MadduxFanII
Swallowed by Mark Bowman
Many of us are aware that this board has ancestors dating back to the earliest days of the new millennium. In fact, I remember defending Mike Remlinger on the old Baseballboards.com forum in winter 2000. As an aside, if you think this offseason is disappointing, it's got nothing on that one: we entered thinking we would probably sign A-Rod, and had Mike Hampton as a fallback, and instead ended up signing Rico Brogna.
Anyway, I've been talking about Braves baseball on the internet for half my life now. Over that time, there's been what I see as a welcome evolution in the way fans talk about baseball. Perhaps as a result of Moneyball, or perhaps as a result of the fact that baseball's management structure has evolved in a way that fans can convince themselves they're a decade of hard work and statistical study away from being a GM, fans are thinking long-term more than ever. In the old days, we rarely talked about the minor league system. Trades were discussed almost entirely in terms of how they would affect the big league club.
A lot of that, I suppose, was a reflection of where the team was. When you're always playing for a World Series, you tend to think short-term. Obviously, that's not a luxury Braves' fans have any more.
Regardless of the reasons, we talk more about the long-term now than we ever did before. We have daily threads on the minor league teams. Trade discussions, while prone to all the usual nonsense internet trade discussions are prone to, focus more than ever on long-term considerations. We talk about flipping veterans for prospects and generally care more about the farm system than we used to.
Again, this is a good thing. The level of conversation is definitely higher when everyone understands the importance of young, cost-controlled talent, instead of simply saying, "This trade will make us better, therefore it's good."
So I understand that when we talk about the Heyward trade, it's not unreasonable to ask critics, "What do you want Hart to do? Let Heyward leave at the end of the season and just get a draft pick?" If we grant that Heyward just could not have been re-signed, then yes, the deal with St. Louis is better for the organization's long-term health than playing out the season.
But the thought that keeps tripping me up is this: I'm not sure there is a long-term for the Braves.
Oh, the franchise will still exist, will stay play baseball, will probably play reasonably well from time-to-time. But if the goal of an organization is to consistently compete at the highest levels, then the Heyward trade makes clear that goal is not a realistic one for the franchise.
Put simply, if we can't retain players like Jason Heyward, we will not consistently compete with the Nationals, Mets, Marlins and a competent Phillies organization.
If ownership continues to decree that an organization based in one of the country's largest, fastest-growing metropolises needs to spend as though it played in Blue Springs, Missouri, then we will not be able to spend the money required to sign championship-caliber players. Good players require big contracts, and in 2014, great players require huge contracts.
The inability to re-sign Heyward is particularly ominous. Here's a homegrown talent, still exceptionally young, possessed of a broad-based, well-rounded skill set that, historically, ages well. Well-liked in the community, and particularly important for an organization that has sometimes struggled to reach Atlanta's African-American community.
Would a long-term contract have been difficult? Undoubtedly. But, again, this gets back to the way in which the organization is perceived by its ownership. We have a fancy new stadium opening in 2017. We know Uggla's contract is off the books after 2015. We know that BJ Upton's contract is off the books after 2017. These things are facts. They're going to happen. A motivated front office could creatively craft a backloaded contract to take advantage of those facts- a relatively small raise in 2016, a bigger one in 2017, a huge raise to a plateau for 2018 and future years.
However, such a thing was apparently not possible. And so we go back to that question: "what do you want Hart to do?" And here's the thing about not having a long term: you get to think about the short term.
What should the Braves have done? Saddle the horse again and charge one more time into the breach. Make one last run with Heyward and Upton. Would such a run have worked? Probably not. There were holes to fill, not much money to fill them with and not much minor league talent to use in trades. But a creative approach that embraced significant short-term risk could have put us in a position to challenge for a wild card berth.
Play in the second-and-third tier free agent starter market and go after Peavy or Masterson. Make Hale the fifth starter. Talk to the Dodgers about Chris Capuano as a sixth starter type. Dangle Walden for starter help. Dangle Bethancourt for younger, more long-term starter help. See about buying low on Michael Saunders.
Does that guarantee anything? Of course not. And it no doubt leaves us worse off in the long term. But if we're unable to retain playoff-caliber talent, playoff runs are going to be few and far between in the future. So, yes, I'm explicitly advocating for a "screw the future" approach. You can do that when you're not sure if the future is worth protecting.
In isolation, none of this really depends on one's evaluation of the current front office. It's more about financial realities imposed by ownership. But it is worth acknowledging that the uncertainty of the future is more easily accepted if you believe in the front office. Unthinking acceptance is never a good idea, regardless of the executive's track record, but it is reasonable sometimes to trust in the proven skill and wisdom of a GM to see a franchise through troubled waters.
But I just don't see any reason to show that sort of trust. It's one thing to fire Frank Wren after a single 79-win season. It's another thing to throw yourself at the feet of a 66-year-old executive whose most recent performance as a general manager saw him win an average off 77 games over four seasons. It's one thing to express optimism during a transition. It's another thing to display an odd combination of triumphalism about the "Braves Way" and an Orwellian need to erase all traces of Wren and his bloodline, while acting as if the years before 2014 never happened. It's one thing to focus on pitching, it's another thing to take the Underpants Gnomes approach to team building:
Step One: Trade every good hitter from a crummy offense, acquire pitching at every opportunity.
