AcuñaMania

mfree80 said:
By all reports, he was destroying the clubhouse. Even in a rebuild, chemistry matters. It must have been really bad for them to want him gone that badly.
Click to expand...

I don't remember that. All I remember was BJ and Hart going golfing plenty during ST and the offseason.
 
mfree80 said:
By all reports, he was destroying the clubhouse. Even in a rebuild, chemistry matters. It must have been really bad for them to want him gone that badly.
Click to expand...

You sign a guy like Gomes who will jack him up. And BTW what clubhouse was their to destroy. Who's feelings in the clubhouse were they concerned about? Freddie?

The whole bad clubhouse guy only makes a difference if the negativity is harming the teams ability to win. Those teams weren't going to win anyway.

Bad excuse.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
You sign a guy like Gomes who will jack him up. And BTW what clubhouse was their to destroy. Who's feelings in the clubhouse were they concerned about? Freddie?

The whole bad clubhouse guy only makes a difference if the negativity is harming the teams ability to win. Those teams weren't going to win anyway.

Bad excuse.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean considering they had already traded Justin, Heyward, Kimbrel, Gattis at that point, were they really thinking Freddie would feel better about the whole thing?
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Exactly.

The whole argument that you have to put ML players out there during a rebuild (defense of the Markakis signing and to an extent the Kemp trade) goes out the window if you just keep and play the guy you're paying big money to. Would the Braves have lost a game or two more with BJ in the OF instead of Markakis? Surely. But what difference does it make? So the Braves draft first instead of fifth. So 10,000 less fans show up to the park in 2016.

And there's always the possibility BJ goes on a streak of good play that convinces people enough that he has turned it around where you could trade him on his own merits, if for virtually nothing.

The same thing for Bourn and Nick Swisher. If you're going to trade Johnson for them then cut them why not just cut Johnson. Sure the Braves got some cash coming back in the deal but why not just let Bourn and Swisher play out there contracts badly filling roles on an already bad team?

The FO never committed to a true rebuild. They wanted to hamstring themselves by shooting for ugly mediocrity, then failed to achieve that.
Click to expand...

they didn't cut Johnson because that would have been a sunk salary and they were able to trade some money in the short term for quicker payroll flexibility later. That was a good trade. You created quicker payroll relief at short term cost. The Braves then could hold out some hope that the return would be more productive than expected and possibly even flippable if that happened.

I have no objection to that trade and think it was good.

They could have eaten the Upton contract and we know that he never recovered any value really. The Padres ate his deal to ship him off after he was minimally respectable as a fourth OF. He was then cut and possibly out of the majors permanently pretty quickly after that.

It seems apparent that Atlanta valued a shorter term flexibility of payroll at the very least. And if he was a cancer then that was another reason to move him. Real life intruding on numbers there.

Eating his salary or attaching him to Kimbrell is certainly a valid discussion. No one at the time as far as I can tell thought the Braves made a bad decision. Several observers thought it was a clear win.
 
sturg33 said:
The clubhouse stories are typical ex-bravesitis
Click to expand...

BJ legitimately did suck in the clubhouse. Whether or not that should have been a reason to trade him is debatable. I don't think it really should have been. But as always, these discussions fail to consider what we were then able to use his money on elsewhere.

But BJ sucked in the clubhouse.
 
Southcack77 said:
they didn't cut Johnson because that would have been a sunk salary and they were able to trade some money in the short term for quicker payroll flexibility later. That was a good trade. You created quicker payroll relief at short term cost. The Braves then could hold out some hope that the return would be more productive than expected and possibly even flippable if that happened.

I have no objection to that trade and think it was good.

They could have eaten the Upton contract and we know that he never recovered any value really. The Padres ate his deal to ship him off after he was minimally respectable as a fourth OF. He was then cut and possibly out of the majors permanently pretty quickly after that.

It seems apparent that Atlanta valued a shorter term flexibility of payroll at the very least. And if he was a cancer then that was another reason to move him. Real life intruding on numbers there.

Eating his salary or attaching him to Kimbrell is certainly a valid discussion. No one at the time as far as I can tell thought the Braves made a bad decision. Several observers thought it was a clear win.
Click to expand...

Not saying that the Johnson deal was bad. It wasn't. Saying cutting Bourn and Swisher and eating their salaries then bringing in backfill of no better talent but additional cost made no sense for a rebuilding team.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Not saying that the Johnson deal was bad. It wasn't. Saying cutting Bourn and Swisher and eating their salaries then bringing in backfill of no better talent but additional cost made no sense for a rebuilding team.
Click to expand...

While you are not wrong, another way of looking at that might be... If you move an old expensive guy to bring in a young guy who may or may not be any better... but you might catch lightning in a bottle, is the kind of risk that might be worthwhile for a rebuilding team. I don't remember who took their places immediately, but if it was guys who were later traded, or were young and inexpensive then it is not so bad.

If it was Markakis (who came the following year) then at least you got a good clubhouse guy who didn't kill you.
 
mfree80 said:
While you are not wrong, another way of looking at that might be... If you move an old expensive guy to bring in a young guy who may or may not be any better... but you might catch lightning in a bottle, is the kind of risk that might be worthwhile for a rebuilding team. I don't remember who took their places immediately, but if it was guys who were later traded, or were young and inexpensive then it is not so bad.

If it was Markakis (who came the following year) then at least you got a good clubhouse guy who didn't kill you.
Click to expand...

The idea should have been to bring in as many Adonis Garcia's as possible, and use the playing time to find a late bloomer.

Finding one single solitary late bloomer would have been infinitely more valuable than all the contributions from all these old "steady veterans" combined.
 
Chris Johnson was in good graces because of connection to Larry Wayne Jones Sr. and recommendation from Chippper. Opinions from message board loiterers did not receive careful consideration.

That said, isn't this supposed to be an Acuna thread?
 
smootness said:
BJ legitimately did suck in the clubhouse. Whether or not that should have been a reason to trade him is debatable. I don't think it really should have been. But as always, these discussions fail to consider what we were then able to use his money on elsewhere.

But BJ sucked in the clubhouse.
Click to expand...

What is this based on? I am legitimately curious because I know him and the family. Actually about to play some golf with his Dad. Whether or not he is a good player, he is a good dude and I would be surprised if he caused issues in the clubhouse.
 
smootness said:
BJ legitimately did suck in the clubhouse. Whether or not that should have been a reason to trade him is debatable. I don't think it really should have been. But as always, these discussions fail to consider what we were then able to use his money on elsewhere.

But BJ sucked in the clubhouse.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it was a hard decision, but it was going to come to a head somehow.
 
gilesfan said:
What is this based on? I am legitimately curious because I know him and the family. Actually about to play some golf with his Dad. Whether or not he is a good player, he is a good dude and I would be surprised if he caused issues in the clubhouse.
Click to expand...

Just did a search on this and couldnt find anything
 
sturg33 said:
Just did a search on this and couldnt find anything
Click to expand...

It's all conjecture. I remember a couple of times when Fredi pulled him from games and he was visibly upset. That could apply to a lot of guys. I think one of the problems is the team didn't seem to respond to Gonzalez' leadership, but, again, that's all conjecture as well. Melvin just never seemed to be a fit for whatever reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top