Latest Topics

[Ocho]

I have heard a lot of people express concern about our rotation, but honestly I don't think that will be a problem for us. I love the guys in the rotation, and believe in all of their potential to be great. The only one that really concerns me is Minor, but if he pitches like he did the second half of last year all should be well. What I am really concerned about is our lineup. You guys remember how we played without Chipper last year? It was awful. I guess I just can't get away from the idea of him as the cog that turns this machine. Also, BJ and Justin concern me, I am sure you guys are aware of this, but Turner just seems to be a place hitters come to die. Unless your name is Carlos Ruiz, then you are going to hit a bomb every time your in the damn park. Also, I don't feel like Simmons is a true lead off hitter. I could  be wrong in that, but I just don't think he will be that guy thats always on base from that spot.

All that said, I am still hoping for great things. Oh, and I miss Prado still.

[Tider27]

Chainsaw Massaquoi, on 14 February 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

Out of curiosity how has it ruined it for you?

To me it's no different than the season ending with a natural 1 game playoff.

With divisions worth a shit, you can't simply "just win it and you're in". Teams like your Yanks and Red Soxs won't stay down even if they are some how. They pay their way to the division championship, simple as that.

All this does is make the road harder for the smaller market teams, unless you want to take that liberal view of "at least they have a chance". No reason to argue it, it's the way baseball has been for a while now when it comes to money.

A 1-game playoff is an atrocity to a 164 game season, a real slap in the face.

[Chainsaw Massaquoi]

StallingsBaldSpot, on 14 February 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

What about teams that play in terrible divisions?

I mean all things equal, your argument is valid. Problem is, all things are NEVER equal. It was like the year that the Pats missed the playoffs while winning 11 games and the AFC West winner got in at 8-8.

If you want more teams in the playoffs, lose the WC and go to 4 divisions. But that will never happen.

?

How would your second sentiment fix your first?

The Rays (90 wins) finished ahead of division champs Detroit (88) but finished behind wild card Texas (93). It happens.  The Rays finished behind the Yankees and Orioles.  It's the nature of the beast of baseball to me.

[Chainsaw Massaquoi]

Tider27, on 14 February 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

With divisions worth a shit, you can't simply "just win it and you're in". Teams like your Yanks and Red Soxs won't stay down even if they are some how. They pay their way to the division championship, simple as that.

All this does is make the road harder for the smaller market teams, unless you want to take that liberal view of "at least they have a chance". No reason to argue it, it's the way baseball has been for a while now when it comes to money.

A 1-game playoff is an atrocity to a 164 game season, a real slap in the face.

I thnk that's a bit of stretch to say its a slap in the face.

That's true but it's not true about the Yankees payroll.  I'm not an idiot, yes, they're going to out spend everyone typically (theyre actually #2 in payroll this year behind the Dodgers) but up until recently all of those big money contracts were to home grown players.  They also led home grown players among playoff teams two years ago. They paid to keep talent in house.  Overspent one would say.  Jeter, Rivera, Pettitte, Cano, Gardner, Hughes, Robertson, Joba.  That's 70M right there alone.  And that figure has gone down over the years since Posada and his 15M are gone, Pettitte is making 16 any more, Jeter isn't at 22 and Mo isn't at 15.


Hey, the Yankees don't buy everyone.  They traded for Granderson

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

The only way the extra wild card will EVER make any sense is if it is:

1. At least a best-of-three series, if not best of 5
2. We go back to a balanced schedule where everyone faces the same teams the same number of times.

It's bullshit for an AL Central team, for example, to get to face the Royals, White Sox, Astros, and Twins while an AL East team has to face the Yankees, Rays, Jays, Orioles, etc. and then those two teams are competing for the same playoff spot. It isn't fair or balanced and if it isn't fit for Fox News, it isn't fit for baseball.

[Chainsaw Massaquoi]

Neil Caudle is Superman, on 14 February 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:

The only way the extra wild card will EVER make any sense is if it is:

1. At least a best-of-three series, if not best of 5
2. We go back to a balanced schedule where everyone faces the same teams the same number of times.

