Dansby Swanson Already Proving He Belongs

[Horsehide Harry]

Criticism is one thing. Calling something "dumb" as if you have more insight into Dansby than they do is more dumb than anything they've done. They understand the service clock. They understand money. Maybe, just maybe, they don't analyze as crudely as you do. Just a wild guess tho.

It's not that they don't know. It's that they did it anyway that's dumb.

 

[smootness]

I said how was it going to help by bringing him up and having him be a .600 OPS hitter because he was brought up too early.

It wouldn't help if we brought him up and he was a .600 OPS hitter at any point in time. The only way to find out is to bring him up, but I'm guessing we had a pretty good idea he wasn't going to be a .600 OPS hitter once brought up. I'm not sure, though, why that was necessary to even say. Sure, that wouldn't help. Great.

But, I will say it one more time. It was a dumb move in the long run regardless of whether it works out for the player because it is not the best long term thing for the team.

If something works out for a potential future franchise player, that's not in the best long term interests of the team?

 

[Horsehide Harry]

It wouldn't help if we brought him up and he was a .600 OPS hitter at any point in time. The only way to find out is to bring him up, but I'm guessing we had a pretty good idea he wasn't going to be a .600 OPS hitter once brought up. I'm not sure, though, why that was necessary to even say. Sure, that wouldn't help. Great.

If something works out for a potential future franchise player, that's not in the best long term interests of the team?

That is only relevant if playing Swanson in 2016 somehow makes him the player he will become whereas playing him to start 2017 (or even later) would not. Essentially the argument would have to be that because he was called up during a lost season, started his clock, went on the 40 man and got to chum it up with the AJP's of the 2016 Braves he went on to be a future franchise player BUT that if that had not happened and he was brought up to start 2017 or later he would not develop into a franchise player. That's the only way that logic works.

I think it just as likely or even more so that letting him play out 2016 in the minors would likely have led to a better long term career. It would just be postponed for about 6 months.

 

[Enscheff]

It's not that they don't know. It's that they did it anyway that's dumb.

Just another moronic straw man argument from yeezus. The Braves FO does stupid things all the time, so it's pretty naive to use "they know what they're doing" as an argument.

For some reason they obviously value a couple months of age 22/23 Dansby during 2 non-competitive seasons over a full year of age 29 Dansby during a season where the Braves might be competitive. That is objectively wrong player valuation, and no amount of speculation about what might or might not happen (with regards to the next CBA, potential contract extensions, or anything else that requires predicting the future) can change the fact that it is incorrect player valuation.

If the Braves were competitive this year (or next), or if the CBA rules were different, or if they had Swanson signed to an early career extension, this would no longer be the incorrect decision. Since none of those points are true, it is still objectively wrong, no matter what someone's opinion is, or how they "feel" about it, or what their job title is.

 

[chop2chip]

That is only relevant if playing Swanson in 2016 somehow makes him the player he will become whereas playing him to start 2017 (or even later) would not. Essentially the argument would have to be that because he was called up during a lost season, started his clock, went on the 40 man and got to chum it up with the AJP's of the 2016 Braves he went on to be a future franchise player BUT that if that had not happened and he was brought up to start 2017 or later he would not develop into a franchise player. That's the only way that logic works.

I think it just as likely or even more so that letting him play out 2016 in the minors would likely have led to a better long term career. It would just be postponed for about 6 months.

There's a lot more that factors into baseball decisions than just baseball.

To me, Dansby was always going to be in the opening day lineup next year. Since that's the case, it makes a lot more sense to call him up now rather than waiting until next year.

If you have any doubts that we don't care about service time, then take a look at the Albies situation. He was arguably more ready than Swanson, but the team went out of its way to keep him off the 40 man roster. I wouldn't expect to see him until May or June of sometime next year.

Dansby's situation is peculiar, even as it relates to other top prospects across baseball.

