Braves, On Pace For Record 134 Losses, Cling To Faith In Future

KB21 said:
I completely disagree with this. Frank Wren rode on the coattails of what was a strong farm system that was built under JS and the guidance of Roy Clark. That farm system eroded dramatically under Frank Wren. A big reason for this was that Frank ran off some very good scouts in the organization, including Roy Clark. If we had continued the Frank Wren plan, we would be sitting here today with a similar team and a much worse farm system.
Click to expand...

We can agree to disagree. I am not as worried about Danville as I am Atlanta. I'm glad we have a full pipeline. I prefer peeling off prospects to bring back ML talent. It's lower risk.

And again, the ML team was a couple of moves from being right in the hunt.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
We can agree to disagree. I am not as worried about Danville as I am Atlanta. I'm glad we have a full pipeline. I prefer peeling off prospects to bring back ML talent. It's lower risk.

And again, the ML team was a couple of moves from being right in the hunt.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree once again. The 2014 was abysmal, and frustratingly inept at doing the things that a good club needed to do to succeed. I get that 2013 was fun, heck 96 wins was fantastic - but it doesn't change the impending reality.

The team would not have won a WS in the distant future.

IF we could of kept JUP on an extension and added several key arms to keep us stable, then sure. But, the team was on a downhill slope with very little MLB quality down the pipe.

Either way, let's hope the future is a success!
 
Trading prospects for MLB talent is exactly what we did for a while. Yes, it is a way to give you a better MLB team faster. But it is also a way to ensure that success does not sustain itself for very long.

You absolutely have to have a continuously strong farm system to ensure long-term success in baseball. Even the Yankees are finding out that buying and trading for currently good major league players eventually has its limits. By doing what you suggest, you basically guarantee that after a while, you end up right back where we are now.
 
smootness said:
Trading prospects for MLB talent is exactly what we did for a while. Yes, it is a way to give you a better MLB team faster. But it is also a way to ensure that success does not sustain itself for very long.

You absolutely have to have a continuously strong farm system to ensure long-term success in baseball. Even the Yankees are finding out that buying and trading for currently good major league players eventually has its limits. By doing what you suggest, you basically guarantee that after a while, you end up right back where we are now.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This is why I think it's important to consistently invest in these international guys, because someone like Maitan could be the key to a reset when we (will probably) need one in a couple years.
 
smootness said:
Trading prospects for MLB talent is exactly what we did for a while. Yes, it is a way to give you a better MLB team faster. But it is also a way to ensure that success does not sustain itself for very long.

You absolutely have to have a continuously strong farm system to ensure long-term success in baseball. Even the Yankees are finding out that buying and trading for currently good major league players eventually has its limits. By doing what you suggest, you basically guarantee that after a while, you end up right back where we are now.
Click to expand...

What you describe is the natural cycle of baseball teams. What the Braves did in the 90's and early 00's is not something you should expect any team to repeat. Once the MLB team is competing again I certainly don't expect another decade of excellence.
 
thewupk said:
What you describe is the natural cycle of baseball teams. What the Braves did in the 90's and early 00's is not something you should expect any team to repeat. Once the MLB team is competing again I certainly don't expect another decade of excellence.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm expecting. But no, you don't have to go through cycles where you have a good MLB team followed by years with a bad MLB team without a farm system. Your MLB team will go through cycles, yes, but you should always be able to have at least a decent pipeline of talent behind it that allows for some optimism about the future. A well-run franchise shouldn't experience more than a 'down' year or two before having a chance to compete again.
 
smootness said:
That's not what I'm expecting. But no, you don't have to go through cycles where you have a good MLB team followed by years with a bad MLB team without a farm system. Your MLB team will go through cycles, yes, but you should always be able to have at least a decent pipeline of talent behind it that allows for some optimism about the future. A well-run franchise shouldn't experience more than a 'down' year or two before having a chance to compete again.
Click to expand...

That means constantly hitting on prospects and trading the right ones away. No easy feat.
 
thewupk said:
That means constantly hitting on prospects and trading the right ones away. No easy feat.
Click to expand...

It does require a good scouting department, yes. But rather than trading them away, it usually means hoarding your prospects and continuing to feed your major-league team with them.
 
UNCBlue012 said:
Agree to disagree once again. The 2014 was abysmal, and frustratingly inept at doing the things that a good club needed to do to succeed. I get that 2013 was fun, heck 96 wins was fantastic - but it doesn't change the impending reality.

The team would not have won a WS in the distant future.

