Spring Training 2015

Dalyn said:
I called you out on it because it is getting to the point where it's a problem. It's the ONE THING that derails a thread every time and never encourages talk about the Braves. Negative posts can derail a thread. Positive ones about the wrong thing can also derail a thread. But nothing outside of stooping to the level of calling someone names derails a thread 100% of the time. That's why I finally confronted you about it. Notice how I still never called you a name? Yeah. That's called a discussion.
Click to expand...

END. SCENE.
Me saying that, though, didn't even derail that thread. Really at all. And that was one time. You basically saying I'm seeking attention is essentially the same thing. But carry on.

End scene.
 
yeezus said:
END. SCENE.

Me saying that, though, didn't even derail that thread. Really at all. And that was one time. You basically saying I'm seeking attention is essentially the same thing. But carry on.

End scene.
Click to expand...

One time? If we just focus on the term "negative dick," I've seen you call people that at least ten times. Enough already. Is it so hard to just stop calling people names? By all means, continue to be negative about their negativity if that's your thing, but stop calling them names. Is that too much to ask?
 
Dalyn said:
One time? If we just focus on the term "negative dick," I've seen you call people that at least ten times. Enough already. Is it so hard to just stop calling people names? By all means, continue to be negative about their negativity if that's your thing, but stop calling them names. Is that too much to ask?
Click to expand...

lol "at least 10 times." so good.
 
Well, to sort of agree with both sides … I am still trying to figure out what the strategy is here. I mean, I get that we needed to rebuild the farm system. I get that we had soon-to-be-expensive bats that we weren’t likely to re-sign, and we needed to maximize the value. I get that the Braves are historically a team built on pitching and defense, and since 70% of all top prospects don’t have meaningful careers, we needed to stockpile as many high-upside arms as possible, hoping that at least one or two turn into legitimate aces. Or at least 2/3 guys.

Check.

But those moves feel like tactics, not strategy.

So as near as I can tell, the plan is:

- To build a best-in-league pitching staff through the draft and trades.

- To load the system in a money ball sort of way with speed/contact guys, ideally at second, third, center, and possibly left.

- To see how many of those speed/contact guys can actually get on base, run the bases, and score runs at the major league level. The ones that can stick. The ones that can’t become utility guys or go away.

- To trade surplus pitching (assuming we have some), sign Cubans, pray for Ruiz, or grow in a vat Freeman-esque RBI guys to replace the speed contact guys that don’t stick, and put them (I guess) in left or at third.

Which kind of makes sense (although it still doesn’t explain, say, Markakis), but it feels a lot like saying, “my retirement plan is to buy lots and lots of lottery tickets, knowing most won’t pay off, but the ones that do, wow!”

I like loading up on pitching, especially high-upside. But given that we need arms to fill at least two rotation spots by 2017, and presumably have spares to trade, the high-risk factor makes this feel less like strategy and more like high-stakes gambling -- unless they are counting on Roger to fix more scrapheap pitchers if necessary (an idea not without merit).

Love, love the emphasis on speed and contact — it seems reasonable to expect that at least two of Perez, Smith, Peraza, and Peterson will be able to get on base and run. At least, it feels like the most likely tactic to pan out.

But in 2017, are we really counting on Freeman, Bethancourt, Markakis, Johnson (assuming he’s not replaced with a speed guy like Peterson), and Simmons alone to drive them in?

What am I missing?
 
Is it too freaking much to ask that, if you have a personal beef, deal with it off-line in private messages. If you refuse private messages on this board and continue to spew trash (any of you), that to me a grounds for a ban hammer. But that's just me.
 
Adcox:

You're missing the trade that hasn't been made yet.
You're missing the major stud they aoready have secured for July 2.
You missing Gomes/Joey T as hoped for run proeducers.
 
JohnAdcox said:
Well, to sort of agree with both sides here … I am still trying to figure out what the strategy is here. I mean, I get that we needed to rebuild the farm system. I get that we had soon-to-be-expensive bats that we weren’t likely to re-sign. I get that the Braves are historically a team built on pitching and defense, and since 70% of all top prospects don’t have meaningful careers, we needed to stockpile and many high-upside arms as possible, hoping that at least one or two turn into legitimate aces.

Check.

But those moves feel like tactics, not strategy.

So as near as I can tell, the plan is:

- To build a best-in-league pitching staff through the draft and trades.
- To load the system in a money ball sort of way with speed/contact guys, ideally at second, third, center, and possibly left.
- To see how many of those speed/contact guys can actually get on base, run the bases, and score runs at the major league level. The ones that can stick. The ones that can’t become utility guys or go away.
- To trade surplus pitching (assuming we have some), sign Cubans, pray for Ruiz, or grow in a vat Freeman-esque RBI guys to replace the speed contact guys that don’t stick.

Which kind of makes sense (although it still doesn’t explain, say, Markakis), but it feels a lot like saying, “my retirement plan is to buy lots and lots of lottery tickets, knowing most won’t pay off, but the ones that do, wow!”

I like loading up on pitching, especially high-upside. But given that we need arms to fill at least two rotation spots by 2017, and presumably have spares to trade, the high-risk factor makes this feel less like strategy and more like high-stakes gambling, unless they are counting on Roger to fix more scrapheap pitchers if necessary (an idea not without merit).

Love, love the emphasis on speed and contact — it seems reasonable to expect that at least two of Perez, Smith, Peraza, and Peterson will be able to get on base and run. At least, it feels like the most likely tactic to pan out.

