"But He's Not Ready"

Enscheff said:
I've never seen folks misunderstand an argument at the level clv manages to do it over and over. I scanned some of that thread and I saw very little talk about him not being ready. Most of the anti-promotion talk was based squarely around service time.

It's not surprising that a guy who's career only required him to retain enough information that can be taught in a 6 week course would have trouble differentiating "they are wasting his service time" with "Swanson sucks".
Click to expand...

Dude, please.
 
I'll say again that I wish the FO understood service time rules so they would've waited to call him up. Amazing that so many of us here "get it" when the FO doesn't.
 
yeezus said:
I'll say again that I wish the FO understood service time rules so they would've waited to call him up. Amazing that so many of us here "get it" when the FO doesn't.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that there is a range of practices among front offices. The Braves are at one end of the continuum in terms of practices. It isn't as if this is just a debate between casually informed fans and the real baseball men who inhabit front offices.
 
nsacpi said:
It seems to me that there is a range of practices among front offices. The Braves are at one end of the continuum in terms of practices. It isn't as if this is just a debate between casually informed fans and the real baseball men who inhabit front offices.
Click to expand...

So we can say the Rockies are morons for calling up Dahl, Pirates are for calling up Bell, Yankees are for calling up Sanchez and Judge, and Rays are for calling up Snell. It's almost as if teams don't make these decisions based solely on what it means six years from now.
 
I think it refreshing the Braves made the decision based on today - on the field baseball rather than business
 
nsacpi said:
It seems to me that there is a range of practices among front offices. The Braves are at one end of the continuum in terms of practices. It isn't as if this is just a debate between casually informed fans and the real baseball men who inhabit front offices.
Click to expand...

It's very funny that folks use the defense, "they are professional FO members, and therefore know everything and can't make a mistake", a few months after witnessing the Olivera debacle.

It's a symptom of someone not being able to assimilate information and draw their own logical conclusions. In the absence of the ability to think for themselves, they simply defer to authority.
 
Enscheff said:
I've never seen folks misunderstand an argument at the level clv manages to do it over and over. I scanned some of that thread and I saw very little talk about him not being ready. Most of the anti-promotion talk was based squarely around service time.

It's not surprising that a guy who's career only required him to retain enough information that can be taught in a 6 week course would have trouble differentiating "they are wasting his service time" with "Swanson sucks".
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. You just told me I was an idiot for not understanding and submitting to your clear, obvious and simple argument two days ago.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
Wait a minute. You just told me I was an idiot for not understanding and submitting to your clear, obvious and simple argument two days ago.
Click to expand...

Someone isn't an idiot because they disagree with me. Someone is an idiot when they use non-facts to back up their position, or when they don't even understand the argument that is swirling on around them.

Did you miss the point of the argument? I'm guessing you did, which means you are, in fact, an idiot. Did you use non-facts to back up your claim? If so, again, idiot.

Clv still thinks most folks contend "Swanson sucks", and went so far as to start an entirely new thread arguing against it. The very existence of this thread is proof clv doesn't understand the argument going on with respect to Swanson being called up. Therefore, he is an idiot.
 
equating a trade that didn't work to someone getting a call up is pretty moronic. One involves actions that are out of the control of the FO, where the other are directly related to the actions of the FO. Service time and contract negotiations are not in the same universe as players performance and beating the **** out of woman...
 
mfree80 said:
Oh good grief. Does chasing away anyone who disagrees with you make the board better? I want everyone to stay... I personally believe telling someone else to leave the board is the epitome of childish behavior.
Click to expand...

Trolling someone to leave? This is a ****ing troll thread, dip****.

Oh, and for the record, I never disagreed with anything.
 
It seems some people don't understand bringing up the FO in regards to the Swanson call up. Obviously every single FO makes mistakes, and to my knowledge no one has come close to saying otherwise.

The biggest whining about Swanson has come from the fact that calling him up messes with future control years. And sure, it indisputably does. No one has denied that fact and everyone seems to understand that...including the FO. I'm quite sure they comprehend how service time works and how calling Swanson up when they did vs. waiting affects future money. So knowing that they, too, know the rules of the MLB, calling him up anyway indicates that their decision wasn't purely based on saving money 6 years from now. I'm sure a lot of analysis went into it from a lot of different angles.

I think one of the strongest arguments is the whole idea that they weren't going to have Daniel Castro as their opening day SS in a new stadium. If not him, who would it have been? A FA signee? How much money and for how many years would that have cost them? I can't blame anyone for not wanting Daniel Castro starting at SS in this scenario. If Swanson were going to be up to start 2017, bringing him up when they did doesn't make much difference. Perhaps they also see the experience he's gained as valuable to him. He has a whole offseason to assess what he saw at the big-league level. I think that's also a strong argument. Then there's staggering arb and FA years. I believe we'll see a few guys come up next year and even more the years following that. I could see that being a reason.

