We have one of the worst MLB teams right now

[sturg33]

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.

Posts like this is why you have a reputation for thinking the FO is infallible.

Wood was a 2-3 WAR pitcher when he was traded. He was young. He was a lefty. The pither we traded (not the ace he is now), would be the best pitcher on our staff by a healthy margin.

Why aren't we close to competing? Because we don't have any pitching.

We traded a YOUNG, CHEAP, LEFTY for a 30 year old injury prone player without a single at bat during a rebuild. That is catastrophically stupid.

Oh, and to say that Kemp and Olivera money wash out is simply not true. I believe we are paying Kemp $11M a year is my memory serves, even when you factor in the Olivera money.

 

[sturg33]

I'm not going to defend the HO trade, as it was a bust, but we did get Wentz out of it.

We got a pick that turned out to be Wentz... We didn't trade him for Wentz. Remember, it's about the process, and odds are that pick doesn't result in anything meaningful at the MLB level.

Wentz may turn out to be something. Odds are, we'll be ecstatic if he has half the career that Wood has already produced.

And one could argue (I wouldn't, but many on here have), that Wentz cost us getting Kyle Lewis.

 

[Enscheff]

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.

The point is that the Braves shouldn't have guys like Markakis and Kemp producing for them. They don't need these veterans to guide them to 68 wins. It is a waste of money and playing time, period.

They should have more players like Adonis producing for them. Trying Adonis was a good move, keeping him for so long was not. They should have been trying to uncover more diamonds in the rough with all this free playing time they had due to being noncompetitive. Instead, they gave all that playing time to declining veterans, the team was still bad, and the Braves gained zero benefit from playing them.

Identifying a single "late bloomer" in his mid/late 20s would have been infinitely more valuable than anything the Braves got out of any of the short term veterans they have used the last 3 years. They weren't even able to trade any of those veterans for anything worthwhile. Giving out a series of 1 year "prove it" contracts to guys coming off injuries or down years would have been preferable as well.

Additionally, every single prospect they have promoted has flopped so far. Jace, Rio, Blair, Wisler, Folty, Swanson, Albies, Newk, Sims, and on and on. They were all decent/good/great prospects, and for some reason the Braves can't seem to get them going at the MLB level. The Braves are almost exactly the opposite of the Cards lately in that regard.

Why is that? Why are all these good prospects failing? How exactly does that give anyone confidence the next batch of prospects will be any better?

Is the answer really, "the next wave of prospects are better"? I don't buy that. The recent flops have all been Top 100 or better guys, and the Braves haven't been able to extract MLB value from any of them.

That is a problem, whether or not the pozzies want to admit it.

 

[smootness]

The point is that the Braves shouldn't have guys like Markakis and Kemp producing for them. They don't need these veterans to guide them to 68 wins. It is a waste of money and playing time, period.

They should have more players like Adonis producing for them. Trying Adonis was a good move, keeping him for so long was not. They should have been trying to uncover more diamonds in the rough with all this free playing time they had due to being noncompetitive. Instead, they gave all that playing time to declining veterans, the team was still bad, and the Braves gained zero benefit from playing them.

Identifying a single "late bloomer" in his mid/late 20s would have been infinitely more valuable than anything the Braves got out of any of the short term veterans they have used the last 3 years. They weren't even able to trade any of those veterans for anything worthwhile. Giving out a series of 1 year "prove it" contracts to guys coming off injuries or down years would have been preferable as well.

Additionally, every single prospect they have promoted has flopped so far. Jace, Rio, Blair, Wisler, Folty, Swanson, Albies, Newk, Sims, and on and on. They were all decent/good/great prospects, and for some reason the Braves can't seem to get them going at the MLB level. The Braves are almost exactly the opposite of the Cards lately in that regard.

Why is that? Why are all these good prospects failing? How exactly does that give anyone confidence the next batch of prospects will be any better?

Is the answer really, "the next wave of prospects are better"? I don't buy that. The recent flops have all been Top 100 or better guys, and the Braves haven't been able to extract MLB value from any of them.