 

[smootness]

If the Braves were competitive this year (or next), or if the CBA rules were different, or if they had Swanson signed to an early career extension, this would no longer be the incorrect decision.

Well, since two of those things could easily still happen (and the Braves' FO likely knows a lot more about how likely those two things are), I think it's safe to say we should just let it play out before proclaiming it dumb.

It's not as though the Braves don't know about how service time works or don't care about it in any way. They've just clearly decided that for other reasons, it was the best move to bring him up. That doesn't mean it definitely will turn out to be the right move, it just means they think it is.

We act like the decision comes down to nothing more than that last year of control vs. a couple months of being up now, but that's not the case. The Braves likely decided that it was in the best long-term interests of the franchise and team to have him be up on opening day. They also likely decided he was ready to be up now and it would probably help him to get his feet wet now. They certainly considered that it removes a year of control, I assure you. But they may also have a good idea the CBA will change and be fully prepared to extend him once it's clear he's good enough to do so, so they decided that keeping him down long enough to get the extra year wasn't worth not having him up right away to start next year.

 

[clvclv]

The one where they started his service clock so he could spend the last part of his age 22 season on a 100 loss team. Now Swanson will be playing elsewhere for his age 29 season, or making roughly 2x the money he would have been making were he under arb control for that year.

The Braves don't know what the new CBA will bring, but it was stupid to take the chance of giving up control of his age 29 season if the rules don't change.

Then to read you guys make asinine arguments about "boosted attendance" and "getting his feet wet"? All the while puffing your chests out every time he gets a hit as if it's a big "F you" to everyone who thinks it was dumb to call him up and waste his service time?

So yeah, if you confuse the argument, "it was dumb to start his service clock" with, "Swanson sucks", and feel the need to comment about it every single time he makes a play or gets a hit, you're an idiot. If you need me to, I can go back into every single game thread and copy/paste several such moronic posts by several different idiots to show you exactly what I mean.

Might want to be a little careful about offering to do that - there are plenty of people here with time on their hands every so often. Of course no one's ever thought you've EVER made a "moronic post", so you're safe - what could there be to worry about???

 

[clvclv]

Well, since two of those things could easily still happen (and the Braves' FO likely knows a lot more about how likely those two things are), I think it's safe to say we should just let it play out before proclaiming it dumb.

It's not as though the Braves don't know about how service time works or don't care about it in any way. They've just clearly decided that for other reasons, it was the best move to bring him up. That doesn't mean it definitely will turn out to be the right move, it just means they think it is.

We act like the decision comes down to nothing more than that last year of control vs. a couple months of being up now, but that's not the case. The Braves likely decided that it was in the best long-term interests of the franchise and team to have him be up on opening day. They also likely decided he was ready to be up now and it would probably help him to get his feet wet now. They certainly considered that it removes a year of control, I assure you. But they may also have a good idea the CBA will change and be fully prepared to extend him once it's clear he's good enough to do so, so they decided that keeping him down long enough to get the extra year wasn't worth not having him up right away to start next year.

Don't call me Iassurely.

 

[thewupk]

The one where they started his service clock so he could spend the last part of his age 22 season on a 100 loss team. Now Swanson will be playing elsewhere for his age 29 season, or making roughly 2x the money he would have been making were he under arb control for that year.

The Braves don't know what the new CBA will bring, but it was stupid to take the chance of giving up control of his age 29 season if the rules don't change.

Then to read you guys make asinine arguments about "boosted attendance" and "getting his feet wet"? All the while puffing your chests out every time he gets a hit as if it's a big "F you" to everyone who thinks it was dumb to call him up and waste his service time?

So yeah, if you confuse the argument, "it was dumb to start his service clock" with, "Swanson sucks", and feel the need to comment about it every single time he makes a play or gets a hit, you're an idiot. If you need me to, I can go back into every single game thread and copy/paste several such moronic posts by several different idiots to show you exactly what I mean.

