5/28/15: GDT - Atlanta Braves @ SF Giants *NOT Dodgers* (Cunningham gets a start!)

nsacpi said:
I'm a very patient fan too. I followed guys like Justice, Avery, Merker, Glavine and Smoltz through the farm system during the Dark Years. I was an enthusiastic supporter of rebuilding through the farm system during those years. I do feel very differently about this rebuild because I believe we had a competitive foundation for 2015 (and beyond for that matter). We have improved the longer term outlook by punting on 2015. But you can always do that. To me there has to be a calculus behind the decision to punt and it has to do with where you expect to be on the win curve without punting. The answer I come up with is very different now than it was for the Dark Years period.
Click to expand...

How is the calculus affected if a long term extension was not possible with these guys? If money wasn't an issue I would have signed Upton and Heyward obviously. I just don't think that was a realistic option.

Justin Upton is going to get paid an enormous amount of money to go to the AL. Not really sure what Heyward is going to get at thistime.
 
sturg33 said:
A team full of Jace Peterson's
Click to expand...

If that is whats available then so be it until additional improvements can be made. You can't put a square peg into a round hole. If something is available in the future that significantly improves the major league club I am confident that Hart will explore that option.
 
nsacpi said:
I'm a very patient fan too. I followed guys like Justice, Avery, Merker, Glavine and Smoltz through the farm system during the Dark Years. I was an enthusiastic supporter of rebuilding through the farm system during those years. I do feel very differently about this rebuild because I believe we had a competitive foundation for 2015 (and beyond for that matter). We have improved the longer term outlook by punting on 2015. But you can always do that. To me there has to be a calculus behind the decision to punt and it has to do with where you expect to be on the win curve without punting. The answer I come up with is very different now than it was for the Dark Years period.
Click to expand...

Simply trading away veterans for prospects and slapping a rebuild name on it, doesn't mean the team in automatically going to be a contender in (insert random year that fits narrative). There are plenty of teams in MLB with stacked farm systems. There are a few teams in MLB that are contenders + have stacked farm systems. The Braves certainly upgraded the talent level on the farm at the expense of the talent level in the majors. But, unfortunately talent level on the farm doesn't guarantee success. Right now we have 2 everyday MLB proven major leaguers with a chance of another 2 in Maybin/Peterson that you would reasonably expect to be productive in 2-3 years. We have to essentially fill 4-5 spots on the major league roster and you cannot expect every prospect to reach their max level of talent.

You can certainly claim that you like the direction of the team (yeezus and thethe will say this no matter what). But, to say the rebuild was an unequivocal success is grasping at straws way too early.
 
thethe said:
How is the calculus affected if a long term extension was not possible with these guys? If money wasn't an issue I would have signed Upton and Heyward obviously. I just don't think that was a realistic option.

Justin Upton is going to get paid an enormous amount of money to go to the AL. Not really sure what Heyward is going to get at thistime.
Click to expand...

In my view our long-term competitiveness does not turn on keeping both Justin Upton and Heyward or even one of them. It has to do with the fact that even without those two we have a competitive core (Freeman, Simmons, Teheran, Wood). There are so many scenarios that would have expanded on that core and sustained our competiveness beyond 2015 without punting on 2015. We could have traded just one of them. We could have traded one of them plus Gattis. We could have traded one of them plus Gattis plus Kimbrel. And many scenarios beyond those that would have allowed us to field a competitive team in 2015 and still have a bright future.

The future can always be made brighter by punting. We can make it even brighter by punting in 2016. And 2017. And beyond. The Pirates did that for years and years and finally have a decent team. The Cubs did for years and years and will soon be getting rewarded for it. But punting has little appeal to me unless you really don't have a foundation to build upon. And that was not the case with this team. You punt if your best player is Dale Murphy in his declining years. You don't punt during the prime years of guys like Freeman and Simmons.
 
gilesfan said:
Simply trading away veterans for prospects and slapping a rebuild name on it, doesn't mean the team in automatically going to be a contender in (insert random year that fits narrative). There are plenty of teams in MLB with stacked farm systems. There are a few teams in MLB that are contenders + have stacked farm systems. The Braves certainly upgraded the talent level on the farm at the expense of the talent level in the majors. But, unfortunately talent level on the farm doesn't guarantee success. Right now we have 2 everyday MLB proven major leaguers with a chance of another 2 in Maybin/Peterson that you would reasonably expect to be productive in 2-3 years. We have to essentially fill 4-5 spots on the major league roster and you cannot expect every prospect to reach their max level of talent.

You can certainly claim that you like the direction of the team (yeezus and thethe will say this no matter what). But, to say the rebuild was an unequivocal success is grasping at straws way too early.
Click to expand...

I think it's clear that, regardless of how successful the rebuild is or is not, the mere fact that we needed to rebuild despite having a roster littered with under 25 talent showcased the real issue of the team - the ownership. That problem wasn't traded away and it remains alive and well.
 
chop2chip said:
I think it's clear that, regardless of how successful the rebuild is or is not, the mere fact that we needed to rebuild despite having a roster littered with under 25 talent showcased the real issue of the team - the ownership. That problem wasn't traded away and it remains alive and well.
Click to expand...

This is a fair point and sadly one we will have to deal with for a long time.
 
