Viz and Teheran listed as top trade candidates

Southcack77 said:
I share their skepticism. I think the Braves should hold on to a big asking price and keep him if they don't get it. But I'm fully prepared for this ace business to come back to earth.
Click to expand...

This is where I am to the tee pretty much. I think we should keep him if we don't get a nice hitting prospect with a solid chance of being an impact player, but I expect Julio to be a solid #2 starter/borderline #1 going forward, not an Ace.
 
Carp said:
Of course there are no guarantee to win a WS, but certainly there are ways to assemblw a team that is better suited for a deep playoff run. The Cards, Giants, and Royals consistently going deep into the postseason isn't just pure luck.
Click to expand...

Eh, to some degree it could be. The main thing the Cardinals and Giants have been good at, in particular, is getting to the postseason.

But yes, it absolutely is possible that in a sample size of what amounts to 4-6 years or so, luck has played a big part.
 
smootness said:
Eh, to some degree it could be. The main thing the Cardinals and Giants have been good at, in particular, is getting to the postseason.

But yes, it absolutely is possible that in a sample size of what amounts to 4-6 years or so, luck has played a big part.
Click to expand...

Luck can certainly play a part, but to attribute the majority of one's success in the postseason to luck just seems to totally discount team construction and strategy. In general, laying your money down the more fundamenally sound team is the much safer bet (which the Giants, Cards, and Royals all tended to be). The Royals played great defense, pitched well, and were great on the basepaths. You could literally see how they were able to take control of a game last postseason, especially in close and late games. Again, nothing is guaranteed, but you can certainly increase your odds.
 
auyushu said:
Well that's the thing, they had good pitching performances, but were going against superb pitching performances. We had many games those two pitched where they went 6-7 innings and gave up 2-4 runs, and lost 4-3, 3-2, 2-1 against other teams Aces. That's certainly not all on them of course, but Glavine being a contact pitcher was not a benefit in the postseason. Maddux himself had a respectable postseason ERA, but his postseason ERA was much worse that his in season ERA during our postseason stretch (He was a dominating Ace during the regular season, but pitched more like a low end #1 in the postseason). It's certainly not the only reason we only won one WS title, but it's a big contributing cause.

One of my biggest disappointments with JS was his trading strategies in our late 90s and early 2000s years left much to be desired. I fully believe if he had traded for Schilling rather than Ashby back in 2000 we'd have at least one more WS title. JS always doled out or prospects for minor upgrades rather than going for it when we had our players in their primes. Then of course at the end of the run he went 180 degrees in the opposite direction and made all in trades when we didn't have a legit shot.
Click to expand...

Seriously, go look at some of the scores. Glavine would lost 3-2 and the pitcher the next night would win 7-3. So often it was run support or bullpen. And those are beyond the control of the pitcher.

And sometimes the pitcher on the other side would be Tim Wakefield or Sterling Hitchcock. It's not like they were always losing to Roger Clemens or Curt Schilling.
 
Carp said:
Luck can certainly play a part, but to attribute the majority of one's success in the postseason to luck just seems to totally discount team construction and strategy. In general, laying your money down the more fundamenally sound team is the much safer bet (which the Giants, Cards, and Royals all tended to be). The Royals played great defense, pitched well, and were great on the basepaths. You could literally see how they were able to take control of a game last postseason, especially in close and late games. Again, nothing is guaranteed, but you can certainly increase your odds.
Click to expand...

But if the Royals happened to have a stretch where they struggled to score, which happened at times last year, in the playoffs they would have been gone. I think the most important thing for a team is to build into a team likely to make the postseason and win as many regular season games as possible. I think avoiding the WC game and putting together a good, complete team gives you a better chance once you hit the postseason. But we've also seen plenty of cases lately where playing in the WC game doesn't seem to hurt your chances of winning a WS. I think that's mostly luck and a small sample size, but the playoffs are a crapshoot to a large degree.

I mean, the Cardinals have won 2 WS titles since 1982. One of those years, they won 83 games. The other, they won 90. Yes, I do think it's more about luck and chance that they ended up winning it those years than that they were just built to succeed. You may disagree, but those are my thoughts.
 
Southcack77 said:
Seriously, go look at some of the scores.
Click to expand...

