Interesting List

C

clvclv

<B>"What is a clvclv"</B>
Yoan Moncada

Amed Rosario

Walker Buehler

Lewis Brinson

Francisco Mejia

Ozzie Albies

Clint Frazier

Alex Verdugo

Carson Kelly

Franklin Barreto

Dominic Smith

Chance Sisco

Jack Flaherty

Lucas Giolito

J. P. Crawford

Ryan McMahon

Christian Arroyo

Jorge Alfaro

Rhys Hoskins

Jeimer Candelario

Luiz Gohara

Harrison Bader

Miguel Andujar

That's 23 of the Midseason Top 100 Prospects (MLB Pipeline's list) that have been promoted since midseason that either play for rebuilding teams or DON'T HAVE clear-cut starting roles for contenders. It also leaves out names like Ian Happ and Victor Caratini wasting service-time on the Cubs' bench, Reynaldo Lopez and Carson Fulmer pitching across town for the White Sox, Jesse Winker hanging out on the Reds' bench, Colin Moran parked back in the Astros' minors, doesn't count the Phillies starting Nick Williams' clock in a lost season, ignores the fact that Steven Brault's making his Pirates' debut tonight, that Carlos Asuaje and Manny Margot have spent the season in San Diego, that Magneuris Sierra spent time in the Cardinals' OF earlier and Luke Weaver's in their rotation, that Yohander Mendez logged 3 whole innings for the Rangers in 2016, that Anthony Alford has 8 ABs with the Blue Jays, and that Erick Fedde made 3 starts for the Gnats this year.

How about we give the "earning an MLB promotion is the end of the world" complaint a rest?
 
So what you are really implying is that service time manipulation is finding an ineffiency in the market place. All the more reason small/mid market teams should seek to employ such tactics.
 
I would hardly call Happ someone whose service time is being wasted by the Cubs. The guy has hit 21 bombs and has been a solid contributor. Plus, given the Cubs' financial status, service time constraints are practically non-existent for them. I would agree that the Phils' situation is similar to ours and I never understood the Cardinals' decision to elevate Sierra from the Florida State League to the majors (although he would have likely gone on their 40-man roster over the winter).
 
50PoundHead said:
I would hardly call Happ someone whose service time is being wasted by the Cubs. The guy has hit 21 bombs and has been a solid contributor. Plus, given the Cubs' financial status, service time constraints are practically non-existent for them. I would agree that the Phils' situation is similar to ours and I never understood the Cardinals' decision to elevate Sierra from the Florida State League to the majors (although he would have likely gone on their 40-man roster over the winter).
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem retracting Happ.

Doesn't exactly whittle the list down very far, does it?
 
chop2chip said:
So what you are really implying is that service time manipulation is finding an ineffiency in the market place. All the more reason small/mid market teams should seek to employ such tactics.
Click to expand...

Actually, what I'd argue is that the Braves obviously aren't the only organization that promotes prospects when they deem they're ready.
 
How many of those guy are as young as Albies and Gohara?

Rather than waiting, I'll tell you....none of them.

I find it "interesting" the Braves are the team who has promoted the youngest prospects.

So well done, you have just proven that the Braves have made the 2 most moronic promotions in baseball since mid season. Bravo!!
 
Interesting list indeed. I believe most of the guys called up play for teams contending for playoff spots.

It is interesting to compare and contract Swanson and Senzel. Senzel has an OPS of .973 in 235 PAs in AA. He is doing much better than Swanson was last year in AA. Have the Reds called up Senzel? Does anyone think it would make an iota of sense for the Reds to call up Senzel. And yes I know he's been dealing with some vertigo, which ended his season a week ago. But even before that I don't believe there was any discussion of bringing him up.
 
Enscheff said:
How many of those guy are as young as Albies and Gohara?

Rather than waiting, I'll tell you....none of them.

I find it "interesting" the Braves are the team who has promoted the youngest prospects.

So well done, you have just proven that the Braves have made the 2 most moronic promotions in baseball since mid season. Bravo!!
Click to expand...

I mean it's not that difficult to understand. These guys are just trolls. I love how someone like Rhys Hoskins who is currently 24, under contract through age 30, and not even a top 100 prospect to start the year is now being used to say it's okay to promote our top 15 prospect who is currently 20 and now under contract through age 26. I'm sure looking deeper will find way more similarities to Hoskins than Albies.
 
Those who allow themselves to fall into the trap of defending moves that are more about wish fulfillment, marketing and the illusion of a competitive team are certainly not out of the ordinary. After all fan is short for fanatic: a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause (or sports as religion). As fans we want very much for things to go well, be right, to have the best players, best management, best architects, best TEAM and are willing to delude ourselves considerably and to varying degrees to convince ourselves that indeed we are in capable hands that will deliver and keep us at the promised land. Sometimes, you can be more right than wrong with the approach.