That is a problem, whether or not the pozzies want to admit it.

The answer is two things:
1) It is way, way too soon on several of the ones you mentioned to say anything definitive.
2) Yes, the next wave really is better.

Jace was never going to be anything more than a utility player. Ruiz was a decent prospect at the time of the trade and then never became more, he wasn't expected to do anything at the major league level. And he still has a shot anyway. Sims didn't develop the way we hoped, and now he just is what he is.

So that leaves Blair, Wisler, Swanson, Albies, and Newcomb. It is far too early on Swanson, Albies, and Newcomb. And Wisler and Blair look like busts. So out of all the names you mentioned, you found 2 who were good prospects who look like they won't be anything. Great?

You have a tendency of listing a ton of things or players in an attempt to make things look as bad as possible for the FO. Is it a bad thing that the Braves reached their payroll floor by bringing in veterans with some name recognition while moving into a new ballpark instead of running out there with 5 Adonis Garcia's? No, not really, except in the case of Kemp where it will cost us money for several years. But you paint that as a ridiculous move and pile that onto other similar things, and you try to use it as evidence the FO keeps doing dumb things. Then you do the same by listing out a bunch of names of players, several of whom were either never likely to be much or who have just barely begun their MLB careers.

Again, your post history indicates you are just as biased as a lot of the people you incessantly bash on here.

 

[TheBravos]

While Enscheff is on the negabrave side when it comes to prospects (many of the first prospects like Rio and Jace were not expected to be much)...he is dead on about signing and trading for vets like Nick and Kemp. That money should have absolutely been tied up in one year "prove it" type deals. We were going to be bad anyway.

Phillips is the perfect type of player we need as a vet. Kurt is another great example.without Nick and Kemp, we could have signed some young guys to "prove it" deals and maybe struck gold. I'll just never understand those deals, but maybe they are learning their lesson.

 

[smootness]

While Enscheff is on the negabrave side when it comes to prospects (many of the first prospects like Rio and Jace were not expected to be much)...he is dead on about signing and trading for vets like Nick and Kemp. That money should have absolutely been tied up in one year "prove it" type deals. We were going to be bad anyway.

Phillips is the perfect type of player we need as a vet. Kurt is another great example.without Nick and Kemp, we could have signed some young guys to "prove it" deals and maybe struck gold. I'll just never understand those deals, but maybe they are learning their lesson.

I agree I would rather have had us go that route. I disagree that it really means much outside of Kemp's contract. We almost certainly have a payroll floor set by Liberty anyway, so spending $11 million on Markakis is probably not close to the bad decision many have tried to make it out to be.

Sure, Phillips was a good signing. He also costs $1 million. Hard to reach any kind of payroll floor like that.

 

[Enscheff]

The answer is two things:
1) It is way, way too soon on several of the ones you mentioned to say anything definitive.
2) Yes, the next wave really is better.

Jace was never going to be anything more than a utility player. Ruiz was a decent prospect at the time of the trade and then never became more, he wasn't expected to do anything at the major league level. And he still has a shot anyway. Sims didn't develop the way we hoped, and now he just is what he is.

So that leaves Blair, Wisler, Swanson, Albies, and Newcomb. It is far too early on Swanson, Albies, and Newcomb. And Wisler and Blair look like busts. So out of all the names you mentioned, you found 2 who were good prospects who look like they won't be anything. Great?

You have a tendency of listing a ton of things or players in an attempt to make things look as bad as possible for the FO. Is it a bad thing that the Braves reached their payroll floor by bringing in veterans with some name recognition while moving into a new ballpark instead of running out there with 5 Adonis Garcia's? No, not really, except in the case of Kemp where it will cost us money for several years. But you paint that as a ridiculous move and pile that onto other similar things, and you try to use it as evidence the FO keeps doing dumb things. Then you do the same by listing out a bunch of names of players, several of whom were either never likely to be much or who have just barely begun their MLB careers.

Again, your post history indicates you are just as biased as a lot of the people you incessantly bash on here.

