How is this garbage supposed to compete in 2-3 years?

I think some of our worst decisions have come because we got into a mindset that we needed to have a particular player or a particular type of player to produce a major upgrade at a certain position. When you negotiate a trade deal or a FA signing from that kind of mindset you often end up overpaying and getting a bad deal. There was a bit of a cascade effect from the sequence of deals we made from that mindset--the LaRoche trade with the Pirates, the Drew-Wainwright deal, the Teixeira deal, the Lowe signing, the Uggla contract, the BJ contract.

I think going forward we have to realize that the key to having a sustainable contender lies in spreading risk by making smaller, more modest deals (from a financial point of view) that improve the team. No individual deal of that kind will be "enough" but if you give the proper emphasis to preserving financial flexibility and controlling risk you can improve the team without getting into the kind of situation we ended up in where we couldn't keep our core together even though they were quite young as a group. Also you can't go into deal making with the mindset that you have to have a particular player or type of player. Accept that there are many ways to build a winning team and focus on getting good value.
 
nsacpi said:
I think some of our worst decisions have come because we got into a mindset that we needed to have a particular player or a particular type of player to produce a major upgrade at a certain position. When you negotiate a trade deal or a FA signing from that kind of mindset you often end up overpaying and getting a bad deal. There was a bit of a cascade effect from the sequence of deals we made from that mindset--the LaRoche trade with the Pirates, the Drew-Wainwright deal, the Teixeira deal, the Lowe signing, the Uggla contract, the BJ contract.

I think going forward we have to realize that the key to having a sustainable contender lies in spreading risk by making smaller, more modest deals (from a financial point of view) that improve the team. No individual deal of that kind will be "enough" but if you give the proper emphasis to preserving financial flexibility and controlling risk you can improve the team without getting into the kind of situation we ended up in where we couldn't keep our core together even though they were quite young as a group. Also you can't go into deal making with the mindset that you have to have a particular player or type of player. Accept that there are many ways to build a winning team and focus on getting good value.
Click to expand...

You need a couple of anchor guys and then fill in around them. I think the plan at one juncture was to build around Heyward and Freeman, but then they overspent on guys like Uggla and Melvin and that constrained movement. Something tells me Heyward was going to test free agency from the get-go, so that may have changed the mindset a bit, which seemed to provide impetus for a short-term load-up.
 
Lucroy is still my target.

This would be a legit 2017 lineup:
Albies SS
Inciarte CF
Swanson 2B
Freeman 1B
Lucroy C
Markakis RF
Ruiz 3B
Pitcher
Smith LF
 
50PoundHead said:
You need a couple of anchor guys and then fill in around them. I think the plan at one juncture was to build around Heyward and Freeman, but then they overspent on guys like Uggla and Melvin and that constrained movement. Something tells me Heyward was going to test free agency from the get-go, so that may have changed the mindset a bit, which seemed to provide impetus for a short-term load-up.
Click to expand...

With Heyward, we should have tried to put ourselves in a position to sign him if he went to free agency. Not sign him at any price. But be in a position to test the proposition that he would have been willing to settle for less to stay with the Braves.
 
UNCBlue012 said:
Lucroy is still my target.
Click to expand...

I think we will need to do something about catcher. But this is an example of what I'm talking about. The FO can't go into the post-season with the mindset it must have Lucroy or a veteran catcher who would be a major upgrade at the position. Maybe there is no value deal to be had that will accomplish that. We have to focus on value.
 
nsacpi said:
With Heyward, we should have tried to put ourselves in a position to sign him if he went to free agency. Not sign him at any price. But be in a position to test the proposition that he would have been willing to settle for less to stay with the Braves.
Click to expand...

There just seemed to be an overreaction after Freeman signed long term and Heyward didn't. I make the Justin Upton deal 99 times out of 100, but it is interesting to see that 3 of the pieces from the deal are on the Arizona roster. It looks like they have turned Drury into a multiple-position guy (2B, 3B, LF) who is going to log some serious ABs.
 
50PoundHead said:
You need a couple of anchor guys and then fill in around them.
Click to expand...
Yeah. It will be interesting to see who (if any) of our current prospects ends up being an anchor type player. We've obviously made the big financial commitment to Freeman. To me that still looks like a good (not great) deal from the club point of view. Of the guys on the farm, to me Albies looks like a cut above the rest. I would actually list Acuna as #2 on my list. I know he and Albies are not the big boppers most people think about when talking about anchor players. But I do think players like that can be the cornerstone of championship teams.
 