I prefer to be critical: expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art (or sport). I try to critically asses the health and capability of the team as reality based as possible, at least for me. Give credit where it's due and call BS when it's due as well.

Am I ever wrong? Can I be wrong? Of course. No one ever has all the data, wisdom and understanding necessary for perfection. But I do pride myself on consciously keeping my wants separate from my fantasies when it comes to the realities of the team. I keep my fantasies based in areas of day dream trades that will probably never happen and freely admit that I dream as much as the next person. I also freely admit that hindsight judgement is free from on the ground imperatives and pressures of the now.

But, when I recognize a pattern of bone headed moves, I hope never to feel the need to justify those moves based on my own needs to be happy as a fan.

This FO has made a few great moves. But, they've made (and continue to make) a considerable number of bone headed moves that appear to have no justification outside of the idea that they are good moves simply because I need them to be good moves to continue being happy as a fan. To me, that's not good enough.
 
If you are a Braves fan and posting here you bring your own biases into the observation.

Negativity is generally a shade of bias, not evidence of its absence.

If you want to find unbiased views they ought to come from people that aren't fans at all and certainly not fans of the Braves.
 
Southcack77 said:
If you are a Braves fan and posting here you bring your own biases into the observation.

Negativity is generally a shade of bias, not evidence of its absence.

If you want to find unbiased views they ought to come from people that aren't fans at all and certainly not fans of the Braves.
Click to expand...
Hey South,,,interesting take. I agree and wanted to know if you get to see the prospects. I live between Douglasville GA and Cartersville so I get to Rome for about 30 games when I'm not traveling through Braves country. I stopped kind of giving my eyeball views because of some of the arguments here but your thoughts are interesting even if I don't agree with all of them.
 
Southcack77 said:
If you are a Braves fan and posting here you bring your own biases into the observation.

Negativity is generally a shade of bias, not evidence of its absence.

If you want to find unbiased views they ought to come from people that aren't fans at all and certainly not fans of the Braves.
Click to expand...

Probably a fair observation. I will say that the presence of negativity isn't necessarily a confirmation of bias. It could be just reaction to negative occurrences and refusal to gloss over them because of positive fan bias.

I think it would be very difficult to find anyone who's willing to provide commentary and analysis of the baseball industry without any possible bias simply because to have enough interest to begin with there must be an entry point and the entry point itself would lead to bias. So, let's say we find a third party industry "expert" such as Tommy Lasorda or Dave Stewart or Peter Gammons or Jason Heyward and ask what they think of the Braves rebuild. Would you trust their judgement? Could you?

At the end of the day, I think you have to self evaluate and ask yourself if you are making the most unbiased evaluation that you can and go with what you believe. I believe that the Braves have made mostly a poor effort at building a sustainable foundation for a successful rebuild. That isn't to say that they've done nothing good. They have. But they've made a number of poor and short sighted decisions designed to limit the damage caused by the mechanics of a rebuild at the expense of more and better talent, better long term financial positioning and more short and long term flexibility to react to additions of opportunity only to have that damage occur anyway. That sin is at least, if not mortal, crippling.
 
nsacpi said:
Interesting list indeed. I believe most of the guys called up play for teams contending for playoff spots.

It is interesting to compare and contract Swanson and Senzel. Senzel has an OPS of .973 in 235 PAs in AA. He is doing much better than Swanson was last year in AA. Have the Reds called up Senzel? Does anyone think it would make an iota of sense for the Reds to call up Senzel. And yes I know he's been dealing with some vertigo, which ended his season a week ago. But even before that I don't believe there was any discussion of bringing him up.
Click to expand...

Apparently you read a different list - while Moncada, Rosario, Kelly, Barreto, Smith, Flaherty, Giolito, Crawford, Arroyo, Alfaro, Hoskins, Candelario, Bader, Lopez, Fulmer, Winker, Williams, Brault, Asuaje, Margot, Sierra, Weaver, and Alford play for teams that have been in contention within the last 20 years or so, they certainly aren't in 2017.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Probably a fair observation. I will say that the presence of negativity isn't necessarily a confirmation of bias. It could be just reaction to negative occurrences and refusal to gloss over them because of positive fan bias.

I think it would be very difficult to find anyone who's willing to provide commentary and analysis of the baseball industry without any possible bias simply because to have enough interest to begin with there must be an entry point and the entry point itself would lead to bias. So, let's say we find a third party industry "expert" such as Tommy Lasorda or Dave Stewart or Peter Gammons or Jason Heyward and ask what they think of the Braves rebuild. Would you trust their judgement? Could you?

