Tapate50
Well-known member
Nah, the guac was definitely asking for it
Shanks Article
- Thread starter bravesfanforlife88
- Start date
Nah, the guac was definitely asking for it
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
I dont no, it read's all right too me.
MadduxFanII
Swallowed by Mark Bowman
Even with my well-known disdain for Shanks, this is actually really true. There's the core of a halfway decent piece in there. Bill just needed someone to cut, like, half of it and refine the other half.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Would've actually been better copy.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
This article is not alone. The lack of good copy-editing in recent years is an epidemic (though far less of one than, well, the actual pandemic).
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Because the Braves were really churingin out quality pitching prospects from 2000-2009
Let's look at the draft and pitchers from then who had 10+ rWAR, then compare to Wren
2000 - Wainwright
2001 - None (Braves drafted and signed 0 players with a positive WAR that season)
2002 - None
2003 - None
2004 - None
2005 - None
2006 - None
2007 - None
2008 - Kimbrel
2009 - Minor
So in those cited years by Shanks we drafted 3 quality major league arms.
I know what you're saying, but what about international signings? Huh?
Well, by my quick calculations, that was 1, Julio Teheran.
Not to say Wren lit **** up, because he didn't. Only notable pick of his that worked out was Alex Wood. But this weird mythology that writers like Shanks have for late era Schuerholz is baffling. Our drafting was miserable and to couple that what talent we took, Schuerholz traded away left and right to try and win another title.
Schuerholz and Cox are given way too much credit for drafting Glavine after failing a lot to get a starter, trading for Smoltz, signing Maddux, and being told by Todd Van Poppel not to draft him. I don't want to downplay them, but the Braves great run was funded by Turner. Braves had top 5 payroll until 2001, they had a top 10 payroll until 2007. The reason we won was because we could afford to keep top talent around. We made some great signings and draft picks, but more importantly we could keep them around. By the time Wren was running the show we had to wheel and deal to get talent to the team.
CyYoung31
Shift Leader
I don’t think Cox gets enough credit for what he did as GM. He basically set the modern day standard for a full-on, calculated rebuild.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Cox was great at what he did. But if you suck long enough, you should get good. It's not as proven in baseball as other sports like Basketball where individual talent gets you over the hump. But the reason the Braves got Chipper and Avery partially because of picking so high.
Every team can do a what if of course, but what if instead of Tyler Houston we drafted Frank Thomas, what if instead of Lilliquist we drafted Appier, what if instead of Mercker we drafted Sheffield? I could go on. My point is that picking in the top 7 6 or 7 years in a row will get you some talent. Cox did a very good job, Schuerholz did a good job of keeping important players around and grabbing undervalued assets in free Agency (Wright, Jordan) and made some lopsided trades (Hudson and McGriff) but he deserves so much more credit for our sucking in the 2000s than he gets. There was no reason to make the JD Drew trade. Yes we would have lost the division without it, but can you imagine how much better off we would have been in the later 2000s with Wainwright? Could you imagine if we never had to sign Derek Lowe because we had Adam Wainwright? There was no certainly no reason to make the Teixeira trade. We weren't one player away from winning. We were several. We traded 3 top prospects and a very good prospect for a year and a half of a Superstar. Which is a move that a contending team should make, not a pretending team.
Sorry, I should stop ranting. The BRaves were good for a long time because they sucked and then had semi-competent management and a lot of money.
Southcack77
Well-known member
The Braves were a very competently run organization with a quality front office and a great manager who had an unprecedented amount of success over an incredibly extended period.
The consequence of winning 14 consecutive division titles was not picking high in the draft for a decade and a half and needing to make trades and signings to try and win every season.
In the middle of that run, the payroll declined. And obviously the great players who were the backbone of the team declined.
I don't really understand the need people have to tear down the greatest accomplishments the organization ever had. By any objective measure they did an excellent job. No one wins forever and the Braves continued to scrap things together for a lot longer than many clubs would have.
You can argue that it would have been better if they allowed it to crash and start anew at some point, but that's not what anyone really wanted to do at the time and it's not something that organizations really did in that era.
If you want to be critical of them being products of the era in which they learned baseball and not adapting to whatever cutting edge there is only one right answer theory you have, that's fine. They undoubtedly were not the best people to embrace an emerging new way of looking at the game.
But, sometimes great organizations get stodgy and you need new leadership. That doesn't negate the accomplishments of the old guard. The Braves were great and they did their best to keep being great. I have a hard time getting mad about that personally.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Don’t sugarcoat it .
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
I think you are right, Zito, it's a lot easier to find Chipper 1.1. And frankly, if you are picking in the top 5 of the draft for six years running, it is ultimately a slight disappointment if Avery's 14 WAR is really the second best you get (though I'll keep Chipper, thanks).
