Swanson and Albies

chop2chip said:
I think you are missing the point

(that's not to say you aren't right because I agree with you 100% from the baseball ops angle)
Click to expand...

I do get your point. I was kidding about bringing back Aybar. It would not surprise me to see the front office succumb to perceived pressure and bring them up this year.
 
nsacpi said:
I do get your point. I was kidding about bringing back Aybar. It would not surprise me to see the front office succumb to perceived pressure and bring them up this year.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even say it's a decision that's ultimately held by the FO. Now, the best part about Liberty is that they are completely disconnected from the Braves. Consequently, that's also the worst part about them. Hopefully that would mean we don't have anybody higher than McGuirk that's calling Braves related shots, but I do know that he meets with Liberty and he has to report on the team. I'm sure those reports explain the embarrassment by talking about the young players who will be joining the team soon. It may be difficult for McGuirk to then justify asking for a higher budget without first demonstrating that there is a plan in place to have these great young players up soon.

Bottomline, I think it's a given that Albies and Swanson are on the team opening day next year. If that's the case, then lets get them up this year (if they are ready). We don't benefit any keeping them in Gwinnett.
 
chop2chip said:
I wouldn't even say it's a decision that's ultimately held by the FO. Now, the best part about Liberty is that they are completely disconnected from the Braves. Consequently, that's also the worst part about them. Hopefully that would mean we don't have anybody higher than McGuirk that's calling Braves related shots, but I do know that he meets with Liberty and he has to report on the team. I'm sure those reports explain the embarrassment by talking about the young players who will be joining the team soon. It may be difficult for McGuirk to then justify asking for a higher budget without first demonstrating that there is a plan in place to have these great young players up soon.

Bottomline, I think it's a given that Albies and Swanson are on the team opening day next year. If that's the case, then lets get them up this year (if they are ready). We don't benefit any keeping them in Gwinnett.
Click to expand...

McGuirk should explain to them how he is saving them 15M bucks by not trading for Billy Butler.
 
Both guys are currently starting to scuffle a bit at their new levels. They will need to prove they can snap out of a rough stretch before they are even considered for a MLB job.

Anyone that thinks 2 weeks of Albies and Swanson in 2017 is worth more than a full year of those players in 2023, in terms of wins, revenue or "respect", should be immediately removed from any official capacity they may have with the Atlanta Braves. The undeniably correct application of player assets is to promote Swanson to AAA in a couple months and allow them to play together for the rest of this season and a few weeks of 2017.
 
Enscheff said:
Both guys are currently starting to scuffle a bit at their new levels. They will need to prove they can snap out of a rough stretch before they are even considered for a MLB job.

Anyone that thinks 2 weeks of Albies and Swanson in 2017 is worth more than a full year of those players in 2023, in terms of wins, revenue or "respect", should be immediately removed from any official capacity they may have with the Atlanta Braves. The undeniably correct application of player assets is to promote Swanson to AAA in a couple months and allow them to play together for the rest of this season and a few weeks of 2017.
Click to expand...
And when your boss asks you what the plan is for those two and you tell him that and he says "no", what are you going to say next?

It's really easy for us to be a better general manager with hindsight and free of bureaucratic pressures, but that's not Coppy's reality.
 
I have to say that I have not seen any evidence to support the "petulant Albies" or "micro-managing big boss" theories.
 
Wonder if plummeting ticket sales this year will play into a decision to bring them up sometime after the AS break
 
nsacpi said:
I have to say that I have not seen any evidence to support the "petulant Albies" or "micro-managing big boss" theories.
Click to expand...

And you won't see evidence of neither if Coppy is doing his job well, but that doesn't make either theory more or less plausible.
 
chop2chip said:
And when your boss asks you what the plan is for those two and you tell him that and he says "no", what are you going to say next?

It's really easy for us to be a better general manager with hindsight and free of bureaucratic pressures, but that's not Coppy's reality.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what Coppy's bosses are telling him, or if there is even any pressure like you suggest coming from the higher-ups. If anyone thinks Swanson and Albies should start 2017 at the MLB level, whether that person is Coppy, Hart, JS, McQ or Mr. Liberty himself, then that person needs to be removed from their position. Just because they are higher ranking and in a position to get what they want does not make them right.

It would be different if the team were truly going to compete for a playoff spot like they were Heyward's rookie year. I can understand wanting the best players possible on a contender, even for those few weeks, so it was at least defensible (yet still incorrect) to burn a year of Heyward's control in order to get into the playoffs his rookie year. However, the 2017 Braves will be competing for a .500 record, not a playoff spot, so there is zero reason to burn a year of control for Albies and Swanson in 2017.
 
One thing we may be failing to realize is the new CBA might very well eliminate the ability to keep a prospect down for 2 weeks and gain another year of control.

If the new CBA would require that prospect to be held down for 6-8 weeks, then it makes more sense to start the year with Swanson and Albies on the MLB roster.

