Is "2017" a huge lie?

Yeah, you probably could.

As for your first sentence, though, I noticed that you made a comment to that effect in the Simmons thread. I think we've been saying this consistently since the Wood/Olivera/Peraza deal . . . it doesn't matter if Peraza busts or if Wood's arm turns into jelly. That trade should only be evaluated for what their value was at the time of the deal. If they both end up stinking, it doesn't vindicate the fact of not getting a return commensurate with their value at the time of the deal.

Well that's tough to pinpoint from the outside looking in. We don't know what value was available for Wood/Peraza. It's pure speculation that we could have done better. We don't even have rumors of players that were offered to operate as a baseline. So in that sense, we really only have the luxury to judge the trade based on hindsight, i.e. we can only evaluate the trade based on 1) make that specific trade 2) don't make the trade.

Now, Olivera has blown up in our face, so that's fair to say we should have kept Peraza and Wood. But I can comfortable say that I don't think Wood or Peraza would be on the next good Braves team, so trading them always made sense.
 
Spinning? He was stated as being borderline by Law and McDaniel. What is factually wrong about that?

Ultimately it comes down to each persons opinion and how to view things. More publications (that I am aware of) have Peraza in the top 50 and several in the 25-35 range. There is a big difference between than and borderline 100. Both are factual but the Braves FO should have been selling him in the 25-35 range. If they weren't that is an error on their part.
 
Spinning? He was stated as being borderline by Law and McDaniel. What is factually wrong about that?

Because it isn't a representative sample of his ratings.

It was a hyberbolic statement based on that sample. I coud point to mlb.com's ranking and say ZOMG WE TRADED THE #24 PROSPECT IN ALL OF BASEBALL AS A THROW IN and be factually correct, though way out of reasonable context.
 
Ultimately it comes down to each persons opinion and how to view things. More publications (that I am aware of) have Peraza in the top 50 and several in the 25-35 range. There is a big difference between than and borderline 100. Both are factual but the Braves FO should have been selling him in the 25-35 range. If they weren't that is an error on their part.

I did say "in some eyes" borderline top 100. At the very least, that's far from "spinning" the truth.

This is semantics. Like you said, it comes down to how each person views things - even for fans. We could argue Peraza's value on July 31st, 2015 until we are blue in the face. In the end, we both end up at the same conclusion that it looks like a bad trade - by results or process.
 
Because it isn't a representative sample of his ratings.

It was a hyberbolic statement based on that sample. I coud point to mlb.com's ranking and say ZOMG WE TRADED THE #24 PROSPECT IN ALL OF BASEBALL AS A THROW IN and be factually correct, though way out of reasonable context.

I wasn't intending it to be a representative sample. Am I not allowed to have an opinion of a player's value or do I have to base that on the relative average of 15 different prospect lists?

Speaking of taking a small statement and taking it way out of context.
 
I did say "in some eyes" borderline top 100. At the very least, that's far from "spinning" the truth.

This is semantics. Like you said, it comes down to how each person views things - even for fans. We could argue Peraza's value on July 31st, 2015 until we are blue in the face. In the end, we both end up at the same conclusion that it looks like a bad trade - by results or process.

I agree. Similar to the Marte/Rentera deal that I always argued against. All things considered it was a good deal for the Braves. However I feel they gave up too much at the time of that trade. It should not have cost a top 5 prospect for a 30+ SS coming off of a bad year.

The Olivera trade is another situation. The Simmons trade is another one, imo. Maybe I am the one off base but I feel the Braves have not been properly valuing their own players in recent deals.
 
The Olivera trade is another situation. The Simmons trade is another one, imo. Maybe I am the one off base but I feel the Braves have not been properly valuing their own players in recent deals.

I think it's about what the Braves want in return that devalues their return.

The Braves "fell in love" with Olivera. The dodgers used that love to bend them over and spank their little arses.

The Braves wanted to move Simmons and the best offer they got for him, apparently, was from the Angels who dangled the Braves version of catnip which is pitching.

I didn't like the Olivera trade because it didn't fit with the stated plan. Olivera is 32 in 2017. So even IF he hits .280/25/.340 and plays decent defense, he's on a short shelf life. He's the kind of player that you target if you need "one more piece."