I know it's early but, the early returns say the Markakus contract is a better deal than Heyward.
even should they meet in the middle as the season progress'...

Both bottom line and stat line
 
thewupk said:
I think the point is that some fans are soon going to realize that even having a shot at the playoffs and making a run is going to be worth the risk. Face it, most Braves fans are spoiled of years of really good teams. That's generally not how it works. Several teams that most point to the model for the Braves spend literally decades sucking it up. Yes, the Braves have a really good farm right now. That guarantees nothing. Is going for it all one more year worth a couple of extra years of guaranteed sucking? Fans of most teams would say yes.
Click to expand...

but you're ignoring the "how exactly would you 'go for it' that year" problem. what would YOU have done to "go for it" last year? if you decide to retain Upton and Heyward, what pitcher do you sign that gives you a shot? Remember, we wouldn't have Shelby (and the rotation was still bad even with him). Subtract Shelby, who are you adding to the rotation, and at what cost (either in prospects or $$, which we wouldn't have a lot of).

At best we were a fringe playoff team if we stood pat, and with the pitching we got last year, that was very improbable. C, 2B, SS, 3B, and CF would all probably have been negatives offensively. What was your plan there? Can't really have that with bad pitching.

So what's your lineup? Who's in the rotation that can make you actually compete? It would've been a train wreck.
 
nsacpi said:
I think some of our worst decisions have come because we got into a mindset that we needed to have a particular player or a particular type of player to produce a major upgrade at a certain position. When you negotiate a trade deal or a FA signing from that kind of mindset you often end up overpaying and getting a bad deal. There was a bit of a cascade effect from the sequence of deals we made from that mindset--the LaRoche trade with the Pirates, the Drew-Wainwright deal, the Teixeira deal, the Lowe signing, the Uggla contract, the BJ contract.

I think going forward we have to realize that the key to having a sustainable contender lies in spreading risk by making smaller, more modest deals (from a financial point of view) that improve the team. No individual deal of that kind will be "enough" but if you give the proper emphasis to preserving financial flexibility and controlling risk you can improve the team without getting into the kind of situation we ended up in where we couldn't keep our core together even though they were quite young as a group. Also you can't go into deal making with the mindset that you have to have a particular player or type of player. Accept that there are many ways to build a winning team and focus on getting good value.
Click to expand...

I agree to a point but I think a successful strategy requires you to commit to a philosophy.

There are always one-off examples of how any way you construct a team can be successful given the right circumstances and the right luck. However, historically good teams have enough power in their line-up to at least be league average in terms of HR and 2B; have at least one dominant starter with 2-3 other very good starters; have a reasonably good pen; have depth for the injuries.

I see these mock lineups for the Braves that go something like: Albies, Inciarte, Swanson, Freeman, Ruiz, Markakis, Catcher, Mallex and while some of these guys may develop power, in 2017 my guess on HR power would be: 5, 8, 15, 25, 10, 10, 10, 0=83 while league average is likely to be 140. While it's POSSIBLE to win with a line-up like that the odds are heavy against it.
 
zitothebrave said:
A few prospects come to mind, Sims, Peraza, Bethancourt, Davidson, Hursh, anyone but Albies would have been on the table.

As far as where to move said talent, that isn't really something we can discuss, we aren't in any FO and don't know who was available or how organizations value that talent.

I would assume our minor league talent was in the ballpark of Josh DOnaldson. If we could have sent say Bethancourt, Peraza, Sims, and Simmons for Donaldson that would have been a boom.

We then sign Harang, Kendrick, etc. to fill out the rotation.

Realize that yes, some things went bad and we'd be at risk, but with an opening day lineup of.

C - Gattis

1B - Freeman

2B - La Stella

3B - Donaldson

SS - Simmons

LF - Justin

CF - Beej

RF - Jason

Rotation

Julio

Wood

Harang

Kendrick

Perez

The rotation sucks and has the potential to suck harder, but who knows how things shake out with a rosier outlook. Also with Heyward, Donaldson, Justin, and Freddie, we're looking at a team with 4 super high value position players.
Click to expand...

jesus christ, that team is terrible. that rotation is an absolute joke. by simply asking for your fantasy plan, you're making my point for me. that's your fantasy scenario and that's the absolute best team we could hope for.

we know how things shook out with the pitching, and Teheran and Wood were not capable of being your 1-2 last year.