Similar to how you make a post in the GDT whenever Kemp misplays a ball?

 

[thewupk]

Well, I wouldn't have done the Olivera trade for one thing. I wouldn't have called Kemp fat (or out of shape) in the press. I wouldn't have fired Fredi, since he was a sunk cost in a sunk season (I would have fired him after the season and started new).

The FO is human. They make mistakes. EVERYONE criticizes the FO of their team except when it's convenient to their argument not to.

The FO probably has no choice but to put on the "try to compete" dog and pony show next year. The local government and advertisers going into the new stadium are likely demanding that to be the case. It's the unforced errors like bringing Swanson up when they didn't have to that bother me the most.

You would have traded Freeman though

 

[Horsehide Harry]

You would have traded Freeman though

And still would given the right value. Yes Freeman has had a fantastic season but that is no guarantee of a fantastic season in 2018,19 or 20. It's not even a guarantee of a repeat season in 2017.

If I thought the Braves were on the cusp of contention, I would not be willing to trade Freeman. But, I believe they are likely 2-3 years away.

 

[Enscheff]

Well, since two of those things could easily still happen (and the Braves' FO likely knows a lot more about how likely those two things are), I think it's safe to say we should just let it play out before proclaiming it dumb.

It's not as though the Braves don't know about how service time works or don't care about it in any way. They've just clearly decided that for other reasons, it was the best move to bring him up. That doesn't mean it definitely will turn out to be the right move, it just means they think it is.

We act like the decision comes down to nothing more than that last year of control vs. a couple months of being up now, but that's not the case. The Braves likely decided that it was in the best long-term interests of the franchise and team to have him be up on opening day. They also likely decided he was ready to be up now and it would probably help him to get his feet wet now. They certainly considered that it removes a year of control, I assure you. But they may also have a good idea the CBA will change and be fully prepared to extend him once it's clear he's good enough to do so, so they decided that keeping him down long enough to get the extra year wasn't worth not having him up right away to start next year.

So the justification for starting Swanson's clock early is, "it might not matter"?

Best case scenario: The CBA is changed and it doesn't matter.

Worst case scenario: The CBA remains unchanged and the Braves lose Swanson's age 29 season. A season where he is at his peak and the Braves should be a playoff contender.

You don't have to be a risk analysis expert to realize the best and worst case scenarios don't balance out. So unless the Braves have a crystal ball and can predict the future, they are taking much more risk than is justified by the potential benefit.

The justification really comes down to the Braves' policy not to manipulate service clocks. Managing the value of a cornerstone player sub-optimally is hardly justified by saying, "that's just how we do it". Policy or not, it is sub-optimal, and the FO's job is to optimize the value of their assets, and that includes players. The Cubs have shown how to handle a prospect like Bryant optimally, and the Astros have shown how to manage a prospect like Bregman during a playoff run. The Braves have shown how to mismanage a prospect's value.

 

[thewupk]

And still would given the right value. Yes Freeman has had a fantastic season but that is no guarantee of a fantastic season in 2018,19 or 20. It's not even a guarantee of a repeat season in 2017.

If I thought the Braves were on the cusp of contention, I would not be willing to trade Freeman. But, I believe they are likely 2-3 years away.

Nothing is a guarantee. But there are probabilities. Looking at Freeman's age and history of production it is very probable he continues to be a top tier offensive 1B for several more years. More so than any trade package working out for the Braves.

 

[Enscheff]

Similar to how you make a post in the GDT whenever Kemp misplays a ball?

Again, a failure to understand the Swanson argument. It's like you just can't (or won't) comprehend it.

I said Kemp's defense is, and will continue to be, awful. It is logical to point out when he is awful defensively because it is a direct counter-point to the folks saying he won't be terrible.

Folks say the Braves mismanaged Swanson's service clock. So it makes little sense to gloat when he does well since that is not a counter-point to mismanaging his service clock.