At the end of the day, I think you have to self evaluate and ask yourself if you are making the most unbiased evaluation that you can and go with what you believe. I believe that the Braves have made mostly a poor effort at building a sustainable foundation for a successful rebuild. That isn't to say that they've done nothing good. They have. But they've made a number of poor and short sighted decisions designed to limit the damage caused by the mechanics of a rebuild at the expense of more and better talent, better long term financial positioning and more short and long term flexibility to react to additions of opportunity only to have that damage occur anyway. That sin is at least, if not mortal, crippling.
Click to expand...

The funny thing about everyone who makes that argument is that they simply have no better information to base their opinions on (in the vast majority of cases) than the "defenders". Just like us "blind followers", you weren't in the room when those decisions were made - and you have absolutely no concrete evidence as to what the circumstances surrounding those decisions were, other prospects that may or may not have been available in any trade discussions, etc.. You bring your own bias based on what you assume rather than know. In many cases, lots of people on either side make many of the same assumptions - unfortunately at the end of the day, your judgement is clouded just as much because you're a "doubter" as ours is because we're "dreamers".
 
clvclv said:
The funny thing about everyone who makes that argument is that they simply have no better information to base their opinions on (in the vast majority of cases) than the "defenders". Just like us "blind followers", you weren't in the room when those decisions were made - and you have absolutely no concrete evidence as to what the circumstances surrounding those decisions were, other prospects that may or may not have been available in any trade discussions, etc.. You bring your own bias based on what you assume rather than know. In many cases, lots of people on either side make many of the same assumptions - unfortunately at the end of the day, your judgement is clouded just as much because you're a "doubter" as ours is because we're "dreamers".
Click to expand...

And the problem with this argument is doesn't not allow any dissent to decisions made by professional organizations, because, hey - we weren't in the room!

Dave Stewart gave us Dansby, Ender, and a top 50 prospect. He shouldn't be criticized because, hey - we weren't in the room and aren't privy to the angles that went into that decision.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Those who allow themselves to fall into the trap of defending moves that are more about wish fulfillment, marketing and the illusion of a competitive team are certainly not out of the ordinary. After all fan is short for fanatic: a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause (or sports as religion). As fans we want very much for things to go well, be right, to have the best players, best management, best architects, best TEAM and are willing to delude ourselves considerably and to varying degrees to convince ourselves that indeed we are in capable hands that will deliver and keep us at the promised land. Sometimes, you can be more right than wrong with the approach.

I prefer to be critical: expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art (or sport). I try to critically asses the health and capability of the team as reality based as possible, at least for me. Give credit where it's due and call BS when it's due as well.

Am I ever wrong? Can I be wrong? Of course. No one ever has all the data, wisdom and understanding necessary for perfection. But I do pride myself on consciously keeping my wants separate from my fantasies when it comes to the realities of the team. I keep my fantasies based in areas of day dream trades that will probably never happen and freely admit that I dream as much as the next person. I also freely admit that hindsight judgement is free from on the ground imperatives and pressures of the now.

But, when I recognize a pattern of bone headed moves, I hope never to feel the need to justify those moves based on my own needs to be happy as a fan.

This FO has made a few great moves. But, they've made (and continue to make) a considerable number of bone headed moves that appear to have no justification outside of the idea that they are good moves simply because I need them to be good moves to continue being happy as a fan. To me, that's not good enough.
Click to expand...

This is where I don't get as upset as others. A GM of a baseball team is a public figure and thus in today's world a polotician. When I hear Hart speak I know he's full of crap. He's a polotician. He's pandering to ticket holders or posturing for trade value. I don't take this personally. It's his job. I also know this is an entertainment industry and they care more about the gate than making fans happy on the internet. Once again, I don't take this personally. It's their job. Marketing players, filling fans with false hopes, and creating an illusion of a quicker rebuild are what they've been doing to attempt to keep fans happy during some losing seasons. I know what they're doing, but once again it's their job.

I don't think we ever planned on trading for a Sale, Archer, or Gray. I believe it was due dilligence that created a buzz and filled fans with false hopes, so they played in to it more. Acquiring guys like Jaime, Dickey, Colon, Srod to be able to flip in Juloy when they're out of it was nothing more than a ploy to sell tickets and attempt to aquire more prospects. Colon sucked, Srod got injured and they misread Jaime's value. It happens, but it's not something I'm going to get upset over. They're business deals that did not work out. It happens. I didn't agree with the Dansby marketing campaign at all, but I can understand why they felt the need to do so. I would've done more with Freddie and less hype with Dansby. Maybe it's the hair. That's what they chose to do. I'm not going to state my opinion 15 times a day abot how I disagreed with it.
 