If you're selling your soul to "go for it" with THAT team, you are among the worst front offices in professional sports and should be fired. and then when that team likely misses the playoffs, you have absolutely nothing for the future (and you barely did already).

if you seriously prefer your plan above to the one we took, I'm not sure what can be said to you.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
The Braves fell into the trap of "going for it" even when they had no real shot. I think a certain amount of luck both internal and external (such as the Nats falling way short of their potential) led to that. I think the pressure of the previous 20 years led to that. And, I think the final days of the Braves HoF led to that (let's make a run for Bobby, one last run for Smoltzie, gotta commit for Chipper, etc.)

This mindset led to trades for today at the expense of tomorrow, drafting for floor and time instead of ceiling and talent, and roll-the-dice trades and FA signings that blew up in their face. That's how the franchise got where it is.
Click to expand...

Thank you. The primary reason we are where we are right now is not because we decided to blow it up. It's because we had already made some of the moves these posters are suggesting. We would have sucked for way longer. No, that is not worth one more year to 'go for it,' where even a roster designed by one of these posters has Aaron freaking Harang as the #3 starter. Man, that's really going for it.
 
yeezus said:
jesus christ, that team is terrible. that rotation is an absolute joke. by simply asking for your fantasy plan, you're making my point for me. that's your fantasy scenario and that's the absolute best team we could hope for.

we know how things shook out with the pitching, and Teheran and Wood were not capable of being your 1-2 last year.

If you're selling your soul to "go for it" with THAT team, you are among the worst front offices in professional sports and should be fired. and then when that team likely misses the playoffs, you have absolutely nothing for the future (and you barely did already).

if you seriously prefer your plan above to the one we took, I'm not sure what can be said to you.
Click to expand...

Gattis, La Stella, Simmons, and BJ as 1/2 of your lineup, with a rotation that consists of two decent #2's (when healthy and pitching well) and then 3 scrap-heap guys. Good gosh.
 
smootness said:
Thank you. The primary reason we are where we are right now is not because we decided to blow it up. It's because we had already made some of the moves these posters are suggesting. We would have sucked for way longer. No, that is not worth one more year to 'go for it,' where even a roster designed by one of these posters has Aaron freaking Harang as the #3 starter. Man, that's really going for it.
Click to expand...

And if you're going to bend yourself over to "go for it," at least make sure your team has the capability to be better than zito's plan above. that's an absolutely terrible team to "go for it" with. best case scenario you sneak into the playoffs, and that's if a lot of guys over perform (and Gattis as your every day catcher, really???).
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I agree to a point but I think a successful strategy requires you to commit to a philosophy.

There are always one-off examples of how any way you construct a team can be successful given the right circumstances and the right luck. However, historically good teams have enough power in their line-up to at least be league average in terms of HR and 2B; have at least one dominant starter with 2-3 other very good starters; have a reasonably good pen; have depth for the injuries.

I see these mock lineups for the Braves that go something like: Albies, Inciarte, Swanson, Freeman, Ruiz, Markakis, Catcher, Mallex and while some of these guys may develop power, in 2017 my guess on HR power would be: 5, 8, 15, 25, 10, 10, 10, 0=83 while league average is likely to be 140. While it's POSSIBLE to win with a line-up like that the odds are heavy against it.
Click to expand...

It helps to have power and dominant starting pitching as you note. But there are enough teams that succeed without it (the Royals being the latest incarnation) that I think characterizing those teams' success as "one-offs" is not accurate.
 
yeezus said:
And if you're going to bend yourself over to "go for it," at least make sure your team has the capability to be better than zito's plan above. that's an absolutely terrible team to "go for it" with. best case scenario you sneak into the playoffs, and that's if a lot of guys over perform (and Gattis as your every day catcher, really???).
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people don't want to see TERRIBLE baseball like they are subject to during a real rebuild and are willing to accept mediocre baseball under the premise that "all you have to do is get to the playoffs and then it is a crapshoot" line of thinking. I think the wildcard has helped foster that approach as well in that you don't have to be good enough to win your division to see post season play.

