Third-World Problems

GovClintonTyree

GovClintonTyree

<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
Remember the late 90s, when we dealt Schmidt and change for Denny Neagle so that we could have four potential Cy Young starters? Or dealing for Gary Sheffield, so we'd have enough juice (heh) in October? Or when we'd get Leo a reclamation project or two and they'd round out the bullpen?

Now we play a man down because the scrub we cut in early April hasn't been off the roster long enough to bring him back (and why, pray?) when we demote another hard-throwing TJ reliever who can't locate.

This front office has made enough deals that some of them are bound to pay off, but I'm about as impressed with Coppalella as most of us are with Fredi.

This team lacks running water and electricity. I'm waiting for Coppy to give an interview where he makes the ultimate proclamation of excellence, borrowed from Chuck LaMarr after eight years of Devil Ray futility: "If you remove major league W-L record from the analysis, we are one of the highest rated teams in baseball."

I'm sure they'll move Swanson and Albies and maybe a few others (Ruiz?) up the ladder with dispatch, and I'm sure impressed with Blair and Wisler. In the meantime, this is one sorry collection of stiffs and in my judgement it's the FO believing their own bull****. Braves Way, my ass. How do you bung up a procedural move like that? It looks bad. Hell, it IS bad.
 
I agree totally Gov., we are a joke right now and it's embarrassing. They added a player they cannot even use for 7 days and didn't know it, lol.
 
clvclv said:
Really sucks that you can't turn an entire franchise around in 18 months. Better close up shop and move the team to Vegas.
Click to expand...

I don't guess it matters if you win 40 or 60, but it's hard to watch. Maybe Coppy should get out of the prediction business. "I'm not sure how hard we're going to suck, but suck we will." A little honesty would be welcome. Or, if you're really incapable of assessing your team within, say, 35 games, maybe just get out out of the prediction business altogether.

In bidness, we call Coppy's approach "overpromising and under-delivering".

Think about it. "Rebuild on the fly" to "we'll be competitive" to "no way we'll be as bad as last year" to "we needed Bonifacio now, dammit" in 18 months.

Face it, this guy has about as much sense as any guy at your fantasy draft. If he gets one right, it's because the other GM is more retarded than he is. Which only happens with, like, San Diego and Dave Stewart.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
I don't guess it matters if you win 40 or 60, but it's hard to watch. Maybe Coppy should get out of the prediction business. "I'm not sure how hard we're going to suck, but suck we will." A little honesty would be welcome. Or, if you're really incapable of assessing your team within, say, 35 games, maybe just get out out of the prediction business altogether.

In bidness, we call Coppy's "approach underpromising and over-delivering".

Think about it. "Rebuild on the fly" to "we'll be competitive" to "no way we'll be as bad as last year" to "we needed Bonifacio now, dammit" in 18 months.

Face it, this guy has about as much sense as any guy at your fantasy draft. If he gets one right, it's because the other GM is more retarded than he is. Which only happens with, like, San Diego and Dave Stewart.
Click to expand...

Dave may be "more retarded" but he's getting a birthday card from me this year thanking him for the Miller trade. I'll put a little money in it and add "Have a drink on me Dave!" :)
 
Braves1976 said:
Dave may be "more retarded" but he's getting a birthday card from me this year thanking him for the Miller trade. I'll put a little money in it and add "Have a drink on me Dave!" :)
Click to expand...

I'll split it with you.

That guy's in every fantasy draft. The Dave Stewart guy who thinks he's smarter than everyone and is really just an intellectually arrogant idiot.
 
This roster construction was absolutely horrendous.

Unfortunately for Fredi the hammer will fall on him.
 
"I do know we’re going to be better next year than we were this year.”

--Coppy, in the past offseason

That's not GM-speak. That's an unambiguous statement.

That's the kind of thing that causes me to be skeptical of the communications coming out of the FO.

I mean, I understand the bright-side case for how we COULD be better. If, you know, everybody stays healthy and plays up to expectations. If that's what you're counting on, and you're willing to state it as a certainty, might as well go ahead and secure the financial future of the club by picking up some Powerball tickets.
 
Julio3000 said:
"I do know we’re going to be better next year than we were this year.”

--Coppy, in the past offseason

That's not GM-speak. That's an unambiguous statement.

That's the kind of thing that causes me to be skeptical of the communications coming out of the FO.

I mean, I understand the bright-side case for how we COULD be better. If, you know, everybody stays healthy and plays up to expectations. If that's what you're counting on, and you're willing to state it as a certainty, might as well go ahead and secure the financial future of the club by picking up some Powerball tickets.
Click to expand...

I guess thats where I just never got to... I have never, even as a huge Braves homer trusted the suits as telling me anything other than what they want me to believe.

Heyward wanted 350 Million? Thats probably what they wanted me to think.

Markaikis was the best FA we could sign? Ditto.

I don't take direct quotes other than direction with any salt, much less a grain or two.
 
Braves1976 said:
Did you finally get to see La Stella at third today? :)

clvclv's ST 2015 La Stella at third base scouting report:

Assertion: http://www.chopcountry.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3097&page=59&p=200400&viewfull=1#post200400

Truth: http://www.chopcountry.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3097&page=86&p=202275&viewfull=1#post202275.
Click to expand...

