SJ24
New member
Hoary comments are often the best. They've been through the tumult of time.
Flags Fly Forever.....
- Thread starter NYCBrave
- Start date
Hoary comments are often the best. They've been through the tumult of time.
note: none of that is my own personal quote. makes you think, huh? ah, who am i kidding.
though i shouldn't be surprised a guy who goes back on his word after losing a bet admires that type of person. makes quite a bit of sense.
thankfully, everyone recognizes the level of moron you are. that's pretty special.
also you were still (objectively) wrong.
SJ24
New member
Who said I admire Trump?
Others have explained why my comment was objective.
Tell us, expert on all things winning, what level of athletics have you won anything?
Last edited:
Please refrain from further derailing OP's thread.
Thanks [MENTION=59]Enscheff[/MENTION], [MENTION=1924]Super[/MENTION] , [MENTION=1861]SJ24[/MENTION]
Thanks [MENTION=59]Enscheff[/MENTION], [MENTION=1924]Super[/MENTION] , [MENTION=1861]SJ24[/MENTION]
Umm, the guy who isn't even supposed to be here anymore, that you invited back to contribute comments like these, is the one who derailed this thread.
BeanieAntics
Arbitration Eligible
One of the worst arguments I hear from folks who advocate going all in at the expense of long term success is the notion that "we aren't guaranteed to be good in the future"... Well, obviously. But that doesn't mean that you can't make educated projections about where the team is likely to end up in the next 2-5 years. Anyone with half a brain can look at this team and see that it is set up for long term success if managed correctly. Is it guaranteed? No. Especially if you gut the farm system like SJ is advocating. And for those who are desperate for a championship, you actually have BETTER odds of a championship by playing the long game, instead of selling out for one season. Here's why:
Before that, we have to accept a common premise: No matter how good a team is or how much they go all in, a team is never going to have better than a 25-26% chance of winning the world series at the end of the trade deadline. Since 2014, there have been three teams with a greater than 20% chance of winning the WS on August 1st: The 2015 Dodgers (20.2%), The 2018 Astros (22.8%), and the 2019 Astros (25.6%). Funnily enough, neither of those first two teams ended up winning the world series. We'll see how this year's Astros team does.
So, if we've accepted that, let's get into the hypotheticals. Let's use the 2016 Cubs as an example. On July 24th, one day before the Chapman trade, they had a 17.1% chance of making the world series. By July 26th, that had bumped up to 19.2%. So they essentially bought 2.1%.
Now let's fast forward a year to the Quintana trade. On July 13th, they had an 8.2% chance of winning the world series. On July 15th, they had bumped that up to 9.7%, buying essentially another 1.5% chance.
Its impossible to know just how much that collective 3.6% chance cost them, but we can certainly speculate. Even if we are being conservative, I think its safe to say that Eloy, Gleyber, and Cease would collectively add at least 1% in 2018, all from Gleyber. They would add another 1.5% this year. Then from 2020-2024 at least another 2% this year, with the upside for more depending on how Eloy and Cease develop.
If you had the choice between these three options, which one would you pick?
1. Go all in and guarantee yourself these odds:
Year 1 - 25%
Year 2 - 15%
Year 3 - 5%
Year 4 - 1%
Year 5 - 1%
Don't go all in and keep your best prospects, while maybe trading from your depth for small, but significant upgrades:
Year 1 - 12%
Year 2 - 10%
Year 3 - 10%
Year 4 - 10%
Year 5 - 10%
To me, its pretty obvious which one is the preferred option here. Note that these numbers are purely hypothetical and way cleaner than real life tends to be, but the point still remains. Guaranteeing more years at a lower percentage gives you a better chance at eventually winning a world series than selling out for a 1-2 year window at a higher percentage.
Before that, we have to accept a common premise: No matter how good a team is or how much they go all in, a team is never going to have better than a 25-26% chance of winning the world series at the end of the trade deadline. Since 2014, there have been three teams with a greater than 20% chance of winning the WS on August 1st: The 2015 Dodgers (20.2%), The 2018 Astros (22.8%), and the 2019 Astros (25.6%). Funnily enough, neither of those first two teams ended up winning the world series. We'll see how this year's Astros team does.