I, on the other hand, believe that there are times when you have to tear it all down and start fresh. The Braves avoided it for 20+ years, then fought it unwisely for another 5 years, making it ultimately more difficult than it should have been. Sure, teams with unlimited money have an easier road, but even they fall off from their standard from time to time.

IMO, and I've said it before, the Braves are hurt in their rebuild because of timing. The need to talk being competitive in 2017 is directly tied to the opening of the new stadium. FA signings will be difficult as part of the add process because of the limited value of the 2017 FA crop. To truly fill holes and be competitive in 2017 would likely require ML talent acquisition via trade which would require parting with at least some of the minor league talent just acquired which is counterproductive to long term stability. The FO is caught in a quandary of trying a major rebuild at a time of few FA fixes while at least providing the illusion of trying to be competitive. I don't think it can be done for 2017.

I think they should continue to sell off every piece of value and lower the payroll as much as possible, bring in as much young talent as possible, then spend the money on the 2018 FA crop to WISELY fill holes. To me, long term, that's the best answer for the long term health of the franchise. But, do I think that's the way it will go? No because the FO will feel too much pressure from the masses to win now or at least create the illusion of the possibility of winning now.
 
nsacpi said:
It helps to have power and dominant starting pitching as you note. But there are enough teams that succeed without it (the Royals being the latest incarnation) that I think characterizing those teams' success as "one-offs" is not accurate.
Click to expand...

The Royals were at 139 HR last year and brought in Cueto mid season. While they finished next to last in HR in the AL, it was 139 HR not 83. Also, the Royals are in a very heavy pitchers park in a mostly pitchers Division. But, to their credit, they found a way to win against the odds. But, I will need to see it some more to count it as the new normal.
 
yeezus said:
jesus christ, that team is terrible. that rotation is an absolute joke. by simply asking for your fantasy plan, you're making my point for me. that's your fantasy scenario and that's the absolute best team we could hope for.

we know how things shook out with the pitching, and Teheran and Wood were not capable of being your 1-2 last year.

If you're selling your soul to "go for it" with THAT team, you are among the worst front offices in professional sports and should be fired. and then when that team likely misses the playoffs, you have absolutely nothing for the future (and you barely did already).

if you seriously prefer your plan above to the one we took, I'm not sure what can be said to you.
Click to expand...

How do you have a team that consists of Heyward (6 WAR), JUpton (3.6 WAR), Donaldson (8.7 WAR), Freeman (3.4 WAR in injured season), Simmons (3.2 WAR) and think it would be "terrible"... Are you crazy?

The pitching would be a problem... but I would have still made the Kimbrel trade, which would have cleared some salary and brought back Wisler. You don't go and make dumb trades like Trevor Cahil. You still do the Gattis trade to get some young players back. You still make the TLS/Viz trade

They could have taken the BJ/Cahil savings and signed someone like Brett Anderson, AJ Burnett, Jason Hammel, Francisco Liriano, Ervin Santana, Edison Volquez

You then have a stacked lineup and rotation that I would describe as "good enough" to get us to the playoffs.

Teheran
Wood
Liriano
Wisler
Wandy/Folty/Perez/Someone else

Not great - but good enough with a good enough offense and defense.

Then the lineup:

C - AJP (2.1 WAR)
1B - Freeman (3.6 WAR)
2b - Peraza - replacement level
SS - Simmons - 3.2 WAR
3B - Donaldson - (8.7 WAR)
LF - Adonis Garcia - (~2 WAR)
CF - Heyward (6) WAR
RF - JUpton - (3.6 WAR)

You're going to win a lot of games with that lineup. You still bring back Folty, Wisler, Ruiz in trades - and you could theoretically use them to acquire a pitcher if needed.

Also - we have the benefit of hindsight now, but the FO probably would have assumed that Mike Minor would have been there. If we brought back Santana - you can't predict the suspension. Same with Viz.

All that said - it's not hard to imagine a scenario where we could have fielded a really good team. The NL east winner won 90 games last year... The team above could have won that many - and may not have needed to win that many with a few more wins against the Mets. Once you get to the playoffs, all bets are off. And teams have won with worse rotations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top