So I said La Stella can't play 3B - who cares? I still say he's not good over there - or at 2B to be honest. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that since Joe snickered "he's not going to win any Gold Gloves at either position" yesterday during the broadcast. Maybe we're the only two people on the planet who think he's not a very good defender, but my guess is that he heard it from someone other than me.
 
Much of the criticism here is on point, very fair and justified. But I remain mystified that anyone has a problem with the Braves signing Markakis.
 
rico43 said:
Much of the criticism here is on point, very fair and justified. But I remain mystified that anyone has a problem with the Braves signing Markakis.
Click to expand...

cost us the #1 pick. I believe that has been the reasoning behind the critique. He helps us in years when it doesn't matter and doesn't help us in years when it does matter. Note that I am summarizing a view that I don't necessarily subscribe to.
 
rico43 said:
Much of the criticism here is on point, very fair and justified. But I remain mystified that anyone has a problem with the Braves signing Markakis.
Click to expand...

Really? In general I think my outlook on the future of the team is rosier than that of most posters in this thread, but I feel like the one thing everyone can agree on is that the Markakis signing has never made any sense.

He'd be a fine addition to a winning team with its core already in place, but on a team that's truly rebuilding, he doesn't add anything aside from giving us one spot in the lineup that isn't painful to watch. At $11 million per year he was never going to be a bargain, so it's not like you could hope to trade him later on for some nice rebuilding pieces. I think the best justification you can make for the signing is that there wasn't much else to spend that money on, but a) I don't think that's a particularly good justification and b) I'm sure the FO could've found a creative way to spend the money that improved the team's future more than 4 years of Nick Markakis.
 
rico43 said:
Much of the criticism here is on point, very fair and justified. But I remain mystified that anyone has a problem with the Braves signing Markakis.
Click to expand...

I still think the decision to sign him was a head-scratcher. My recollection is that this was the majority opinion of the media, insiders, etc. Has it worked out better than most of us thought . . . yes. And it could work out very well if he keeps performing at currently levels and is traded int he next 6-8 months. Seems to be a near certainty that at least one of Markakis / Inciarte will be traded before OD 2017.
 
rawwr said:
Really? In general I think my outlook on the future of the team is rosier than that of most posters in this thread, but I feel like the one thing everyone can agree on is that the Markakis signing has never made any sense.

He'd be a fine addition to a winning team with its core already in place, but on a team that's truly rebuilding, he doesn't add anything aside from giving us one spot in the lineup that isn't painful to watch. At $11 million per year he was never going to be a bargain, so it's not like you could hope to trade him later on for some nice rebuilding pieces. I think the best justification you can make for the signing is that there wasn't much else to spend that money on, but a) I don't think that's a particularly good justification and b) I'm sure the FO could've found a creative way to spend the money that improved the team's future more than 4 years of Nick Markakis.
Click to expand...

Assuming he keeps producing, he's actually quite tradeable. Will he bring back a Top 50 prospect? Probably not, but that doesn't mean he won't bring back a nice piece or two. If we're going to continue our history of giving SPs forever to prove that they're not SPs, a couple of live pen arms from someone else's system that our front office isn't so invested in would be quite welcome IMO.
 
rico43 said:
Much of the criticism here is on point, very fair and justified. But I remain mystified that anyone has a problem with the Braves signing Markakis.
Click to expand...

My issue with it concerns roster creation, application of limited assets (money), timing (both with the player and with the team) and management vision.

1. If you are trying to create a team that is at least presentable in MLB, that team has to have some power output, especially HR power. You have limited places where that power can be brought in, either through signing or trade or through open positions on the team in Atlanta. For instance, you aren't bringing in a 30 HR hitting catcher because there aren't any and if they were they would be unavailable. Markakis has never been a big power threat guy, even playing in a power league in mostly hitters parks.

2. From a money standpoint, it made no sense either. The contract that he is on isn't insane but it is money that could have been better spent elsewhere especially considering that the team was going to rebuild. When you go into a rebuild, you should spend your money on an asset that is going to be a long term cornerstone for your franchise (Markakis wasn't that) OR that you can trade easily for a big return given the right circumstances (Given his lack of power and questionable health, Markakis wasn't that).

3. Markakis is a nice additive part for a loaded team that needs that final part to get over the hump, but the Braves are a long way away from the hump. He also could be a good veteran add in the mold of Sid Bream for a team that is full of young guys at the MLB level who are on the verge of competing but need a little veteran presence to show them how its done over the long haul as a professional, but the Braves were nowhere near that. Markakis was coming off major surgery. His hometown team, who has a Greek owner who loved Markakis, didn't make an offer.

4. The Braves brought Markakis in, then immediately began to rebuild. To me, that was a clear lack of vision on the part of management, a ready, go, set form of action. Signing Markakis makes no sense when taken into context that the team was rebuilding. So, I conclude that they signed him BEFORE they decided to pull the plug which shows a lack of vision and timing.

I don't "hate" Markakis as a player or person. I just don't see the fit with the philosophy or timing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top