So it is your contention that the poor results from every single prospect promoted over the last 3 years is not a reflection of something wrong with the Braves management? You can find a justification for every single one of them being bad, even if that justification is as lame as "it's too early"?

Shouldn't one of these guys came up and produced immediately? At least one? Just out of sheer dumb luck?

I suppose not. I suppose every single prospect producing nothing at all to this point is to be expected. Nothing wrong here everyone. All is well in Braves-land.

 

[TheBravos]

I agree I would rather have had us go that route. I disagree that it really means much outside of Kemp's contract. We almost certainly have a payroll floor set by Liberty anyway, so spending $11 million on Markakis is probably not close to the bad decision many have tried to make it out to be.

Sure, Phillips was a good signing. He also costs $1 million. Hard to reach any kind of payroll floor like that.

Wasn't saying Nick's contract was that bad, rather just made zero sense for us to sign him. Even if it was a 2 year deal ...but 4?? Sheesh.

 

[smootness]

So it is your contention that the poor results from every single prospect promoted over the last 3 years is not a reflection of something wrong with the Braves management?.

No, I definitely don't. What are you suggesting they've done wrong, exactly, with respect to those who have played in the majors? Did they develop them poorly? Did they pick the wrong ones?

It is likely small samples, combined with bust likelihoods, combined with bad luck.

You think this somehow poor management. Guess we'll know for sure in 3-4 years.

ETA: And Dansby did produce immediately. Heck, so did Camargo. Guess we managed him well. Managed Matt Adams well, too.

 

[auyushu]

Shhhh...don't mention that - everybody was hoping it wouldn't be noticed!!!

More like most realized we picked Muller 4 picks later, so we could have easily drafted Wentz then if we didn't have that pick. Guess it's hard to say whether we draft Muller or Wentz if we had to choose one, but given the Phils were going hard after Gowdy and the other two teams went barely above slot with their picks, it's safe to say Wentz would likely be there.

But either way, you judge the process, not the results. And acting like trading a #3 starter with upside for a 1st round sandwich pick is a good move is pure lunacy. And acting like only Wood's parents could have possibly thought he could be this good when he had a career ERA under 3.50 at the time of the trade and had a 2.78 ERA in 2014 is just pure BS.

 

[Southcack77]

The Braves traded Alex Wood because they didn't believe and felt like he would be injury prone. The year after they traded him he missed 2/3 of a season.

Granted, it is a little strange that a team that was trying to play both sides of the coin would trade a player with control through 2019, but I would imagine they felt he was an ok pitcher who would probably get injured and have a short prime. They may or may not be right about that, but a season like this, which is outside of all reasonable expectation, will tend to make you look bad.

 

[Southcack77]

I think a lot of people forget that the primary purpose of a major league baseball team is to sell tickets and provide a product to the fans.

They exist for no other reason.

They can exist for no other reason.

 

[Chico]

I think a lot of people forget that the primary purpose of a major league baseball team is to sell tickets and provide a product to the fans.

They exist for no other reason.

They can exist for no other reason.

Yes, there are some that forget major league baseball is an entertainment sport. The front office has stats they have to look at on the business side just like they do the production side. The average fan that actually goes to the games and buys their kids jerseys does not even know what War and Exit Velocity are.

 

[Chico]

But not having Matt Kemp in general would make us closer to competing

If we stil had Olivera we'd have him for 3/22.5 for 18-20. Kemp is costing us 2/38.5 for 18 and 19. That's a difference of 2/16. If we signed a vet fill in for LF for 2/16 people would not be so up in arms over it.

Now, would I like to be able to shed that contract. Of course I would, but I'm not going to claim that is the reason we're not comepeting.

 

[Southcack77]

If we stil had Olivera we'd have him for 3/22.5 for 18-20. Kemp is costing us 2/38.5 for 18 and 19. That's a difference of 2/16. If we signed a vet fill in for LF for 2/16 people would not be so up in arms over it.

Now, would I like to be able to shed that contract. Of course I would, but I'm not going to claim that is the reason we're not comepeting.

The biggest positive about the Kemp trade is it cleared Oliveira's salary (which I think was the biggest payout?) from the 2020 payroll.

