We have one of the worst MLB teams right now
- Thread starter PurpleBrave
- Start date
So should they be relying on young players, or should they be holding them back until they're competitive to avoid wasting service time?
The board has suggested holding 3 players back due to service time concerns.
Nice straw man attempt though.
Or maybe you just read what you want to hear into some of them.
No one's made the first effort to paint the brass as "infallible". Several people have, however, pointed out that they understand some of the logic behind several moves they've made that others howl are huge "mistakes". They've done things everyone can question, but they've yet to make a major mistake - every bit of the talent that has been piled up is still here - and until they do, they don't quite deserve the venom they get from some around these parts. Do we really need to go back through all the earlier threads and point out everyone who called them "idiots" for starting Allard and Soroka in AA? Maybe we should go back and quote everyone screaming about how nuts they were for pushing Acuna?
They're going to make a mistake at some point - one that's likely to be bigger than pushing a few of the kids a bit to see just how fast they can come. Hopefully it won't be a major one. The thing about most of the criticisms is that they're correctable to a point - if Ozzie continues to struggle, they can send him back down to make some adjustments and work on some things. The same thing for Swanson, Acuna, and all the young Pitchers. As long as they don't give up on them too soon and trade them, they haven't committed any huge blunders.
Spending money on stopgaps they put in place isn't a mistake so much as it's an effort to improve the on-field product until they think some of the long-term answers are up for good as a business decision. Some of these bigger names cost a few million bucks (Kemp, Markakis, Phillips, Garcia, and Dickey), but having those names was quite a bit more exciting for your average fan than Brett Anderson, Gordon Beckham, Doug Fister, Kelly Johnson, Jeff Francoeur, etc., and they certainly don't want to take the chance that Liberty decides to freeze payroll at some point that keeps you from actually acquiring a piece they may need when they're closer to being competitive.
Jim Johnson for two years was a mistake, sure. As big as the front office haters will make it out to be? Of course not. Colon? Obviously. Go back through all those old threads and find how many people screamed they knew that was coming - bet you don't find many. As for HH's complaint about asking for "near-ready" talent when trading off assets, let's not kid ourselves - every organization in MLB asks for the same. Some of them certainly haven't panned out as well as hoped - Wisler and Blair are the ones that jump out at first, but until he takes another step you can put Folty in that group as well. The funny thing is that all those guys were Top 50 prospects very close to the time they were acquired. They just haven't reached the heights some of the experts around here expected them to, so now the brass screwed up. It's part of the job and goes with the territory, and they're compensated well for having people question their every decision.
They've done more good or "right" than bad or "wrong", but they aren't infallible - we can start going back through all the old threads and find out that the same can be said of pretty much every poster here.
So don't acquire vets on short term deals and don't play rookies...Gotcha. That makes sense
Ok, so we signed Nick to a 4 year deal 3 years ago. I agree that was strange. The company line is it was for team leadership. I think it was to lessen the blow of trading Heyward. Either way that's not something that has set us back, IMO. The HO trade was dumb. I agreed with the premise as it was to sell high, get a draft pick and have a cleanup hitter to have a respectable lineup. That was a fail, which caused the Kemp trade. We could have eaten the money on HO and moved on, but it allowed us to get Kemp for close to what he is worth when factoring in the HO cost. This is alsop to appease the casual fan who is actually buying tickets. I'd argue that the money in the Kimbrel deal was to acquire more young cheap talent like Touki, Minter etc. and also the market for relievers was not what it was then. In hindsight I would have done separate deals. It is ironic that the 2 worse deals we made had a draft pick attached to them. That doesn't scream rush the rebuild, that screams rebuild through the draft.
I guess we have very differing views of "rushing the rebuild" as we are not signing guys to long term deals and we are not trading away any prospects. There are some mvoes I disagree with looking back, but I don't think they support your rallying cry very well.
Yes. They are not infallible and not every move has been good...(as has previously been posted)... but to say there has been more bad than good because we have 10 of the top 100 instead of 12... Okay, if that is what floats your boat.
I didn't say their attempt to be respectable has been a complete success. There have been some guys not do what was expected of them. However... each season there have been times when we have seen glimpses of where they are headed, and been able to get excited for at least a few weeks. They have generated interest and signaled to the fans that they are progressing. They have done this while continuing to sell assets when it made sense a (and when there was a market for said assets). Unfortunately, some of the veterans have not cooperated, and there has not been a market for them. Too bad, but there has still been more good than bad, and they have shown the fan base, most of whom are not as analytical as those on the board, that they are trying to get better.