Interestingly enough the four players (Maybin, Miller, Folty and Peterson) currently on our major league roster that we got in exchange for the big 4 of Heyward, Gattis, Upton and Kimbrel, actually have a combined higher WAR than the latter 4. So you could certainly argue that we actually are a better team this season because we traded away those guys. The only deal that hasn't made us better or about the same is the Upton deal.
 
nsacpi said:
I'm a very patient fan too. I followed guys like Justice, Avery, Merker, Glavine and Smoltz through the farm system during the Dark Years. I was an enthusiastic supporter of rebuilding through the farm system during those years. I do feel very differently about this rebuild because I believe we had a competitive foundation for 2015 (and beyond for that matter). We have improved the longer term outlook by punting on 2015. But you can always do that. To me there has to be a calculus behind the decision to punt and it has to do with where you expect to be on the win curve without punting. The answer I come up with is very different now than it was for the Dark Years period.
Click to expand...

Imagine our team had we kept Heyward and not signed Markakis. Kept Upton. Kept Gattis. Still made the Kimbrel and Uribe trades. I know, I know... it doesn't work like that - but I would love this team right now!

Maybin

Heyward

JUp

Freeman

Gattis

Uribe

KJ (at 2B) - or Peraza

Simmons

Rotation

Teheran

Wood

Perez

Banuelos

Somebody we would have had to sign

Point is - we had a damn good foundation and we could have fixed the REAL problems of last year's team by fixing CF, 2B, and 3B... We would have had to spend some money to get another pitcher in here - but we would have had the money after the BJ/Kimbrel trade and not getting Cahill.

Yes - I know - things don't work like that. But the core of the team was so talented and so young it's ridiculous that we are punting
 
chop2chip said:
I think it's clear that, regardless of how successful the rebuild is or is not, the mere fact that we needed to rebuild despite having a roster littered with under 25 talent showcased the real issue of the team - the ownership. That problem wasn't traded away and it remains alive and well.
Click to expand...

The other factor was the extreme attrition of young pitchers who had established themselves in the majors: Jurrjens, Hanson, Medlen, Beachy, Minor, Venters and Shae Simmons. It put financial pressure on the team. We had to break the budget (and give up our #1 pick) to sign Santana. And it also made the pitching depth in the minor league system look less than satisfactory. Clearly we had to find a way to acquire a young cost-controlled starter. And we actually did with the Heyward trade. I still am puzzled why Hart continued to tear the team down after that initial trade. The best explanation I have is that he had a very negative assessment of what was coming through the pipeline. It is true that our minor league depth was depleted. But I think we would have had a strong competitive team in 2015 even if we had to lean on guys like Martin, Hale, Thomas and Williams Perez. Hart seems to have had a very different view on these guys (except for Williams Perez). He traded Hale and Thomas for very little. And he was willing to lose Martin in the Rule 5 draft.
 
I think the fact that no teams selected Martin in the rule 5 draft says something as well don't you think?
 
sturg33 said:
Imagine our team had we kept Heyward and not signed Markakis. Kept Upton. Kept Gattis. Still made the Kimbrel and Uribe trades. I know, I know... it doesn't work like that - but I would love this team right now!

Maybin
Heyward
JUp
Freeman
Gattis
Uribe
KJ (at 2B) - or Peraza
Simmons

Rotation

Teheran
Wood
Perez
Banuelos
Somebody we would have had to sign

Point is - we had a damn good foundation and we could have fixed the REAL problems of last year's team by fixing CF, 2B, and 3B... We would have had to spend some money to get another pitcher in here - but we would have had the money after the BJ/Kimbrel trade and not getting Cahill.

Yes - I know - things don't work like that. But the core of the team was so talented and so young it's ridiculous that we are punting
Click to expand...

That rotation is horrible considering Banuelos needed more time in the minor leagues and has a strict innings limit. The team would have been a disaster in the starting rotation come July and then we would be staring armagedden in the face with impedning FA of Heyward/Upton.

Also, how do we know if the Kimbrel/BJ trade happens without the J-Upt deal? They may not seem connected but it could have led to a different mindset from the Padres.
 
thethe said:
That rotation is horrible considering Banuelos needed more time in the minor leagues and has a strict innings limit. The team would have been a disaster in the starting rotation come July and then we would be staring armagedden in the face with impedning FA of Heyward/Upton.

Also, how do we know if the Kimbrel/BJ trade happens without the J-Upt deal? They may not seem connected but it could have led to a different mindset from the Padres.
Click to expand...

Obviously if we weren't punting we would have made moves for the rotation
 
thethe said:
You nailed it with Deshields for sure. But I think Texas picked before us right?
Click to expand...

Yes. I appreciate Delino making me look good.

Btw I liked the Winkler pick. I view him the same way as I view guys like Martin, Thomas, Hale and Williams Perez. If you have a half dozen pitchers like that, one of them will come through for you. The problem is you don't know ahead of time which one will come through. The solution is to hold on to them and keep them busy in AAA or the pen and give them a shot as the opportunity arises. I really don't know why we're messing around with some of the guys we have in our pen right now when we could have given those spots to Hale, Martin and Thomas.
 
As a supporter of the rebuild trades and disliker of the Markakis signing, I can respect some of the hybrid rebuild ideas mentioned in this thread. We would have had a nice 2015 team if we had kept either Heyward or JUp with the Markakis money, but still moved forward with most / all of the other trades. It's not a proposal I remember anyone championing over the winter, but it's a good one in hindsight. To be honest, that Kimbrel trade was such a big win for us that you can play out a number of different hindsight scenarios with that as a back-drop that veer more toward "win now" that I'd be comfortable with.

Back to reality, I'm just thankful the set of moves we did make has worked out as well as they have so far. Not perfect, but I'm happy.
 
Yeah the early returns on the trades have exceeded my expectations. But we have to keep in mind that the climb to the majors is a very tough one. There are no guarantees even for the guys like Mallex Smith who have been doing very well lately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top