It also did provide the club with some offense and name recognition that was somewhat credible.

But I really do think that merging the Kemp and Oliveira trades is misleading. The Padres simply agreed to eat a large portion of Kemp's salary to move him. They did that in the form of Oliveira's contract. There really isn't any real connection to acquiring Kemp and Oliveira beyond that. It isn't one move that forced another.

 

[sturg33]

We turned our 4 yr $30M obligation into a 3 yr $54M obligation

Horray?

 

[Southcack77]

We turned our 4 yr $30M obligation into a 3 yr $54M obligation

Horray?

Not a good deal. Never said it was a good deal. Hated it immediately even when people were talking positively about it.

But if you look at it as a payroll restructuring move for a team that wasn't going to be a contender the biggest positive is its cuts an 8.5m dollar obligation from the 2020 payroll. That's a minor positive.

I feel like they needed to cut two years off to make it worthwhile. If Atlanta was done with Kemp in 2018, I think it would have been a much better deal. In fact, I might think it was a good one.

As it is, I think they devoted too much payroll for too long to Kemp. But, I do think they could eat Kemp's contract (or most of it) and still field a competitive team in 2019.

 

[Chico]

The point is that the Braves shouldn't have guys like Markakis and Kemp producing for them. They don't need these veterans to guide them to 68 wins. It is a waste of money and playing time, period.

They should have more players like Adonis producing for them. Trying Adonis was a good move, keeping him for so long was not. They should have been trying to uncover more diamonds in the rough with all this free playing time they had due to being noncompetitive. Instead, they gave all that playing time to declining veterans, the team was still bad, and the Braves gained zero benefit from playing them.

Identifying a single "late bloomer" in his mid/late 20s would have been infinitely more valuable than anything the Braves got out of any of the short term veterans they have used the last 3 years. They weren't even able to trade any of those veterans for anything worthwhile. Giving out a series of 1 year "prove it" contracts to guys coming off injuries or down years would have been preferable as well.

Additionally, every single prospect they have promoted has flopped so far. Jace, Rio, Blair, Wisler, Folty, Swanson, Albies, Newk, Sims, and on and on. They were all decent/good/great prospects, and for some reason the Braves can't seem to get them going at the MLB level. The Braves are almost exactly the opposite of the Cards lately in that regard.

Why is that? Why are all these good prospects failing? How exactly does that give anyone confidence the next batch of prospects will be any better?

Is the answer really, "the next wave of prospects are better"? I don't buy that. The recent flops have all been Top 100 or better guys, and the Braves haven't been able to extract MLB value from any of them.

That is a problem, whether or not the pozzies want to admit it.

I do believe the Cardinals are one of the best ran organizations in baseball, but in the last 2 years their fans have been complaining about as much as you do. Grichuk has been up and down as much as Wisler. Wong has been down 2 or 3 times and then publicly complained about it. Diaz was sent back down after his breakout performance this year. Piscotty was sent back down and recently recalled. Pham is killing it this year as well as Dejong but fans ahve wondered if they'll be the next to ahve the sophmore slump and be sent back down.

I think we're way too quick to call prospects flops or studs. They are kids. You let them play knowing there will be ups and downs.

 

[smootness]

I do believe the Cardinals are one of the best ran organizations in baseball, but in the last 2 years their fans have been complaining about as much as you do. Grichuk has been up and down as much as Wisler. Wong has been down 2 or 3 times and then publicly complained about it. Diaz was sent back down after his breakout performance this year. Piscotty was sent back down and recently recalled. Pham is killing it this year as well as Dejong but fans ahve wondered if they'll be the next to ahve the sophmore slump and be sent back down.

I think we're way too quick to call prospects flops or studs. They are kids. You let them play knowing there will be ups and downs.

The thing is, even Enscheff has acknowledged this and said guys like Dansby and Albies will be fine. But then he'll come back and use the same small samples he laughs at others for using and try to use that to advance his viewpoint.

 

[Hudson2]

Lol at calling Swanson and Albies busts