Are you still confused about this? Can you begin to wrap your head around the difference? Did you study basic debating in college (or community college) where they went over how to build valid counter-points?

 

[zbhargrove]

And still would given the right value. Yes Freeman has had a fantastic season but that is no guarantee of a fantastic season in 2018,19 or 20. It's not even a guarantee of a repeat season in 2017.

If I thought the Braves were on the cusp of contention, I would not be willing to trade Freeman. But, I believe they are likely 2-3 years away.

Where's the guarantee the prospects we get from Freeman will come anywhere close to matching his production in those years? I don't understand how in the world you think we couldn't be closer than 2-3 years from contending. I don't even know if you've been paying attention to player growth this year.

 

[zbhargrove]

So the justification for starting Swanson's clock early is, "it might not matter"?

Best case scenario: The CBA is changed and it doesn't matter.

Worst case scenario: The CBA remains unchanged and the Braves lose Swanson's age 29 season. A season where he is at his peak and the Braves should be a playoff contender.

You don't have to be a risk analysis expert to realize the best and worst case scenarios don't balance out. So unless the Braves have a crystal ball and can predict the future, they are taking much more risk than is justified by the potential benefit.

The justification really comes down to the Braves' policy not to manipulate service clocks. Managing the value of a cornerstone player sub-optimally is hardly justified by saying, "that's just how we do it". Policy or not, it is sub-optimal, and the FO's job is to optimize the value of their assets, and that includes players. The Cubs have shown how to handle a prospect like Bryant optimally, and the Astros have shown how to manage a prospect like Bregman during a playoff run. The Braves have shown how to mismanage a prospect's value.

So you really think if it's Swanson's age 29 season and we are and have been legit playoff contenders and Swanson is a big part of that... That the FO won't do everything in their power to sign him? And you think that Swanson, who knows he's on a playoff contender and is playing for his home town team won't even listen to the offers?

 

[zbhargrove]

Again, a failure to understand the Swanson argument. It's like you just can't (or won't) comprehend it.

I said Kemp's defense is, and will continue to be, awful. It is logical to point out when he is awful defensively because it is a direct counter-point to the folks saying he won't be terrible.

Folks say the Braves mismanaged Swanson's service clock. So it makes little sense to gloat when he does well since that is not a counter-point to mismanaging his service clock.

Are you still confused about this? Can you begin to wrap your head around the difference? Did you study basic debating in college (or community college) where they went over how to build valid counter-points?

Except this argument was originally with Horsehide, not you... Who did in fact argue to his likely bad performance by saying he wasn't ready and is likely a .600 OPS player.

 

[thewupk]

Again, a failure to understand the Swanson argument. It's like you just can't (or won't) comprehend it.

I said Kemp's defense is, and will continue to be, awful. It is logical to point out when he is awful defensively because it is a direct counter-point to the folks saying he won't be terrible.

Folks say the Braves mismanaged Swanson's service clock. So it makes little sense to gloat when he does well since that is not a counter-point to mismanaging his service clock.

Are you still confused about this? Can you begin to wrap your head around the difference? Did you study basic debating in college (or community college) where they went over how to build valid counter-points?

I think you are confusing the argument. There are those that have stated he is not ready and gloated with his 600 OPS

 

[jpx7]

I think you are confusing the argument. There are those that have stated he is not ready and gloated with his 600 OPS

I honestly haven't seen any of that.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

I still don't understand this debate? the team wants to compete next year. Coppi has said this and I think he really thinks he will. So he needs to see if the highly touted shortstop is ready NOW.. Or I guess he could keep kicking the can down the road and trying to time everything just perfect. But he doesn't want to do that anymore... he has said the time is now, so What happens, happens.

I am certain Coppy and the scouts have proven to be much smarter about baseball than this entire group posting in this thread. Any fan doing risk assessments based on limited knowledge is horrible at risk assessments..