuous.

    You can think they didn't do a good job or weren't aggressive enough, and that the financial flexibility won't end up helping as much in the future as signing someone like Michael Brantley would now.

    But they're arguing that having financial flexibility will allow them to make good moves toward winning, not so that they can make a bigger profit. "Dude, fans don’t root for “flexibility.” “Flexibility” flags don’t fly forever. The alpha and omega of fans’ concern about “financial flexibility” — the only reason any of us care about payroll and budgets and stuff — is the degree to which those things make it more or less likely for the team we root for to acquire good players and win consistently. We’re not rooting for your bottom line or your ability to go into a meeting with your bosses and say that you still have some budget left over for fiscal 2020." ---- That's just dumb. They are saying the financial flexibility will make it more likely the team we root for will acquire good players and win consistently. You may disagree, but that is the argument. Not so they can brag to their bosses about the budget left over.

    That's an easy article to write, but it's also stupid itself.
    Fans were a little diturbed before that interview. That interview made AA and Terry seem like politicians. I'm hoping the reason they sounded like they were full of shiat is that they didn't want to tip their hand. Then it's a different story. If they actually believe what they said in that interview and think fans will believe it too, then we're in for some lean times until we're bought out. That was a horrible interview!
    Last edited by Chico; 02-14-2019 at 02:48 PM.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Chico For This Useful Post:

    gcbraves (02-14-2019)

  12. #9170
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10,000
    Thanked in
    6,108 Posts
    What's stupid is moving to a new park and taking on serious debt to increase revenue, and then having to use that extra revenue to pay down the debt rather than increasing payroll.

    They are not going to be able to spin the fact they conned Atlanta into paying for a new stadium and have used the new revenue to pay down their own debt rather than improve the team...you know...the reason fans agreed to the tax.

  13. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Enscheff For This Useful Post:

    50PoundHead (02-14-2019), Chico (02-14-2019), gcbraves (02-14-2019), Horsehide Harry (02-14-2019)

  14. #9171
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    What's stupid is moving to a new park and taking on serious debt to increase revenue, and then having to use that extra revenue to pay down the debt rather than increasing payroll.

    They are not going to be able to spin the fact they conned Atlanta into paying for a new stadium and have used the new revenue to pay down their own debt rather than improve the team...you know...the reason fans agreed to the tax.
    It can still be smart as a long-term play, I think. It all depends on how long it will actually take to pay down the debt. I agree with you that it doesn't seem like a sound strategy if it will take years to pay the debt down and won't allow us to increase payroll for a decade or so. But if it leads to increased payroll starting a few years after opening and continuing indefinitely into the future, it's absolutely still a sound strategy.
    "Acuna is getting lucky, just like CJ did when he batted .321 and won a batting title. He is unlikely to get lucky at the MLB level over an extended period of time. He will settle in around .300-.320 just like everyone else, and when he does, he won't be within shouting distance of the 1.000 OPS he is posting in AAA...more like low .700s in 2018." -Enscheff 8/25/17

  15. #9172
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Chico View Post
    Fans were a little diturbed before that interview. That interview made AA and Terry seem like politicians. I'm hoping the reason they sounded like they were full of shiat is that they didn't want to tip their hand. Then it's a different story. If they actually believe what they said in that interview and think fans will believe it too, then we're in for some lean times until we're bought out. That was a horrible interview!
    The one answer I didn't like from AA was the, 'Uh uh uh, did we say we would spend or that we could spend?' Fans don't care if you can spend if you don't, so it doesn't help to be condescending. But I'm ok with pursuing value. The only thing is that if you do have the money, you need to eventually spend it. You need to spend it intelligently in a way that doesn't hurt you down the road, but that is absolutely doable. You definitely do have to eventually spend the money or else the flexibility didn't help you. So it remains to be seen if they will actually spend and improve the team. But that is a viable rationale - the season hasn't started yet, we're not done, we still have flexibility, and we didn't feel those moves were good value. That is fine as a strategy. Just don't sit on it forever.
    "Acuna is getting lucky, just like CJ did when he batted .321 and won a batting title. He is unlikely to get lucky at the MLB level over an extended period of time. He will settle in around .300-.320 just like everyone else, and when he does, he won't be within shouting distance of the 1.000 OPS he is posting in AAA...more like low .700s in 2018." -Enscheff 8/25/17

  16. #9173
    Steve Harvey'd
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    18,946
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,857
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,329
    Thanked in
    3,353 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    What's stupid is moving to a new park and taking on serious debt to increase revenue, and then having to use that extra revenue to pay down the debt rather than increasing payroll.