But in 2017, are we really counting on Freeman, Bethancourt, Markakis, and Simmons alone to drive them in?

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it's predicated on enough of the pitchers panning out to be able to deal the depth for a run producer or two. That's a pretty big dice roll if they're serious about 2017. Even if Rio pans out (crosses fingers) we're going to need more stick.
 
rico43 said:
Is it too freaking much to ask that, if you have a personal beef, deal with it off-line in private messages. If you refuse private messages on this board and continue to spew trash (any of you), that to me a grounds for a ban hammer. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

In my experience, sending a private message just gets a rude response (if any). But you're right, of course, and while I will not apologize for calling Yeezus out (it needed to happen, in my opinion), I will apologize for contributing to the derailment of this thread. I think I made my point, so it's not something I will repeat. I'll just report his personal attacks (not something I've ever done) for now on if they continue.
 
Julio3000 said:
Yeah, I think it's predicated on enough of the pitchers panning out to be able to deal the depth for a run producer or two. That's a pretty big dice roll if they're serious about 2017. Even if Rio pans out (crosses fingers) we're going to need more stick.
Click to expand...

Especially since they’ll (presumably) be dealing in a pitching rich/hitting poor market.
 
JohnAdcox said:
Well, to sort of agree with both sides … I am still trying to figure out what the strategy is here. I mean, I get that we needed to rebuild the farm system. I get that we had soon-to-be-expensive bats that we weren’t likely to re-sign, and we needed to maximize the value. I get that the Braves are historically a team built on pitching and defense, and since 70% of all top prospects don’t have meaningful careers, we needed to stockpile as many high-upside arms as possible, hoping that at least one or two turn into legitimate aces. Or at least 2/3 guys.

Check.

But those moves feel like tactics, not strategy.

So as near as I can tell, the plan is:

- To build a best-in-league pitching staff through the draft and trades.
- To load the system in a money ball sort of way with speed/contact guys, ideally at second, third, center, and possibly left.
- To see how many of those speed/contact guys can actually get on base, run the bases, and score runs at the major league level. The ones that can stick. The ones that can’t become utility guys or go away.
- To trade surplus pitching (assuming we have some), sign Cubans, pray for Ruiz, or grow in a vat Freeman-esque RBI guys to replace the speed contact guys that don’t stick, and put them (I guess) in left or at third.

Which kind of makes sense (although it still doesn’t explain, say, Markakis), but it feels a lot like saying, “my retirement plan is to buy lots and lots of lottery tickets, knowing most won’t pay off, but the ones that do, wow!”

I like loading up on pitching, especially high-upside. But given that we need arms to fill at least two rotation spots by 2017, and presumably have spares to trade, the high-risk factor makes this feel less like strategy and more like high-stakes gambling -- unless they are counting on Roger to fix more scrapheap pitchers if necessary (an idea not without merit).

Love, love the emphasis on speed and contact — it seems reasonable to expect that at least two of Perez, Smith, Peraza, and Peterson will be able to get on base and run. At least, it feels like the most likely tactic to pan out.

But in 2017, are we really counting on Freeman, Bethancourt, Markakis, Johnson (assuming he’s not replaced with a speed guy like Peterson), and Simmons alone to drive them in?

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Good post. :tchop:

Around the Markakis signing, it felt like Hart was on the fence about the rebuild. He committed to it a week or so later, but it made a few of his limbo decisions look really strange.
 
Julio3000 said:
Yeah, I think it's predicated on enough of the pitchers panning out to be able to deal the depth for a run producer or two. That's a pretty big dice roll if they're serious about 2017. Even if Rio pans out (crosses fingers) we're going to need more stick.
Click to expand...

I’m a Rio fan, too, and I have high hopes. But being a second Freeman feels like too much to ask or hope for, yeah?
 
Dalyn said:
Good post. :tchop:

Around the Markakis signing, it felt like Hart was on the fence about the rebuild. He committed to it a week or so later, but it made a few of his limbo decisions look really strange.
Click to expand...

Which is why you have a strategy before you start making tactical moves.

And thanks, by the way.
 
I don't see a realistic path to success unless we sign someone of the caliber of... Heyward or JUp.

We have flat out said (or we've been told by posters on here), that we are simply unable or unwilling to do it.

I don't see any teams trading premium hitters away for premium pitching. Maybe I'm wrong. But there's just too much pitching available.

We'll see. I just hope we start drafting really well. But I'm not holding my breath that our first round pick will be another pitcher.
 
sturg33 said:
I don't see a realistic path to success unless we sign someone of the caliber of... Heyward or JUp.

We have flat out said (or we've been told by posters on here), that we are simply unable or unwilling to do it.

I don't see any teams trading premium hitters away for premium pitching. Maybe I'm wrong. But there's just too much pitching available.

We'll see. I just hope we start drafting really well. But I'm not holding my breath that our first round pick will be another pitcher.
Click to expand...

I think the idea is to get some experience for these prospects in 2015 and 2016 to see what we have for 2017. Once the team can accurately identify the weaknesses of that 2017 team, they can move to correct them. Early results point to offense being a huge problem, but it's really too early to start thinking about 2017 in regards to correcting its potential weaknesses. There just isn't enough information to form a competent plan of attack.
 
VirginiaBrave said:
I still think 2016 we will have a big name free agent signing and it could be Justin Upton. This off season was just the start.
Click to expand...

I think that's definitely an option. The team just needs to spend 2015 and 2016 finding out exactly what they need for 2017.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top