The road to competitiveness is rarely a straight line, but they are continuing to head in the right direction.
sturg33
I
They've yet to make a major mistake???
There is a 25 year old left handed pitcher starting to tonght for the Dodgers, who is 14-1 with a 2.30 ERA.
In exchange, we got a guy who is out of baseball.
In exchange for him, we got a guy who is the 2nd highest paid player on the team to provide negative WAR for two more seasons beyond this one.
sturg33
I
This is blatantly false... whether you judge the process or the results, there are mistakes than good decisions.
I'm not going to defend the HO trade, as it was a bust, but we did get Wentz out of it.
It's just an extremely odd argument to on one hand say we're dumb for calling up certain young guys and then turn around and say it's terrible we don't have more young guys contributing.
I'm with you on holding those guys back for service time reasons. I am not with you on somehow equating a lack of rookies contributing to 'we're in bad shape moving forward'. Call up Albies sooner, call up Acuna, call up Gohara, leave Ruiz up and start him, etc., and you suddenly have much more production from young guys.
Our top guys are still in the minors for the most part.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
I think the logic in 'young guys contributing' is not calling up Acuna, but calling up Rojas Jr. instead. Would it have been better just to dump HO and have Rojas Jr in RF and some other scrub in LF.. financially, it think it would have been better. I remember when Jake Cave was available in the rule 5. Jake/Ender/rojas (or any other scrub) would have been infinitely better OF for our long term future, than our current position.
There have been mistakes, but having Rojas Jr. contributing instead of Matt Kemp would not in any way be a more positive signal that we are getting closer to competing.
And sure, there will always be guys like Cave that we will miss on, as will every team in baseball. I wish we had him, but you can always single out specific instances like that. And that's still not a guy who would in any way show we are closer to competing.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
like Strug said, it is not Rojas > KEMvP.. it is not having that contract to deal with. We could have waived bye to Rojas anytime we wanted.. he could be replaced by Acuna.. he could be replaced by someone younger who we pay 18 million a year. either way, having him in LF over Kemp and simply dumping HO would have been wiser. and I am not a negi brave either.
And we shouldn't have missed on Cave. there were many on this board who wanted him before the draft took place. including myself. He would have been infinitely better than anything we had on the bench to start the year.
That's an entirely different discussion, though, than the one Enscheff was attempting to have. He equated a lack of production from young guys with length of time away from competing. He said we should be relying on young guys and said the lack of results from young guys was 'unsettling.'
Sure, I wish we didn't have the Kemp contract. But you can also replace him with someone else who is old and costs way less, and that still wouldn't help our production from young guys. I can't imagine he meant Mel Rojas Jr. as the kind of guy who would ease our concerns were he in the majors.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
I dropped the ball on Cave. Reds took him before we picked and then retardedly sent him back to the Stankees.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
maybe I butted in without reading all the posts or the article. my bad..
Shhhh...don't mention that - everybody was hoping it wouldn't be noticed!!!
In general, most of our big trades have been average to bad. We have (to this point), drafted well. That is the life blood of this rebuild. Bottom line....even with the bone head HO trade...we are further along if so many of the prospects we traded for didn't bomb out or under achieve.
We are still ok if we stay the course. A lot of talent will be up between 2018-2019. I just hope they don't panic and trade away prospects that are almost ready at this point. They have waited this long...might as well see it thru.
We are still ok if we stay the course. A lot of talent will be up between 2018-2019. I just hope they don't panic and trade away prospects that are almost ready at this point. They have waited this long...might as well see it thru.
And when you find the first person that ever predicted those results for Alex that isn't a direct relative - Mom, Dad, brother, sister, or wife - you can pat yourself on the back. Nobody wanted to include him if they could have avoided it, but they had to. At the end of the day, the Olivera deal turned out to be Wood for Wentz - we traded other pieces (Johnson , Avilan, and Peraza) for Olivera, and then spun Olivera into Kemp. The Olivera/Kemp money winds up being a relative push since the Dodgers paid his $28 million signing bonus.
Was Wood for Wentz a mistake? Quite possibly, but I wouldn't call it a dismissable offense given Alex has NEVER been remotely this good and we're nowhere close to knowing what Wentz is. A mistake, maybe, but calling it a "major" one is getting the cart ahead of the horse a little bit.