I did, that's why I was listing all those names in my original post. Like I said, it wasn't the only reason, but it was a contributing cause. And our bats did fail us many a time, but we spent most of our money on pitching, so that is what you expect to carry us.
 
auyushu said:
I did, that's why I was listing all those names in my original post. Like I said, it wasn't the only reason, but it was a contributing cause. And our bats did fail us many a time, but we spent most of our money on pitching, so that is what you expect to carry us.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that the starting pitching generally did enough over the years to give the Braves a chance to win. So they probably got their money's worth out of that. Was their problem they money that they well spent, or was it perhaps misallocating the remaining dollars? Not sure.

All I can say is I don't think starting pitching was the Braves problem at all in the postseason.
 
bravos4evr said:
if he is he's doing it wrong. I am sick of dealing with such a group of fuddy duddy idiots. you pathetic morons are a disgrace to braves fans and I sincerely hope most of you die soon, and your offspring so you don't spread your ****ed up genes around. I don't have time to waste talking with idiots. sorry, I just don't, and boy are many of you grade A idiots. (I should have been clued in when the king of white trash stupid KB21 was here, that guy makes down's syndrome kids look brilliant)

so bye bye, and go **** yourselves
Click to expand...

You need Jesus in your heart.
 
The-Internet-Funny-Tough-Kid-Image.jpg
 
Tapate50 said:
Got to wonder if Kiley leaving for a job with is has caused them to be less neutral on our guys?
Click to expand...

I never been huge FG fan. Even when Kiley was there. So them saying that really does nothing for me. I am 140% fine with JT sticking around. He is a competitor. He always out pitches his FIP and other advance stats that FG uses as their bible. The red sux can go into the playoffs with their crap rotation. That is fine. The Rangers can hold off hoping they get healthy in enough time to even make it. I enjoy the fan reactions at the end of year griping about not making a move. They will be the fans of course who also said x pitcher wasn't worth x prospect.
 
smootness said:
But if the Royals happened to have a stretch where they struggled to score, which happened at times last year, in the playoffs they would have been gone. I think the most important thing for a team is to build into a team likely to make the postseason and win as many regular season games as possible. I think avoiding the WC game and putting together a good, complete team gives you a better chance once you hit the postseason. But we've also seen plenty of cases lately where playing in the WC game doesn't seem to hurt your chances of winning a WS. I think that's mostly luck and a small sample size, but the playoffs are a crapshoot to a large degree.

I mean, the Cardinals have won 2 WS titles since 1982. One of those years, they won 83 games. The other, they won 90. Yes, I do think it's more about luck and chance that they ended up winning it those years than that they were just built to succeed. You may disagree, but those are my thoughts.
Click to expand...

Again, it's more about consistently going deep into the playoffs than necessarily WS wins. Of course there are no guarantees, but there are certainly teams that are better built for deep playoff runs. The Yankees and Braves of the 90's weren't lucky that they had several WS appearances.
 
auyushu said:
This is where I am to the tee pretty much. I think we should keep him if we don't get a nice hitting prospect with a solid chance of being an impact player, but I expect Julio to be a solid #2 starter/borderline #1 going forward, not an Ace.
Click to expand...

We've been through the ace debate. Does it really matter? He's the braves ace and that does matter. There aren't a lot of quality pitchers like Julio ready to go just yet in our system. I do agree that if we don't get the impact hitter keep him.
 
Carp said:
Again, it's more about consistently going deep into the playoffs than necessarily WS wins. Of course there are no guarantees, but there are certainly teams that are better built for deep playoff runs. The Yankees and Braves of the 90's weren't lucky that they had several WS appearances.
Click to expand...

But again, this comes down to just making the playoffs, IMO. Since 2000, the Cardinals have made the playoffs 12 times. That is why they've been able to have some playoff success.

They won 0 series 3 times in that span and won just 1 4 other years. One of the years they got to the NLCS, they beat the Braves 1-0 in the WC game to start it (luck, IMO). That accounts for 8 of those 12 years. They haven't been going deeper in the postseason during this run than the Braves did during theirs (and while you are using the Braves as an example of a team that went deep often, keep in mind there are some here using the Cardinals as an example of how to build a postseason team more effectively than the Braves during that run). They've made the WS 4 times in those 12 years. That is great, but it's just not a big enough sample for me to think that the reason they made it that many times is due to much more than chance.

The Giants have made the playoffs just 6 times since 2000. Two of those years, they won 0 series. The other 4 times they made the WS, once after winning the WC game 1-0. That is a crazy % but again, to me it's more about chance. I just don't believe that a team designed to consistently go deep into the postseason can't even get there 9 out of the last 12 years.

And the Royals made two straight WS. That's great, but I'm going to give it a bit more time before accepting that they're built better than several other teams in that span.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top