Chico said:
This is where I don't get as upset as others. A GM of a baseball team is a public figure and thus in today's world a polotician. When I hear Hart speak I know he's full of crap. He's a polotician. He's pandering to ticket holders or posturing for trade value. I don't take this personally. It's his job. I also know this is an entertainment industry and they care more about the gate than making fans happy on the internet. Once again, I don't take this personally. It's their job. Marketing players, filling fans with false hopes, and creating an illusion of a quicker rebuild are what they've been doing to attempt to keep fans happy during some losing seasons. I know what they're doing, but once again it's their job.

I don't think we ever planned on trading for a Sale, Archer, or Gray. I believe it was due dilligence that created a buzz and filled fans with false hopes, so they played in to it more. Acquiring guys like Jaime, Dickey, Colon, Srod to be able to flip in Juloy when they're out of it was nothing more than a ploy to sell tickets and attempt to aquire more prospects. Colon sucked, Srod got injured and they misread Jaime's value. It happens, but it's not something I'm going to get upset over. They're business deals that did not work out. It happens. I didn't agree with the Dansby marketing campaign at all, but I can understand why they felt the need to do so. I would've done more with Freddie and less hype with Dansby. Maybe it's the hair. That's what they chose to do. I'm not going to state my opinion 15 times a day abot how I disagreed with it.
Click to expand...

I understand your sentiment and mostly agree. However, they could have done all the "lying to the masses political stuff" and still not rushed the rebuild. My issue is that some of what could be considered "political stuff" now wasn't "political stuff" until things turned bad. The "political stuff" argument becomes a catch-all for everything. "Well they signed Colon to a $12.5M deal simply as part of a misdirection campaign and was never intended as a move to help the team win" is its own form of political misdirection design to keep the pressure off the FO for making bad decisions.

Again, I'm calling it as I see it - trade Heyward for Miller - good move. Trade Miller for Inciarte, Blair and Swanson - good move. Bungle the service time and handling of Swanson - bad move. Rush Blair - also bad move. HO trade - bad move. Compound the bad results from he HO trade by making another bad trade to get Kemp, worse move. Not caring about service time considerations for young players when your team is obviously not going to be competitive - dumb move. On and on.

Overall, it's a below average effort on the rebuild that would be disastrous if not for Dave Stewart.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I understand your sentiment and mostly agree. However, they could have done all the "lying to the masses political stuff" and still not rushed the rebuild. My issue is that some of what could be considered "political stuff" now wasn't "political stuff" until things turned bad. The "political stuff" argument becomes a catch-all for everything. "Well they signed Colon to a $12.5M deal simply as part of a misdirection campaign and was never intended as a move to help the team win" is its own form of political misdirection design to keep the pressure off the FO for making bad decisions.

Again, I'm calling it as I see it - trade Heyward for Miller - good move. Trade Miller for Inciarte, Blair and Swanson - good move. Bungle the service time and handling of Swanson - bad move. Rush Blair - also bad move. HO trade - bad move. Compound the bad results from he HO trade by making another bad trade to get Kemp, worse move. Not caring about service time considerations for young players when your team is obviously not going to be competitive - dumb move. On and on.

Overall, it's a below average effort on the rebuild that would be disastrous if not for Dave Stewart.
Click to expand...

It was pretty obvious when they had 3 guys on 1 year deals that the offseason was a mirage to create excitement and they were hoping to flip them all in July. I think it was talked about pretty openly here, and most saw it as such, especially when they saw they could get prospects for guys like Lucas Harrell, Bud Norris, and Chacin. I don't know how you could think it was anything else to be honest. If they were "going for it" or "rushing the rebuild" they would've traded for starters or signed guys who would've cost them a draft pick. They did neither and spun it that they were making a concerted effort to upgrade pitching.

I can see why they brought up Swanson last year. They had a whole marketing campaign planned to market to the suburbs with a boy from the suburbs and couldn't do that without giving the fans a taste. Swanson did well and there you go. As I said I would not have done this.

Blair was a college pitcher who was pitching in AAA when we acquired him. I don't know how that is considered a rush. I don't think Blair or Wisler were ever meant to be anything but placeholders we can flip when better guys are ready. If you look at their scouting reports compated to all of our other pitchers you'll see that. Outside of Harrington we don't have pitchability guys. We have guys who might make it or might be a late inning reliever due to their stuff.

HO trade---Horrible move

Getting Kemp for roughly 8M a year for the HO trade. In hindsight I wouldn't have done it, but I can see the rationale. It was part marketing and part the need to have a RH power bat nehind Freddie. I don't think it has hurt us all that much either. It's not like we're going to groom a LF. That's where you throw the masher who cannot field. He's not keeping a guy from getting his time in the majors. Nobody grooms LF.

I do not have an agenda here. I just try and look at things objectively. There are things I can complain about like not trading Julio last year, holding on to Kroll this offseason when he actually had trade value etc.. I just say it once or twice instead of in every thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top