Braves Should Avoid Becoming Diamondbacks

The better way to upgrade the rotation is to look for trades for guys with contracts that imply little or no surplus value. Greinke, Kennedy and Zimmerman would be examples.
 
Dbacks faile because of two things. Pollack injuries and major regression from Miller. I thought the plan was good. They obviously gave up way too much in the Miller deal but I thought the team would be a high 80 win team prior to pollack going down.
 
thethe said:
Dbacks faile because of two things. Pollack injuries and major regression from Miller. I thought the plan was good. They obviously gave up way too much in the Miller deal but I thought the team would be a high 80 win team prior to pollack going down.
Click to expand...

The main issue is the trade for Miller didn't even improve their major league team while giving up their #1 prospect. Also With that being said even if Miller performed like he did in Atlanta and they had Pollock all year then they likely are a high 70's win team instead of the 69 wins they did have. It was a gross misjudge of the talent they had on the team. If the Braves blow their farm on someone like Sale or give up less on the farm but include Ender it would be the same thing. Our base talent at the major league level isnt good enough.
 
thethe said:
Dbacks faile because of two things. Pollack injuries and major regression from Miller. I thought the plan was good. They obviously gave up way too much in the Miller deal but I thought the team would be a high 80 win team prior to pollack going down.
Click to expand...

They finished 12 games under .500. Give them an extra five for Pollack and an extra 3 for Miller and you still have a sub .500 team. Stewart and LaRussa miscalculated big time.
 
nsacpi said:
They finished 12 games under .500. Give them an extra five for Pollack and an extra 3 for Miller and you still have a sub .500 team. Stewart and LaRussa miscalculated big time.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't believe you can just assume a linear improvement by adding expected war fron players. Teams that bottom out seem to 'give up' and therefore each game doesn't grab the same attention as those when you are in contention.

Also, if Miller is what he was the prior year what impact does that have on the bullpen? Could other starters burning out in the 5th/6th innings been saved from losing a game more often?

How much more improved is the bench assuming Pollack is healthy all year.

There are just too many factors in my eyes to just say add 8 wins and they still suck. You may in fact be right but I believe it's a more nuanced equation.
 
thewupk said:
The main issue is the trade for Miller didn't even improve their major league team while giving up their #1 prospect. Also With that being said even if Miller performed like he did in Atlanta and they had Pollock all year then they likely are a high 70's win team instead of the 69 wins they did have. It was a gross misjudge of the talent they had on the team. If the Braves blow their farm on someone like Sale or give up less on the farm but include Ender it would be the same thing. Our base talent at the major league level isnt good enough.
Click to expand...

The second half was a window into the Hugh point of this team. Starting pitching killed us in the second half and we still finished a few games over 500. I'm not buying this narrative the braves can't compete for the WC
 
thewupk said:
The main issue is the trade for Miller didn't even improve their major league team while giving up their #1 prospect. Also With that being said even if Miller performed like he did in Atlanta and they had Pollock all year then they likely are a high 70's win team instead of the 69 wins they did have. It was a gross misjudge of the talent they had on the team. If the Braves blow their farm on someone like Sale or give up less on the farm but include Ender it would be the same thing. Our base talent at the major league level isnt good enough.
Click to expand...

To be fair, there were A LOT of folks not just proclaiming them the "winter winners" - more than a few had them knocking off the Dodgers, and some were much higher than that on them.

While it wasn't awful, Goldschmidt had a down year, Greinke was downright bad (for his standards) for a long stretch, and Owings missed significant time (leading them to have to lean on Ahmed and his 47 OPS+).

That in no way resolves the blame for the trade, but it certainly wasn't the overriding cause of their downfall IMO.
 
thethe said:
Personally I don't believe you can just assume a linear improvement by adding expected war fron players. Teams that bottom out seem to 'give up' and therefore each game doesn't grab the same attention as those when you are in contention.

Also, if Miller is what he was the prior year what impact does that have on the bullpen? Could other starters burning out in the 5th/6th innings been saved from losing a game more often?

How much more improved is the bench assuming Pollack is healthy all year.
There are just too many factors in my eyes to just say add 8 wins and they still suck. You may in fact be right but I believe it's a more nuanced equation.
Click to expand...

12 games under .500. That's a long long way from contention. They finished with the same number of losses as the 2016 Braves. Think about that. Would we have "contended" with normal production from Pollack and Miller. I don't think so
 
nsacpi said:
12 games under .500. That's a long long way from contention. They finished with the same number of losses as the 2016 Braves. Think about that. Would we have "contended" with normal production from Pollack and Miller. I don't think so
Click to expand...

I believe the second half Braves were a in contention team so yes I think we absolutely would have contended with a good Pollack/Miller.
 
thethe said:
I believe the second half Braves were a in contention team so yes I think we absolutely would have contended with a good Pollack/Miller.
Click to expand...