IF we could of kept JUP on an extension and added several key arms to keep us stable, then sure. But, the team was on a downhill slope with very little MLB quality down the pipe.

Either way, let's hope the future is a success!
Click to expand...

Totally understand and agree with your last sentiment. I do, however, think it was plausible to keep it together - in theory, at least, we could have still made the Heyward line of deals, signed JUpton (of course, that doesn't look so good right now), used the Markakis money on a 2-3 starter, and thrown a lot of chips on the international market where we seem determined to play.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

I'm not sure that would have worked, no. But I sure like it better than the roster we're seeing, and while the farm looks good, there's a decent chance none of those guys turns into what we all hope.

Gutting it to the ribs is dangerous business. If they miss on more than their share, we're Pittsburgh 1992-2012, in a down cycle that's hard to break.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
I'm not sure that would have worked, no. But I sure like it better than the roster we're seeing, and while the farm looks good, there's a decent chance none of those guys turns into what we all hope.
Click to expand...

A decent chance none of our prospects reach their potential? I think that's being just a bit pessimistic.
 
smootness said:
It does require a good scouting department, yes. But rather than trading them away, it usually means hoarding your prospects and continuing to feed your major-league team with them.
Click to expand...

Prospects have a high bust rate. At some point you need to cash those prospects in for major leaguers when your a team that can't go out and sign top tier free agents.
 
smootness said:
Trading prospects for MLB talent is exactly what we did for a while. Yes, it is a way to give you a better MLB team faster. But it is also a way to ensure that success does not sustain itself for very long.

You absolutely have to have a continuously strong farm system to ensure long-term success in baseball. Even the Yankees are finding out that buying and trading for currently good major league players eventually has its limits. By doing what you suggest, you basically guarantee that after a while, you end up right back where we are now.
Click to expand...

It's also important to note that post-PED era, the aging curve has shortened. Players, more and more, are having their peak seasons pre-free agency.

Unless it is a player like Heyward, Machado, Harper, etc. that hit free agency in their mid 20's, it doesn't make much sense to dabble in free agency. Even if you trade for a player, you need to make sure that you are getting multiple years of control of that player while they are still in they are in their 20's because the "sign and extend" model is toxic too.
 
smootness said:
That's not what I'm expecting. But no, you don't have to go through cycles where you have a good MLB team followed by years with a bad MLB team without a farm system. Your MLB team will go through cycles, yes, but you should always be able to have at least a decent pipeline of talent behind it that allows for some optimism about the future. A well-run franchise shouldn't experience more than a 'down' year or two before having a chance to compete again.
Click to expand...

Maintaining an elite system is basically only possible if you remove yourself entirely from free agency (draft pick compensation) and trades, especially since the international market has become more regulated (and will become even more regulated.

The only possible way to continuously field quality teams is extending your own homegrown players early so you can control their peak seasons at a discounted rate. Wren almost accomplished this, except he bungled free agency. The current team that's perfected this model is Pittsburgh.
 
thewupk said:
Prospects have a high bust rate. At some point you need to cash those prospects in for major leaguers when your a team that can't go out and sign top tier free agents.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The Cardinals probably did the right thing trading for Heyward, but imagine if they were the ones to make the Swanson/Miller trade? Now they sit at the end of their contention window with the Heyward trade serving as a clear set back in their next rebuild. The Athletics did the same with the Lester and Shark trades the year earlier. Given the choice, I think I would tend to error on the side of caution when making win-now trades.
 
chop2chip said:
Yes and no. The Cardinals probably did the right thing trading for Heyward, but imagine if they were the ones to make the Swanson/Miller trade? Now they sit at the end of their contention window with the Heyward trade serving as a clear set back in their next rebuild. The Athletics did the same with the Lester and Shark trades the year earlier. Given the choice, I think I would tend to error on the side of caution when making win-now trades.
Click to expand...

A's and Cards were two of the better teams in baseball those years. I think at some point, especially mid-market teams, you have to go for it.
 
chop2chip said:
Yes and no. The Cardinals probably did the right thing trading for Heyward, but imagine if they were the ones to make the Swanson/Miller trade? Now they sit at the end of their contention window with the Heyward trade serving as a clear set back in their next rebuild. The Athletics did the same with the Lester and Shark trades the year earlier. Given the choice, I think I would tend to error on the side of caution when making win-now trades.
Click to expand...

Mark Texiera says hi. (I may have spelled his name wrong. He wasn't with the Braves long enough for me to get used to seeing it in the lineup.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top