Further, if that's the case with the new CBA and it's a given they will start 2017 on the MLB roster, it makes little sense to keep them down this year once the super-2 deadline has passed. Provided they are producing in AAA over the next couple months, of course.
 
Enscheff said:
I have no idea what Coppy's bosses are telling him, or if there is even any pressure like you suggest coming from the higher-ups. If anyone thinks Swanson and Albies should start 2017 at the MLB level, whether that person is Coppy, Hart, JS, McQ or Mr. Liberty himself, then that person needs to be removed from their position. Just because they are higher ranking and in a position to get what they want does not make them right.

It would be different if the team were truly going to compete for a playoff spot like they were Heyward's rookie year. I can understand wanting the best players possible on a contender, even for those few weeks, so it was at least defensible (yet still incorrect) to burn a year of Heyward's control in order to get into the playoffs his rookie year. However, the 2017 Braves will be competing for a .500 record, not a playoff spot, so there is zero reason to burn a year of control for Albies and Swanson in 2017.
Click to expand...

If we are arguing what's in the best interest of the team, then sure I don't think anyone would debate any of that is incorrect (except Heyward - that opening day moment was worth the extra year alone). But we can't debate a utopic scenario because there isn't a way for the baseball ops team to remove Mr. Liberty or Mr. McGuirk from their positions. Consider it a preemptive defense of a really smart GM that no doubts understands the implications of calling them up early.
 
chop2chip said:
If we are arguing what's in the best interest of the team, then sure I don't think anyone would debate any of that is incorrect (except Heyward - that opening day moment was worth the extra year alone). But we can't debate a utopic scenario because there isn't a way for the baseball ops team to remove Mr. Liberty or Mr. McGuirk from their positions. Consider it a preemptive defense of a really smart GM that no doubts understands the implications of calling them up early.
Click to expand...

2 weeks of OA and DS is not worth losing a year of control.. however, I am not opposed of just farking the norm and buying out their prime years at a huge discount.. forget this BS about control and super 2.. just make them your corner stone infield for the next 8 years..
 
Enscheff said:
One thing we may be failing to realize is the new CBA might very well eliminate the ability to keep a prospect down for 2 weeks and gain another year of control.

If the new CBA would require that prospect to be held down for 6-8 weeks, then it makes more sense to start the year with Swanson and Albies on the MLB roster.

Further, if that's the case with the new CBA and it's a given they will start 2017 on the MLB roster, it makes little sense to keep them down this year once the super-2 deadline has passed. Provided they are producing in AAA over the next couple months, of course.
Click to expand...

I think this is probably going to happen. It's far too easy for a team to gain an extra year of relatively cheap control as it is.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
2 weeks of OA and DS is not worth losing a year of control.. however, I am not opposed of just farking the norm and buying out their prime years at a huge discount.. forget this BS about control and super 2.. just make them your corner stone infield for the next 8 years..
Click to expand...
If you call them up in July, then it's an extra 3 months + 2 weeks + opening day for your new stadium (keep in mind you are trying like hell to sell season tickets at much higher rates than you had at Turner field).

Gentelmen - do you really believe this is only a question of playing these guys two extra weeks?
 
chop2chip said:
Gentelmen - do you really believe this is only a question of playing these guys two extra weeks?
Click to expand...

For me that's not really the issue. The issue to me is a preference for contractual control over Albies age 26 season rather than a fraction of his age 19 season. That's what we're really giving up by calling him up this year rather than a few weeks into the 2017 season. I don't see anything but the most minimal of attendance bumps by bringing him up this year. And even if he played very well in the majors this year the value of that is greatly eroded by the fact that we are not competing for anything this season.
 
I like the rapid promotion. They were killing it.

Posters said they needed to make adjustments. Well that would not happen if they killed it.

Now they both get some adversity. Good for them.

I wouldn't consider bringing them up until roster expansion.

If they both dominate and I'm getting pressure fun I pit them on the same team in aaa to get pl excited. Then the year ends
 
Enscheff said:
One thing we may be failing to realize is the new CBA might very well eliminate the ability to keep a prospect down for 2 weeks and gain another year of control.

If the new CBA would require that prospect to be held down for 6-8 weeks, then it makes more sense to start the year with Swanson and Albies on the MLB roster.

Further, if that's the case with the new CBA and it's a given they will start 2017 on the MLB roster, it makes little sense to keep them down this year once the super-2 deadline has passed. Provided they are producing in AAA over the next couple months, of course.
Click to expand...

If it's 6-8 weeks then you keep Albies and Swanson down for 6-8 weeks. Having them come up and participate in a year where you aren't going to win anyway and giving up that back end year just isn't good business. Now, 12 weeks changes things because then you have to hold them down for 1/2 the season. To me the 2017 season should be most of the near ready young talent at the ML level playing together and developing as a unit throughout the last half of the 2017 season. It also allows you to spot or reinforce previous thoughts regarding holes in the line-up, rotation and pen that need to be addressed before 2018, through the very fertile FA class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top