Interesting List

thethe said:
But they are here. Those signings did happen. That trade did happen.

We don't know what the rebuild looks like without those guys because we don't exist in that universe. The long term plan would have been different without those guys.

Again, the whole point of this argument is to say that the current Braves FO would be awful without the benevolence of Wren which is just not true at all.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear I'm not ascribing the presence of Albies and Acuna to the benevolence of Wren. My point has to do with the accumulation of assets since the rebuild began. Considering what we traded away, the reallocation of funds to acquire prospects, three years of high draft positions and the gifts from Dave Stewart, I find it disappointing that we are not in a stronger position.
 
nsacpi said:
Just to be clear I'm not ascribing the presence of Albies and Acuna to the benevolence of Wren. My point has to do with the accumulation of assets since the rebuild began. Considering what we traded away, the reallocation of funds to acquire prospects, three years of high draft positions and the gifts from Dave Stewart, I find it disappointing that we are not in a stronger position.
Click to expand...

Fried and Gohara are going to change your view on this IMO.

This is not even talking about all the great drafting that was done the last three years. Its all coming together and it starts now.
 
nsacpi said:
Just to be clear I'm not ascribing the presence of Albies and Acuna to the benevolence of Wren. My point has to do with the accumulation of assets since the rebuild began. Considering what we traded away, the reallocation of funds to acquire prospects, three years of high draft positions and the gifts from Dave Stewart, I find it disappointing that we are not in a stronger position.
Click to expand...

I think this primarily boils down to a disagreement on how valuable the pieces we traded away were. A rebuild will never be built primarily on the back of players you trade away, unless you have a crazy allotment of value like the 97 Marlins or the White Sox. We didn't have that level of assets.

Because most of the things you listed have turned out well, at least as well as you would expect. Our high draft positions have resulted in very good results so far. You can argue over specific guys, like Lewis over Anderson, but overall the draft results have been very good. The gifts from Dave Stewart are great. And the reallocation of funds has worked fairly well, in the cases of guys like Touki and the international signings.

So those things have all turned out very well. The question is then what we had to trade away and what we've gotten in return. Most (around baseball, not just Braves fans) thought our trades overall were very good when we made them. Some have turned out worse than hoped. But ultimately, I just think some overstate exactly what we had to trade away. Simmons was very good, yes. Kimbrel was good. One year of Heyward and Upton was ok. Everything else was pretty meh.

I'm just not sure how you can look at the overall picture and say that the #1 system in baseball, with depth for days, is a disappointing place to be in light of that. I don't see our assets and positions being such that you would expect us to produce some kind of uber-historic, phenomenally great system.
 
Obviously, the return on our assets has been abysmal.

The drafting looks promising, but then again, it should when you draft top 5
 
thethe said:
Fried and Gohara are going to change your view on this IMO.

This is not even talking about all the great drafting that was done the last three years. Its all coming together and it starts now.
Click to expand...

Does it really start now this time? Are we going to see you write the same thing 12 months from now after another terrible season?

How many years in a row are you going to say the exact same thing?

The Braves have yet to produce a single pitcher that appears ready to contribute next year. How exactly is next year going to be any different?
 
thethe said:
The returns cumulatively have been very good.
Click to expand...

Without Acuna, Albies, Swanson and Inciarte, our chances of making the playoffs anytime in the next five years would be quite low. We'd be looking at an 8 year period without winning baseball.
 
sturg33 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Disagree away - everyone absolutely has that right. The problem around here is so many people talk about how this move or that move was "dumb" because they should have traded for so-and-so when they have no idea whether that player was actually available. No one who loves to make trade proposals as much as me would ever complain when someone else says I think they should trade Heyward for this guy or that guy, but most of you continue to talk in absolutes when you have no clue who's "available" any more than anyone else here.
 
nsacpi said:
Without Acuna, Albies, Swanson and Inciarte, our chances of making the playoffs anytime in the next five years would be quite low. We'd be looking at an 8 year period without winning baseball.
Click to expand...

Those things happened.
 
nsacpi said:
Without Acuna, Albies, Swanson and Inciarte, our chances of making the playoffs anytime in the next five years would be quite low. We'd be looking at an 8 year period without winning baseball.
Click to expand...