Step Two: ???
Step Three: Victory!
Put another way, I wish we had bet on the long odds of an Upton-and-Heyward-driven World Series run in 2014 than the even smaller odds of a World Series run in 2021.
Anyway, I've been talking about Braves baseball on the internet for half my life now. Over that time, there's been what I see as a welcome evolution in the way fans talk about baseball. Perhaps as a result of Moneyball, or perhaps as a result of the fact that baseball's management structure has evolved in a way that fans can convince themselves they're a decade of hard work and statistical study away from being a GM, fans are thinking long-term more than ever. In the old days, we rarely talked about the minor league system. Trades were discussed almost entirely in terms of how they would affect the big league club.
A lot of that, I suppose, was a reflection of where the team was. When you're always playing for a World Series, you tend to think short-term. Obviously, that's not a luxury Braves' fans have any more.
Regardless of the reasons, we talk more about the long-term now than we ever did before. We have daily threads on the minor league teams. Trade discussions, while prone to all the usual nonsense internet trade discussions are prone to, focus more than ever on long-term considerations. We talk about flipping veterans for prospects and generally care more about the farm system than we used to.
Again, this is a good thing. The level of conversation is definitely higher when everyone understands the importance of young, cost-controlled talent, instead of simply saying, "This trade will make us better, therefore it's good."
So I understand that when we talk about the Heyward trade, it's not unreasonable to ask critics, "What do you want Hart to do? Let Heyward leave at the end of the season and just get a draft pick?" If we grant that Heyward just could not have been re-signed, then yes, the deal with St. Louis is better for the organization's long-term health than playing out the season.
But the thought that keeps tripping me up is this: I'm not sure there is a long-term for the Braves.
Oh, the franchise will still exist, will stay play baseball, will probably play reasonably well from time-to-time. But if the goal of an organization is to consistently compete at the highest levels, then the Heyward trade makes clear that goal is not a realistic one for the franchise.
Put simply, if we can't retain players like Jason Heyward, we will not consistently compete with the Nationals, Mets, Marlins and a competent Phillies organization.
If ownership continues to decree that an organization based in one of the country's largest, fastest-growing metropolises needs to spend as though it played in Blue Springs, Missouri, then we will not be able to spend the money required to sign championship-caliber players. Good players require big contracts, and in 2014, great players require huge contracts.
The inability to re-sign Heyward is particularly ominous. Here's a homegrown talent, still exceptionally young, possessed of a broad-based, well-rounded skill set that, historically, ages well. Well-liked in the community, and particularly important for an organization that has sometimes struggled to reach Atlanta's African-American community.
Would a long-term contract have been difficult? Undoubtedly. But, again, this gets back to the way in which the organization is perceived by its ownership. We have a fancy new stadium opening in 2017. We know Uggla's contract is off the books after 2015. We know that BJ Upton's contract is off the books after 2017. These things are facts. They're going to happen. A motivated front office could creatively craft a backloaded contract to take advantage of those facts- a relatively small raise in 2016, a bigger one in 2017, a huge raise to a plateau for 2018 and future years.
However, such a thing was apparently not possible. And so we go back to that question: "what do you want Hart to do?" And here's the thing about not having a long term: you get to think about the short term.
What should the Braves have done? Saddle the horse again and charge one more time into the breach. Make one last run with Heyward and Upton. Would such a run have worked? Probably not. There were holes to fill, not much money to fill them with and not much minor league talent to use in trades. But a creative approach that embraced significant short-term risk could have put us in a position to challenge for a wild card berth.
Play in the second-and-third tier free agent starter market and go after Peavy or Masterson. Make Hale the fifth starter. Talk to the Dodgers about Chris Capuano as a sixth starter type. Dangle Walden for starter help. Dangle Bethancourt for younger, more long-term starter help. See about buying low on Michael Saunders.
Does that guarantee anything? Of course not. And it no doubt leaves us worse off in the long term. But if we're unable to retain playoff-caliber talent, playoff runs are going to be few and far between in the future. So, yes, I'm explicitly advocating for a "screw the future" approach. You can do that when you're not sure if the future is worth protecting.
In isolation, none of this really depends on one's evaluation of the current front office. It's more about financial realities imposed by ownership. But it is worth acknowledging that the uncertainty of the future is more easily accepted if you believe in the front office. Unthinking acceptance is never a good idea, regardless of the executive's track record, but it is reasonable sometimes to trust in the proven skill and wisdom of a GM to see a franchise through troubled waters.
But I just don't see any reason to show that sort of trust. It's one thing to fire Frank Wren after a single 79-win season. It's another thing to throw yourself at the feet of a 66-year-old executive whose most recent performance as a general manager saw him win an average off 77 games over four seasons. It's one thing to express optimism during a transition. It's another thing to display an odd combination of triumphalism about the "Braves Way" and an Orwellian need to erase all traces of Wren and his bloodline, while acting as if the years before 2014 never happened. It's one thing to focus on pitching, it's another thing to take the Underpants Gnomes approach to team building:
Step One: Trade every good hitter from a crummy offense, acquire pitching at every opportunity.
Step Two: ???
Step Three: Victory!
Put another way, I wish we had bet on the long odds of an Upton-and-Heyward-driven World Series run in 2014 than the even smaller odds of a World Series run in 2021.