For comparison, look at the Phillies under Ed Wade, who is not generally considered an amazing GM and who supposedly had to be saved by Veteran GM™ Pat Gillick. If Wade had instead stepped down to become manager, his story would look at a lot like Bobby and JS. His first drafts:
1998 (1.1): Pat Burrell - 19 WAR
1999 (1.12): Brett Myers - 15 WAR
2000 (1.15: Chase Utley - 64 WAR
2001 (1.4): Gavin Floyd - 16 WAR
2002 (1.17): Cole Hamels - 60 WAR
2003+: Phillies get good, lose 1st rd picks to FA signings a couple time, Wade fired in a couple years
Where the Braves I think did a little bit better was finding later round impact guys in the 80s. For example:
Blauser (Secondary Phase Draft 1st, 84)
Glavine (2nd, 84)
Zane Smith (3rd, 82) (Don't sleep on ol' Zane! + 20 WAR + 15 Teeth above replacement)
Gant (4th, 83)
Justice (4th, 85)
Klesko (5th, 89)
Brian "Big Game" Hunter (8th, 87)
Wohlers (8th, 88)
Stanton (13th, 87)
Lemke (27th, 83)
But the real kicker: Bobby Cox was only GM for drafts '86 on. The only members of the 1991 core that Bobby actually drafted were Avery/Mercker/Stanton. Bill Shanks was wrong about a lot of stuff, but he was right that Paul Snyder (scouting director 81-90) really gets the short shrift in these discussions. Bobby's greatest achievements were Smoltz and knowing well enough to not **** with the farm that was already there.
YMMV as to how many % were luck and how many % skill and how many % were a reason to remember the name.
For comparison, look at the Phillies under Ed Wade, who is not generally considered an amazing GM and who supposedly had to be saved by Veteran GM™ Pat Gillick. If Wade had instead stepped down to become manager, his story would look at a lot like Bobby and JS. His first drafts:
1998 (1.1): Pat Burrell - 19 WAR
1999 (1.12): Brett Myers - 15 WAR
2000 (1.15: Chase Utley - 64 WAR
2001 (1.4): Gavin Floyd - 16 WAR
2002 (1.17): Cole Hamels - 60 WAR
2003+: Phillies get good, lose 1st rd picks to FA signings a couple time, Wade fired in a couple years
Where the Braves I think did a little bit better was finding later round impact guys in the 80s. For example:
Blauser (Secondary Phase Draft 1st, 84)
Glavine (2nd, 84)
Zane Smith (3rd, 82) (Don't sleep on ol' Zane! + 20 WAR + 15 Teeth above replacement)
Gant (4th, 83)
Justice (4th, 85)
Klesko (5th, 89)
Brian "Big Game" Hunter (8th, 87)
Wohlers (8th, 88)
Stanton (13th, 87)
Lemke (27th, 83)
But the real kicker: Bobby Cox was only GM for drafts '86 on. The only members of the 1991 core that Bobby actually drafted were Avery/Mercker/Stanton. Bill Shanks was wrong about a lot of stuff, but he was right that Paul Snyder (scouting director 81-90) really gets the short shrift in these discussions. Bobby's greatest achievements were Smoltz and knowing well enough to not **** with the farm that was already there.
YMMV as to how many % were luck and how many % skill and how many % were a reason to remember the name.
Southcack77
Well-known member
Do people really make the argument that Bobby Cox was a particularly good GM? Not something I'd really heard anyone say before.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
I think there is a pretty standard conventional wisdom that he "laid the groundwork" building up the team, and then JS came in to put the finishing touches.
The main issue with Wren's draft is they were very top heavy, often producing only 1 or 2 guys that became legit prospects. The argument against that is, the hit rate on those top prospects was insanely high as Kimbrell, Minor, Simmons, Gattis, and Wood all became above average big league players. They also, produced a few role player guys like Ahmed, La Stella, and Drury (and apparently Sims now)
Coppy ended up a disaster as GM, and not simply because of his breaking of the rules. He made some pretty bad trades (Simmons, Kimbrell, Olivera). However, his and Clark's drafts were pretty friggin good, both in producing actual major league contributors and quality prospect depth that can be used in trades or to supplement the major league team. We see at least 4-5 prospects from each of his 3 drafts that have become legit prospects or major league contributors.
Wren came into a pretty fortunate situation with a solid MLB team and a good farm (though not quite as good as it was before JS traded away 5 of best prospects for Tex). Unfortunately, Wren managed to trade away even more of that prospect depth and couldn't adequately replenish it. Combine that with some pretty terrible contracts handed out, and you have the reasons why he was fired. His international signings were on point though!
Last edited:
Southcack77
Well-known member
Personally, I have a hard time seeing Coppy's tenure as a disaster given the position he left the team. Anthopolous has made very savvy, but mostly conservative moves. He's been more of a caretaker of what he inherited than a force of change.
I'm not saying that to pump up Coppy. Coppy's tear down was probably something that could have been accomplished by a lot of GMs and it's entirely possible that many could have done it better. But I think it could have been worse and we have no idea what moves he might have made once the team started winning.
Alex has done a good job of not making the kind of bold moves that put clubs in boxes of their own making.
But the jury is still out on Alex as far as drafting and maintaining. I've not been blown away by what they've done there since he shook things up. But, it is way too early to know whether they draft well or not, I suppose.
Runnin
Well-known member
He's been doing it long enough that he'd be good by now if he had any talent for writing. He totally killed his somewhat interesting opening in the 3rd sentence.
MadduxFanII
Swallowed by Mark Bowman
This is also fair.