Not to single any particular person out, but this is essentially an argument that appears a number of times in this thread, and elsewhere. If you are going to look at data, you have to look at ALL of the data. The instant you start choosing to ignore certain data points (particularly, based on an existing agenda) you are going down a very bad road, both statistically and in an ability to make predictions and meaningfully analyze data. Sometimes people will choose to throw out an "outlier", well, often systems are driven by rare, but highly significant, events. Once you've decided to do meaningful analysis, you are stuck with all of the data.
 
conalthomas said:
Not to single any particular person out, but this is essentially an argument that appears a number of times in this thread, and elsewhere. If you are going to look at data, you have to look at ALL of the data. The instant you start choosing to ignore certain data points (particularly, based on an existing agenda) you are going down a very bad road, both statistically and in an ability to make predictions and meaningfully analyze data. Sometimes people will choose to throw out an "outlier", well, often systems are driven by rare, but highly significant, events. Once you've decided to do meaningful analysis, you are stuck with all of the data.
Click to expand...

I agree. When discussing the rebuild we should look at all that went into it (trades, drafting, allocation of resources, international signings) and all that has come out of it. I think I have done that. But I think when you sit under a tree (let's call it the Dave Stewart tree) and an apple or two falls into your lap, the nature of that event needs some acknowledgment. Let's say something horrible happens and a prize prospect dies in a car accident, you need to say that this just plain bad luck. I understand it can be a slippery slope where everything could become a special case. But I think I have exercised appropriate discretion along that slippery slope.
 
nsacpi said:
I agree. When discussing the rebuild we should look at all that went into it (trades, drafting, allocation of resources, international signings) and all that has come out of it. I think I have done that. But I think when you sit under a tree (let's call it the Dave Stewart tree) and an apple or two falls into your lap, the nature of that event needs some acknowledgment. Let's say something horrible happens and a prize prospect dies in a car accident, you need to say that this just plain bad luck. I understand it can be a slippery slope where everything could become a special case. But I think I have exercised appropriate discretion along that slippery slope.
Click to expand...

Do you also throw out the particularly stupid trades (from the Braves point of view)?
 
conalthomas said:
Do you also throw out the particularly stupid trades (from the Braves point of view)?
Click to expand...

No. Let me try to explain the distinction. Stupidity is a quality that persists. So it should not be thrown out. Good or bad luck (having Dave Stewart as a counterparty or having a top prospect die tragically) does not persist in the same direction. So particular episodes of especially good or bad luck should be treated as one-offs. Again there is some element of luck in everything. So it is a slippery slope. But I think I have exercised appropriate discretion in navigating that slippery slope. ymmv
 
nsacpi said:
No. Let me try to explain the distinction. Stupidity is a quality that persists. So it should not be thrown out. Good or bad luck (having Dave Stewart as a counterparty or having a top prospect die tragically) does not persist in the same direction. So particular episodes of especially good or bad luck should be treated as one-offs. Again there is some element of luck in everything. So it is a slippery slope. But I think I have exercised appropriate discretion in navigating that slippery slope. ymmv
Click to expand...

Everything you are saying is very reasonable, but it is definitely a slippery slope. So slippery, in fact, that there are rules in place to insure appropriate rigor in analysis. The longer your explanations are for why you are not following those rules, the more likely you are sliding downward. (Here I am paraphrasing one of my professors from long ago.)

None of this is to indicate that I think the Braves re-build is going swimmingly, or that mistakes were not made, but I'm just saying that it gets tricky when you count some things, and not others. For instance, most people would probably say the re-build was going better if we still had Wood.
 
nsacpi said:
No. Let me try to explain the distinction. Stupidity is a quality that persists. So it should not be thrown out. Good or bad luck (having Dave Stewart as a counterparty or having a top prospect die tragically) does not persist in the same direction. So particular episodes of especially good or bad luck should be treated as one-offs. Again there is some element of luck in everything. So it is a slippery slope. But I think I have exercised appropriate discretion in navigating that slippery slope. ymmv
Click to expand...

LOL all this guy does is argue semantics. He doesn't actually contribute any thoughts. He is literally the kid in class pointing out mistakes on the whiteboard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top