    They are not going to be able to spin the fact they conned Atlanta into paying for a new stadium and have used the new revenue to pay down their own debt rather than improve the team...you know...the reason fans agreed to the tax.

    What is also stupid sitting a baseball team so heavily to a risky asset like commercial real estate. They lumped a lot of eggs into that basket and when/if that market downturns, then the team is in serious trouble. And that industry is extremely risky. I am glad Terry is confident. But he exposed the team to huge risks
    Coppy

  17. #9174
    "What is a clvclv"
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Nebo, NC
    Posts
    9,634
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,354
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,340
    Thanked in
    1,628 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post
    The one answer I didn't like from AA was the, 'Uh uh uh, did we say we would spend or that we could spend?' Fans don't care if you can spend if you don't, so it doesn't help to be condescending. But I'm ok with pursuing value. The only thing is that if you do have the money, you need to eventually spend it. You need to spend it intelligently in a way that doesn't hurt you down the road, but that is absolutely doable. You definitely do have to eventually spend the money or else the flexibility didn't help you. So it remains to be seen if they will actually spend and improve the team. But that is a viable rationale - the season hasn't started yet, we're not done, we still have flexibility, and we didn't feel those moves were good value. That is fine as a strategy. Just don't sit on it forever.
    Can't argue for "value signings" if you're going to sign Markakis for the same number of years as the Astros gave Brantley - if winning factors into your "plan", you just can't.

    As Schultz pointed out in the article, revenues increased by $15 million in the third quarter alone last year - paying less than two quarters of that type of increase for the upgrade Brantley represents effectively wouldn't even have dented the bottom line in the long run. The sales of Brantley jerseys and playoff tickets would have covered a HUGE part of the difference between those two players, and arguing Markakis will come close to matching Brantley's production is fool's folly - even for AA and McGuirk.
    Has there EVER been a statement and question a certain someone should absolutely never have made and asked publicly more than...

    Kinda pathetic to see yourself as a message board knight in shining armor. How impotent does someone have to be in real life to resort to playing hero on a message board?

  18. #9175
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,597
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    387
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,187
    Thanked in
    2,040 Posts
    I think it's clear that the Braves have the money to increase payroll and win more games. However, that also means they have the money to increase their bottom line. With a corporate owner, it's all about the bottom line. Honestly, we should have seen the suits refusing to invest the revenue increase into payroll coming.

  19. #9176
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,772
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    270
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,491
    Thanked in
    1,150 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    What's stupid is moving to a new park and taking on serious debt to increase revenue, and then having to use that extra revenue to pay down the debt rather than increasing payroll.

    They are not going to be able to spin the fact they conned Atlanta into paying for a new stadium and have used the new revenue to pay down their own debt rather than improve the team...you know...the reason fans agreed to the tax.

    Specifically what they said was that paying down debt now would allow them to run bigger payrolls later.

    Upper middle payrolls!

    I doubt the County particularly cares what their record is so long as they get the tax revenue and whatever else they think that having the team there gives them. Any entity that builds a pro team a stadium by this point should know the pros and cons pretty well. Despite economists saying one thing, the entities continue to do the other. Which suggests they are all either pretty dumb (possible) or the economists aren't really quiet capturing the full value. I sort of think they're probably dumb. But I don't blame the Braves for going where the highest offer is.