Could the Braves have moved Wood and Maybin to Houston for what Milwaukee got back in return? I think maybe. Wood>Fiers, Maybin
 
I just don't think it's possible to field a good team in 2017 for the fact that the free agent market is dreadful.Granted we could make some trades for some bats but but IMO if you are planning on being a player for 2017, you start by signing a couple free agents this year when the market is better,but honestly why would Heyward or Upton want to come back??

Most of our young pitchers are years away and all of our young position players defintely are with the exception of Mallex.Unless we waved tons of money in someone's face, which we won't, it's gonna be my childhood of the 80's all over again with Freddie taking the place of Murph....:/
 
Because it isn't a representative sample of his ratings.

This is a fair criticism. I cited the only expert opinions / rankings I knew of that were "published" at the time of the trade or after. I don't have a BA subscription, so not sure if there's a recent update on Peraza there. Anyone know? Just checked John Sickels' site and he hasn't updated the Dodgers yet.

Still, I think 50 FV median projection (average regular) is about right for Peraza based on what I've seen from him, what I've read about him, and his statistical progression.
 
Aren't Freeman and Teheran the only two regular guys left from 2014? But our dumb **** manager is still here.

No, well I guess it depends on what you mean by regular, if you mean starter, then yes, assuming Minor is cut and not brought back for a lower rate (which I think could happen), We still have a reliever or 2(I say that cause I don't feel like combing through on guys who may hav ebeen DFA'd and chose assignment) , and Terds and Bethancourt who were all very limited in 2014.
 
This is a fair criticism. I cited the only expert opinions / rankings I knew of that were "published" at the time of the trade or after. I don't have a BA subscription, so not sure if there's a recent update on Peraza there. Anyone know? Just checked John Sickels' site and he hasn't updated the Dodgers yet.

Still, I think 50 FV median projection (average regular) is about right for Peraza based on what I've seen from him, what I've read about him, and his statistical progression.

Yeah, fair enough.
 
I agree. Similar to the Marte/Rentera deal that I always argued against. All things considered it was a good deal for the Braves. However I feel they gave up too much at the time of that trade. It should not have cost a top 5 prospect for a 30+ SS coming off of a bad year.

The Olivera trade is another situation. The Simmons trade is another one, imo. Maybe I am the one off base but I feel the Braves have not been properly valuing their own players in recent deals.

A "Top 5 prospect" that a lot of other pundits (as well as scouts and GMs) rated much more correctly than those who had him in their Top 5.

If you want to make the statement that the Braves have been guilty of overvaluing their own, I don't think many will disagree. Typically 29 other organizations do the same thing - that's all part of the hype machine - some just do it better than others, and this organization was applauded for its ability to hype its own better than most.

If you're going to use that as an example, you have to at least allow others to say that the same case can be made for the players on the big club's roster as well. Freeman's a cornerstone franchise player who many folks here believe isn't even a Top 10 player at his position. Teheran's a cornerstone player with a 40-30 career record coming off his worst professional season. Simmons was being marketed as one as well. The best offensive season of his career resulted in an OPS+ of 90 with 17 HRs along with a .296 OBP.

I've NEVER criticized him for that. Like everyone else, I held out hope he'd eventually improve with the bat - that wouldn't turn him into just an All-Star, it would make him All-World. He's absolutely the best defensive SS I've seen in the 40 years I've watched or played the game. Unfortunately he was just here at the wrong time - a period of transition - and those charged with trying to build the foundation for the future felt it best to trade him for another piece of that future that's further away than any of us would like.

The undeniable fact is that baseball has changed and that it's just not enough to be an absolute wizard with the glove anymore. There was a stretch that started that change - the period where you had absolute offensive studs like A-Rod, Nomar, Ripken, and Larkin who weren't just marginal defenders at the position, they were really good with the glove as well. We had a stretch where that looked like it was going away recently, and suddenly here comes Correa, Lindor, and Seager.

The point is, Andrelton's never going to fit in their category no matter how much his bat hopefully improves.

"2017" has never been a "lie", it was a goal that wasn't explained clearly. There's no question that fault lies with "The Johns". It's always a mistake to put a public timeline on trying to completely transition a franchise. Their mistake isn't any less hurtful than the one Theo and Jed made in saying this year was never the goal and that they got to where they did "a year early". Cubs' fans (not to mention Borass) were screaming for their heads when they sent Bryant down this spring. Then they were unhappy when they didn't alter the plan yet again when they didn't start shipping out prospects for a couple months worth of a starter at the deadline. But guess what? They've now got Lester for 5 more years, should be able to extend Arrieta for at least that long, and will likely wind up with one of those guys the fans wanted back in August WITHOUT giving up anything. They'll now have those arms for the entire time they have Bryant, Schwarber, Russell, and Rizzo under control for below market values.

The point is someone - I don't remember which one - made the mistake of getting backed into a corner by a member of the media and stated that they could see being competitive by 2017 IF everything fell their way, and everyone ran with it. Lots of posters here can't stand the fact that they are now much more careful about sharing any information about what they're trying to accomplish, but that's exactly the reason why. Fans (myself included) easily choose to ignore that "if everything goes right" part. I would imagine part of that ideal scenario included both Freeman and Simmons growing into better offensive performers among quite a few other things completely beyond their control. The Braves' current situation is EXACTLY why Theo and Jed tried so hard to keep expectations in check in Chicago - they just couldn't be sure that all those bats would be ready in 2015. Truth be told, they still aren't all there yet - Russell still has a ways to go, and Soler has only shown short flashes of being the player they think he can be.

Again, that doesn't change the fact that someone said the wrong thing about the rebuild or "The Plan". It just illustrates the problems that can arise when you talk too much and try to keep fans a little too excited.
 
The 2017 thing was spawned from the weak sauce "reload" comments instead of rebuild.

What they should have done was come clean right away by saying 1. We are not going to "fire sale." A fire sale is the dumping of talent exclusively to save money. Any moves we make, we intend to re-invest the money into the betterment of the team today or for the near future. 2. We have some contracts that might make sense if we were at a different point or for a different team, but not for us today. So, we intend to find homes for those contracts elsewhere and hopefully bring talent back as well. 3. We expect that there will be some short term pain as we move through this but we will come out the other side stronger and in a better position to present a product that has long term and sustained success. 4. We have a plan and intend to stick to that plan. The plan has flexibility but only one goal.
 
clv I disagree that it is enough to be a wizard with the glove if you are truly that special. Again a 3-4 WAR player is a 3-4 WAR player regardless of how one goes about that. Some disagree with that but that is my opinion. No, if he never learns to hit then he won't be in that class of players you use listed as they are either HOFers or had HOF level stretches. But there is nothing wrong with being a good player. Which is saying a lot considering how bad of a hitter he has been.
 
A "Top 5 prospect" that a lot of other pundits (as well as scouts and GMs) rated much more correctly than those who had him in their Top 5.

I would loooooove to see the list of "a lot of other pundits" who didn't think Marte was a top 5-10 prospect.

BA: #9 (#11 the year before)

ESPN/Sickels: #1

BP: #1

Those were the top thee "prospect pundits" at the time, and they represented basically the full spectrum of "Scout-Hybrid-Stats" opinions.
 
We aren't even a month into the offseason and the Braves have been the most active team in baseball. This is SO early in the process that any kind of conclusion about the makeup of the 2016 team is bound to be way, way off.

As for 2017, I see a rotation that is going to include some hellacious young guns: Miller, Wisler (who I REALLY like), Newcomb, Fried, Sims and likely Folty in the bullpen.

Yes, Teheran is the likely trade target, but one who will command a strong return because he finished the season in such good shape.

Aybar is more than a warm body; Copo has already stated a hope of signing him to an extension. He is an ideal No. 2 hitter behind Markakis or Maybin (or Mallex). Pencil Freeman in at No. 3 and it clearly shows that they have staked much of the immediate future on Olivera.

Would be happy if they re-sign KJ (even Uribe) for third, but all of a sudden, the Reds have put Todd Frazier on the table. What if the Braves put together a package including Teheran and Maybin and, say, a Soroka. Maybe Frazier is a rental, but maybe he re-ups.

2017 can be a realistic target. Looking forward to future developoments.

FYI: Simmons' offensive dropoff was vastly underplayed last year in light of his defense. Seems like I heard and read in more than one place that he was tough to coach and unwilling to accept instruction at the plate. I also haven't forgotten how the Nationals (and others, to be honest) made it clear than they felt he was a dirty player. I have a decent gut feeling that the Braves got the best Simmons had to offer.
 
Back
Top