Either way, this argument has been beat to death and then some. We all get the rationale that says leave him down as long as possible. Threads like this will be made when you have one side repeatedly calling the other side "idiots" for not understanding something that everyone full well understands. I will almost always trust the decisions of the people with the most information and whose jobs depend on it over people with nothing to lose. That in no way implies the FO never makes mistakes.
 
yeezus said:
It seems some people don't understand bringing up the FO in regards to the Swanson call up. Obviously every single FO makes mistakes, and to my knowledge no one has come close to saying otherwise.

The biggest whining about Swanson has come from the fact that calling him up messes with future control years. And sure, it indisputably does. No one has denied that fact and everyone seems to understand that...including the FO. I'm quite sure they comprehend how service time works and how calling Swanson up when they did vs. waiting affects future money. So knowing that they, too, know the rules of the MLB, calling him up anyway indicates that their decision wasn't purely based on saving money 6 years from now. I'm sure a lot of analysis went into it from a lot of different angles.

I think one of the strongest arguments is the whole idea that they weren't going to have Daniel Castro as their opening day SS in a new stadium. If not him, who would it have been? A FA signee? How much money and for how many years would that have cost them? I can't blame anyone for not wanting Daniel Castro starting at SS in this scenario. If Swanson were going to be up to start 2017, bringing him up when they did doesn't make much difference. Perhaps they also see the experience he's gained as valuable to him. He has a whole offseason to assess what he saw at the big-league level. I think that's also a strong argument. Then there's staggering arb and FA years. I believe we'll see a few guys come up next year and even more the years following that. I could see that being a reason.

Either way, this argument has been beat to death and then some. We all get the rationale that says leave him down as long as possible. Threads like this will be made when you have one side repeatedly calling the other side "idiots" for not understanding something that everyone full well understands. I will almost always trust the decisions of the people with the most information and whose jobs depend on it over people with nothing to lose. That in no way implies the FO never makes mistakes.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Disagreement makes a board like this interesting. Reducing the side that disagrees with you to simple-minded idiots who can't understand basic human thought makes a board like this unbearable.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
equating a trade that didn't work to someone getting a call up is pretty moronic. One involves actions that are out of the control of the FO, where the other are directly related to the actions of the FO. Service time and contract negotiations are not in the same universe as players performance and beating the **** out of woman...
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that at all. Both are functions of management (with the exception of hitting a woman) in putting the best team on the field year after year.

At the risk of getting dragged back into this quagmire of an argument, what I think Enscheff is upset about, what I was upset about before moving on, is that the service time argument is completely different than his short or long term ability argument.

I have yet to see anywhere that someone has opined that Swanson sucks, will suck or may suck in the future. I have seen, and said, that starting his service time now is a gamble that could have negative impact on his development if it is a gamble that isn't won.

The service time issue has very little to do with performance. It is a fact that playing this year means that he will be a FA earlier than if he didn't play until after the season starts next season, as the rules are currently established in the CBA. The possibility that the CBA may change that doesn't change the fact that it is the way it is now. The possibility that it may make no difference in the long run because Swanson may sign an extension, may not be good enough for it to be a concern, or the Braves might be sold to the second coming of George Steinbrenner, doesn't change the fact.

What is frustrating is when someone says the Sun rises everyday in the east and arguments are made against it by saying the sun is hotter in the summer and that can't be denied! And then it pisses people off when you get people pointing out that the Summer is hot after every 100 degree day in July so, obviously, anyone who thinks the sun rises in the east doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.

And then you get special threads (like this one) started celebrating the fact that Summer is hot by those that believe they achieve some form of benefit from the E-cred that they gain. I say, take your E-Victory lap. But a word of caution, the track is circular and the rabbit isn't real.
 
Why does every thread on this forum now rapidly devolve into a series of ad hominem attacks? Civility seems like a lost art. Anyway, I digress.
 
But HH.. the FO has control over contract negotiations and can control service time. They can't control how good or bad a player will perform. At the time of the trade HO was hitting .300+ IIRC... sure his age and lack of experience comes into question.. but they still don't control how he performs on and off the field.

they can completely control how long and how much they will offer Swanson to retain him.. or how they will handle or not handle how they will replace him.
 
ramadon101 said:
Why does every thread on this forum now rapidly devolve into a series of ad hominem attacks? Civility seems like a lost art. Anyway, I digress.
Click to expand...

the opening post was not crafted with the idea of promoting thoughtful discussion...if you look around you will find lots of threads with mostly thoughtful and civil discussion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top