  20. #9177
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,772
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    270
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,491
    Thanked in
    1,150 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post
    The one answer I didn't like from AA was the, 'Uh uh uh, did we say we would spend or that we could spend?' Fans don't care if you can spend if you don't, so it doesn't help to be condescending. But I'm ok with pursuing value. The only thing is that if you do have the money, you need to eventually spend it. You need to spend it intelligently in a way that doesn't hurt you down the road, but that is absolutely doable. You definitely do have to eventually spend the money or else the flexibility didn't help you. So it remains to be seen if they will actually spend and improve the team. But that is a viable rationale - the season hasn't started yet, we're not done, we still have flexibility, and we didn't feel those moves were good value. That is fine as a strategy. Just don't sit on it forever.
    No offense, but Anthopolous always qualified that the fact they had money to spend didn't mean they were necessarily going to throw money around.

    And no one ever said they would be running a top 10 payroll any time soon. Their TV deal isn't good enough.

  21. #9178
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,772
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    270
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,491
    Thanked in
    1,150 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by clvclv View Post
    Can't argue for "value signings" if you're going to sign Markakis for the same number of years as the Astros gave Brantley - if winning factors into your "plan", you just can't.

    As Schultz pointed out in the article, revenues increased by $15 million in the third quarter alone last year - paying less than two quarters of that type of increase for the upgrade Brantley represents effectively wouldn't even have dented the bottom line in the long run. The sales of Brantley jerseys and playoff tickets would have covered a HUGE part of the difference between those two players, and arguing Markakis will come close to matching Brantley's production is fool's folly - even for AA and McGuirk.
    You can't just multiply the Braves biggest quarterly revenue by four. They have different revenues in each quarter.

    They probably have the ability to spend 130+ now if they would like. I genuinely do believe they are choosing not to do it based on the GM's preference rather than anything Liberty is dictating. The Braves aren't necessarily a huge part of Liberty's business. They are a tax offset and an asset that they hope appreciates. Not a golden goose cash machine.

  22. #9179
    Steve Harvey'd
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    18,946
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,857
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,329
    Thanked in
    3,353 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post
    I think it's clear that the Braves have the money to increase payroll and win more games. However, that also means they have the money to increase their bottom line. With a corporate owner, it's all about the bottom line. Honestly, we should have seen the suits refusing to invest the revenue increase into payroll coming.
    I don’t think has anything to do with Liberty and everything to do with Terry. This is his ship and he is steering it. He probably knows the risk involved and wants to wash the debt off as soon as possible. What he is doing though is potentially driving another market factor that could harm his cash cow. If the team fails on the field less people spend money at the battery. That could derail future deals as well as drive current residents away. Not to mention the projected expansion that will compete with current business dollars. Suits sometimes forget us common folks have limited budget and time to spend at the battery and our dollars will now be spread out even more. Like I said this is a very risky asset and liberty is probably washed their hands of this. They only care that the asset (Braves org) increases. Not a particular sector.
    Coppy

  23. #9180
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,386
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,392
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,746
    Thanked in
    1,975 Posts
    I'm not mad we didn't trade for Realmuto. He was upgrade sure, but our catching situation is still quite good. I'm also not mad we didn't sign Brantley. While he fits a need and has been on on base machine over his career, he is injury prone, on the wrong side of 30, and a bad defender.

    I'm more upset he hasn't made a trade for an OF when there are clearly several quality options available (even if they aren't actively being shopped). Peralta, Castellanos, and Rosario/Kepler among others. There are plenty of quality options available that shouldn't cost a top 10 prospect.

Similar Threads

  1. Around the League: 2017 offseason edition / 2018 Season
    By bravesfanforlife88 in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 2322
    Last Post: 10-31-2018, 12:15 PM
  2. Around the League: 2018/2019 Offseason
    By bravesfanforlife88 in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-21-2018, 05:44 PM
  3. Discussion of Braves 2018 Offseason plans
    By Horsehide Harry in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 1144
    Last Post: 03-05-2018, 10:31 PM
  4. Potential 2016 Offseason Targets
    By clvclv in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 166
    Last Post: 10-08-2016, 02:37 AM
  5. 2018 Offseason
    By thewupk in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-28-2016, 07:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •