Seasons like the one now ending leave their mark on the psyche. They create baggage, in real mass, that we who care must carry around for an indeterminate time.
Arguably, this burden can take many forms and some weigh a lot more than others and, likely, last longer. After a long string of losses you can be kinda numb to any more, never entirely of course, but enough to soldier on..
It seems though that the personal hurts more. And lasts longer. Alex Wood and all that. The rookie never allowed to be a rookie, with us at least. The mighty – or not quite so mighty – slugger with the body of a God, the local boy who when you see him in red the pain starts all over again. And Jonny Gomes – nothing in numbers but everything to have around… KC? seems obscene…and i like the Royals, and we got Fernando’s son…did we?
We have a bunch of hard headed stats guys on this board and are lucky to have them. They remind the rest of us what we should know and don’t. I wonder if their detachment from the personal is greater than others? The romantic, the sentimentalist is always going to be a basket case when his favorite is shipped out. Are their tears saved only for a low BABIP or does the loss of the man himself hurt too?
In either event farewell to them all. We couldn’t have done it without you. Almost though!
Vale.
Jonny Gomes
Once a Brave, now searches for homes
In Kansas City, far and wide
Where he and his beard now reside
@Stu from last thread:
I want to talk “coherent aggression” for a second. Specifically in the case of Olivera. Let’s assume they were really high on Olivera (the fact that he’s a 30 year old with a multiple seasons-killing blood disorder and half a torn UCL notwithstanding) – let’s just assume he’s really good and he’s the target among players available last offseason. Let’s also assume that the “$120 million” Hart quote that Sam referenced was potentially true and not just a sop to help shore up season ticket sales.
Do you, coherently aggressive rebuilder with an alleged modest budget,
a) pay the offseason cash-only price for Olivera, which when combined with your other moves still keeps you under your self-imposed cap, or
b) wait for someone else to pay the freight, then get him at a “discount” by surrendering 4 seasons of Wood and 6 seasons of Peraza?
This is what I’m talking about. b) makes no sense as a superior option if you’re executing a long-term plan. b) is the province of people making it up as they go and/or being cheapskates and/or viewing their personnel through an animus against the last boss.
Alex Wood is a three-win cost-controlled pitcher now and into the projectible future, including the promised 2017. The rest of this bunch, Olivera included, are scratch-off lottery tickets.
I’m focusing on that transaction because we have at least some idea of who the principals are in that deal, and the logic is really troubling. The minor leaguers… who knows, no one’s been good at the MLB level so far but that doesn’t mean they won’t be in the future. Doesn’t mean they will be, either. But so far I’m pessimistic, and inclined to view this FO as the type of arsonist who wants to get credit for being a heroic firefighter.
(To tie the Olivera transaction into the original comparison to the stadium construction, the thing they have in common is these guys are always on the lookout for someone who will pick up the tab for them, heyyyo.)
From the last thread:
“This was exactly the plan for 2015. Coming in last is crucial for the rebuild. They may have been surprised by the .500 record and decided they needed to throw gasoline on the smoldering embers that were left of the team, hence the trade deadline deals. My guess is they thought they’d be 20 games out by the break and wouldn’t need to send everyone packing.”
So what you’re saying is… that your theory is that the Braves front office decided to trade Alex Wood, Jim Johnson, Kelly Johnson, Juan Uribe and Jonny Gomes because they wanted the team to lose more?
Like… to you, that’s more plausible than a) They wanted Olivera, b) everyone but Wood was on 1-year deals and they wanted some assets that may become major leaguers, providing six years of control, or might otherwise become trade pieces, and with that in mind, moved those players in the deals that brought back the pieces they thought were most likely to become one or both of those things? You know, like what every team does when it’s a “seller” and trades a veteran to a “buyer?”
That’s your theory? I mean… huh?
@2, Well said
Ryan Weber
I wish I were more cleber
Then I could write you a deserved clerihew
For your hitless innings one and two
@3, I have no freaking idea why they did the Olivera/Wood deal. It makes no sense in this universe or any other.
I do think they expected Kelly Johnson to be kinda bad, and probably thought Uribe wouldn’t do all that much. Those two bats were providing a lot of value in the early summer. Why would you get rid of them if you weren’t trying to lose as much as possible? You got a better explanation?
@6, he wants to make you feel stupid, not have an actual conversation with you, which is why his jumping off point is a strawman that he can portray as ridiculous as possible. But bully for you if you try.
@7, I couldn’t care less what he thinks of me. Sometimes he makes valid points. Sometimes not. If this isn’t something worth talking about then it’ll be quickly evident to all. I actually find the self-immolation of our baseball team pretty fascinating in the abstract. Throwing everyone overboard for lotto-tickets and spare parts is something that gets me fired up.
Did the Braves silence their Spring Training doubters? I mean, they’re competing hard for last place, not fourth.
@8, I think it’s at least plausible that part of the reason for the midseason sell-off was that it might lead to a better draft position. Clearly acquiring middling assets was a large part as well.
@7 Strawman? You know what that word means, right? I quoted his actual words back to him, and he said that, yes, i was reading him right, he thinks they traded Johnson and Uribe because they made the team too good.
@6 Then let me ask you: why did we trade Callaspo for Uribe in the first place?
I submit they made that trade because they anticipated Uribe being a more tradeable asset than Callaspo when the deadline came along.
I already gave you my explanation, but I’ll clarify: Johnson, Uribe and Gomes were all impending free agents. The Braves felt finishing in 3rd place wasn’t appreciably better than finishing in 5th, so they traded expiring assets for controllable assets. Like every team does.
blazon, thanks for the reminder of a book that’s long been on my shelf, unread. Perhaps I’ll take it down tonight.
@12..
thank you, happy for that…i envy you the ‘unread’ bit, it’s one of those you get into and you don’t want it to end…cheers.
None of those trades matter though, as far as the return goes. The best thing you can say about them is that they locked up a top protected pick next year.
he didn’t just say he would like to see Frenchy back in a braves uniform…please no
@11
Jim John-son
we are grateful that for us your swan song
was much superior
to that which you produced in the Chavez interior.
@14 None of those trades matter though, as far as the return goes.
Oh? It’s fascinating to discover that the source of your seemingly endless and irrational pessimism is in fact a magic crystal ball that has revealed that none of the young players the Braves traded for will pan out! You should probably go ahead and contact ESPN et al. and let them know they are wrong to credit the Braves’ minor league system for massive improvement over the course of this year.
oof, another meatball served up
The umpire is calling this game like he has a bus to catch.
I would argue that the value of owning John Gant, Rob Whalen and Luis Valenzuela is more valuable than a) the difference between 3rd and 4th place in this single season, plus b) the 50 additional games of Kelly Johnson and Juan Uribe and the 25 of Jonny Gomes we didn’t get to see, and I’ll grant you that Kelly Johnson, Juan Uribe and Jonny Gomes are really exciting players to watch.
I mean, it’s close enough that I’m comfortable giving the Braves front office the benefit of the doubt and not pin the trades on sinister motives.
For the record, I’m actually fine with the tanking. Once this course was set then tanking is definitely the optimal strategy. We didn’t have to embark on this course at all though, which is kinda my entire reason for being upset.
If you want to give the arsonists that burnt down their own house the benefit of the doubt the by all means do so. I’m just tired of hearing how f’ing smart they all are. We’ve got middling prospects and an unknown Cuban. We lost a year of 3 guys that were the best players at their positions. I’d rather have seen that year play out.
Isn’t there some value, even long-term, in winning games during the present and post-seasonless season? Can someone in the FO come up with a stat that measures the impact on the club’s future bottom line, reduced to present value, of keeping a few players on board for the full season despite knowing those players won’t be back and at best will contribute to a season with 5 or 6 more wins? What am I asking g? I don’t know. This stinks.
Alex, please check your e-mail.
Recapped.