So, if we've accepted that, let's get into the hypotheticals. Let's use the 2016 Cubs as an example. On July 24th, one day before the Chapman trade, they had a 17.1% chance of making the world series. By July 26th, that had bumped up to 19.2%. So they essentially bought 2.1%.
Now let's fast forward a year to the Quintana trade. On July 13th, they had an 8.2% chance of winning the world series. On July 15th, they had bumped that up to 9.7%, buying essentially another 1.5% chance.
Its impossible to know just how much that collective 3.6% chance cost them, but we can certainly speculate. Even if we are being conservative, I think its safe to say that Eloy, Gleyber, and Cease would collectively add at least 1% in 2018, all from Gleyber. They would add another 1.5% this year. Then from 2020-2024 at least another 2% this year, with the upside for more depending on how Eloy and Cease develop.
If you had the choice between these three options, which one would you pick?
1. Go all in and guarantee yourself these odds:
Year 1 - 25%
Year 2 - 15%
Year 3 - 5%
Year 4 - 1%
Year 5 - 1%
Don't go all in and keep your best prospects, while maybe trading from your depth for small, but significant upgrades:
Year 1 - 12%
Year 2 - 10%
Year 3 - 10%
Year 4 - 10%
Year 5 - 10%
To me, its pretty obvious which one is the preferred option here. Note that these numbers are purely hypothetical and way cleaner than real life tends to be, but the point still remains. Guaranteeing more years at a lower percentage gives you a better chance at eventually winning a world series than selling out for a 1-2 year window at a higher percentage.
Last edited:
In fairness, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and link to posts, but when I invited him back he wasn't trolling like he is now.
He seemed pretty happy just to be posting in the community again and was playful and engaged in actual discussion, and then you kept egging him on about not living up to a bet, calling him a coward, etc.
And since that time it has now escalated to where we're constantly questioning everyone's manhood and testosterone levels.
So if I've judged this situation wrong, I am happy to be corrected with the evidence and will make proper actions to rectify the situation.
Want me to take a few minutes to post links of him butting heads with just about everyone just out of spite?
Sure. Send them to me in PM.
And I'll see if it matches with the timeline that I've mentioned of when he first came back into the fold versus the last week of him being picked on.
Poor little Taylor getting picked on. Awww.
From the looks of things it isn’t going to change.
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
I'll take my chances being good year in and year out over selling everything for a "chance" at a WS for 1-2 years.
Baseball is too unpredictable, sometimes your pitching has a bad series, sometimes you cant hit. Too much varience to push everything in the middle of the table for 1 or 2 runs.
Braves are still set up pretty well in the long-term if AA keeps doing what he's been doing.
Most intelligent fans agree with you.
It takes a special combination of testosterone and stupidity to sell out for 1-2 years.
VirginiaBrave
Well-known member
One need not look further than the '83 Braves for an overpay that set the franchise back years. Brett Butler, Brook Jacoby and Rick Behenna for Len Barker. It was an all-in move for a team and what possessed Mullen and Turner to do it I haven't a clue. Grade A example of a desperation move that backfired. Turner was fined for rules violations the whole thing was a mess.
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
I'm not against making a big trade but there would certainly have to be a big level of control coming back with the player. Making a big trade for a guy with little control makes no sense.
Acuña’s Bat Flip
NL Rookie of the Year
We will have a tough time against the Astros in the World Series this year but this is just the beginning for us.
The series of Tex trades marked the beginning of the end for the JS dynasty.
The Cubs did the same thing to get their WS.
The Marlins are the worst example in history.
We’ve seen many examples.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I disagree. I'm more willing to take a risk on a premium player with 1-2 years of control left. The cost in terms of prospects in a trade is lower. And the financial risk is a lot less.
1-2 years of control with no QO attached and/or can be acquired for cash rather than prospects seems to be AA's type. Limits overall downside while preserving long term value. Large short term splurges on JD and DK and Melancon are good examples of this strategy in action.
Good to keep in mind when planning roster moves the Braves may make.
It seems as if AA wasn't BS'ing about trying to bring in both Kimbrel and Dallas.
He probably was trying to set up a 2 year deal with lower AAV for Craig, almost the same money he budgeted towards Melancon for next year.