Sure you can always selectively select out the best part of each season to project forward for a team or player. You can airbrush out the first half. Or any slumps. Take out the weakest months for Garcia and you have a solid third baseman. Take out Freddie Freeman's weakest months and you have a budding MVP. Take out Ender's weakest months and he's an All-Star. Take out Rio Ruiz's slumps and he's a top prospect. Carry on.
 
nsacpi said:
Sure you can always selectively select out the best part of each season to project forward for a team or player. You can airbrush out the first half. Or any slumps. Take out the weakest months for Garcia and you have a solid third baseman. Take out Freddie Freeman's weakest months and you have a budding MVP. Take out Ender's weakest months and he's an All-Star. Take out Rio Ruiz's slumps and he's a top prospect. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Thats not really fair to say because the Braves signifantly improved their offense by calling up Swanson and acquiring Kemp.

Yes, a couple of players played real well but the Braves won a lot of games with a bad starting staff.
 
nsacpi said:
They finished 12 games under .500. Give them an extra five for Pollack and an extra 3 for Miller and you still have a sub .500 team. Stewart and LaRussa miscalculated big time.
Click to expand...

And 5 and 3 for though guys is really optimistic.
 
gilesfan said:
And 5 and 3 for though guys is really optimistic.
Click to expand...

Vegas had them pegged as an 80-85 win team AFTER all the upgrades. So yeah the injuries and other issues led them to under-perform relative to their baseline. But that does not absolve LaRussa and Stewart from the charge of misunderstanding what kind of team they had. Those two set back that franchise years.
 
thethe said:
Thats not really fair to say because the Braves signifantly improved their offense by calling up Swanson and acquiring Kemp.

Yes, a couple of players played real well but the Braves won a lot of games with a bad starting staff.
Click to expand...

I think this is overly optimistic. The fact that Flowers, Garcia, Inciarte, Markakis, Freeman and Kemp all performed much, much better in the second half than they did in the first half, and in the case of most of them better than they ever have, is a reason to be concerned. In order to buy that the second half wasn't a mirage, you have to assume a number of things:

1) Freddie Freeman is going to be an MVP contender for years to come. He had a 177 wRC+ in the second half. I think Freddie will be a great player for us, but he was on a HoF pace in the second half. I don't see him coming anywhere near close to repeating that.

2) Adonis Garcia, 9 years into his career, has figured it out and is now an above average hitter, despite little improvements in his batted ball profile or K and BB ratios. I'm going to consider that unlikely.

3) Tyler Flowers can maintain a .387 BABIP and also maintain a big jump in his BB rate to remain a league average hitter.

4) Ender Inciarte is also suddenly an MVP candidate combining elite defense with a 120 wRC+. His .387 BABIP in the second half is unlikely to be sustainable.

5) Nick Markakis is better with the stick than he's been in 4 years. This has the best chance of being reality, as he at least wasn't that far ahead of his recent numbers.

6) Matt Kemp is suddenly an elite slugger again. Again, maybe this one could happen, but given how unlikely most of the other things are, it's putting a lot of hope in this happening to go all in right now.

Sure, it doesn't have to be all or nothing, and the Braves could still field a passable offense without repeating every one of these performances, but 4 of those 6 second half performances seem highly unlikely to be even close. You'd have to be counting on Swanson curing a lot of ills if they don't.
 
The DBacks never had the farm system we do now or the ML talent we do now. They felt they needed to win now while their good players were still cheap. We can wait if teams ask for too much.
 
The old baseball saw of not judging a team on April or September really holds here. I agree with thewupk and the folks at Fangraphs. If I see a couple of major prospects-for-mlbers trades, it's probably going to end badly.
 
50PoundHead said:
The old baseball saw of not judging a team on April or September really holds here. I agree with thewupk and the folks at Fangraphs. If I see a couple of major prospects-for-mlbers trades, it's probably going to end badly.
Click to expand...

No doubt - but that's certainly no reason not to make some of those deals if you make the "right" ones. While I've never been in favor of dealing Ozzie, it sure didn't take the brass long to decide to make him a 2B for good.

None of us "knows" which ones are ultimately going to succeed, but I do agree with a lot of former players and current pundits/analysts/etc. who do think many prospects have become way overvalued these days. I enjoy dreaming on and discussing them as much as anyone else, but I'm not crazy enough to bet on projections for somebody like Albies, Acuna, and Riley enough to keep me from trading them for Chris Archer.

It's a bit funny to me that all we heard for the longest time was "if we only had an Ace" quickly turn into "he's not worth someone who isn't 20 years old".

As long as the brass is smart about who they hang that "untouchable" tag on (and the level of return we'd have to get to deal someone we even consider close to that), I'd have no problem if some are dealt. At this point, we've only got one prospect who's even mentioned being close to the Moncada/Bregman level, and he's 16.
 
So the big question here is whether the big 2nd half was a hot streak, or real progression on the part of the team and many of the players.

Certainly the answer is not a guaranteed one way or the other. However, those who find reasons to think it is more than a hot streak are not idiots to think so... just as those who find reasons to think it was just an unsustainable hot streak are also not stupid for their opinions. Personally, I prefer the optimistic view of real progress toward becoming a very good team. Time will tell.

I enjoy the discussion of both sides, up until we have to start painting those who see it the other way with the idiot brush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top