It's bullshit for an AL Central team, for example, to get to face the Royals, White Sox, Astros, and Twins while an AL East team has to face the Yankees, Rays, Jays, Orioles, etc. and then those two teams are competing for the same playoff spot. It isn't fair or balanced and if it isn't fit for Fox News, it isn't fit for baseball.

It's cyclical.  Not too long ago the East was crap outside of Boston and New York and the Twins and White Sox were playoff teams and the Central was considered the toughest in the AL.  

Look at NL East.  One could argue that outside of Atlanta and Washington it's crap.

But that's the beauty of baseball.  It's so unpredictable.  Who would have figured that the A's would have won their division, the Angels would miss the playoffs, the Nats would Have the best record in baseball and Boston would finish in the cellar?

That's like when MLB floated the idea of rearranging the divisions in the AL because of the Boston/New York East dominance.

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

Chainsaw Massaquoi, on 14 February 2013 - 10:50 PM, said:

It's cyclical.  Not too long ago the East was crap outside of Boston and New York and the Twins and White Sox were playoff teams and the Central was considered the toughest in the AL.  

Look at NL East.  One could argue that outside of Atlanta and Washington it's crap.

But that's the beauty of baseball.  It's so unpredictable.  Who would have figured that the A's would have won their division, the Angels would miss the playoffs, the Nats would Have the best record in baseball and Boston would finish in the cellar?

That's like when MLB floated the idea of rearranging the divisions in the AL because of the Boston/New York East dominance.

Oh I know, and I like that different divisions become stronger and weaker and all of that, but I don't like unbalanced schedules at all. At the most I can understand maybe one extra series with each of your division opponents but as is we have 6 series with each division opponent and 2 with everyone else. It's overkill.
The division shakeup idea was atrocious and would have actually been worse than the second wild card, but the second wild card is still bad.

[Chainsaw Massaquoi]

What about the projected Braves order?  MLBTV put it up the other day


1. R - Simmons
2. L - Heyward
3. R - J Upton
4. L - Freeman
5. R - B Upton
6. R - Uggla
7. R - Johnson
8. R - Laird
9. Pitcher

[StallingsBaldSpot]

Chainsaw Massaquoi, on 14 February 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

Out of curiosity how has it ruined it for you?

To me it's no different than the season ending with a natural 1 game playoff.

Because we have a better record? And it wasn't even close.

[HobnailedBoots]

Chainsaw Massaquoi, on 14 February 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

I thnk that's a bit of stretch to say its a slap in the face.

No, it's not. It's a slap in the face to the entire purpose of the regular season. They play 164 games to determine the best teams, and then Bud Selig decides that to "make it more interesting," we're going to say those 164 games don't matter. It doesn't matter if the team that would previously have locked up the wild card is ahead of team B by 10 games, they have to go to a 1 game playoff. Why? It makes absolutely no sense. It serves no purpose to determining the best team, because the season has already done that. It serves one purpose only: to try and get TV ratings, and rule changes that are put in place solely for the purpose of increasing ratings are seldom good for the game.

Edited by HobnailedBoots, 15 February 2013 - 08:37 AM.

[UAdan]

Here's the grades I'd give our roster coming into spring training.

Starting rotation: B+

I'd consider our starting rotation in the upper half of NL rotations, but I wouldn't call it elite. Sure, we have the 'potential' to finish as one of the top two or three rotations in the league statistically, but I think it's more reasonable to expect us to finish anywhere from 5th to 7th in those categories. Which isn't "bad" by any means.

Medlen is obviously going to regress SOMEWHAT from the last two months of last year, but I still think he's going to establish himself as one of the NL's better arms. Tim Hudson will be Tim Hudson. Any regression he has won't be tremendous. He's been too steady of a performer to just drop off completely. Paul Maholm is another guy, sorta like Tim, that will give us strong starts more often than not. Hardly dominating, but we can pretty much expect that he'll give us a chance to win most of the time. The two X-factors, imo, are Mike Minor and Julio Teheran. Minor obviously improved, perhaps more than anyone on the team - from April to September of last year. The question is, can a guy who gave us three months of really good pitching do so for five or six months this time around? As for Teheran, I am not ready to give up on him, especially after reading about how the coaches have re-tinkered with his delivery back to the way in which he found tremendous success a few years ago. The greatest concern for me is overall starting pitching depth. I'll post more on this later.

Bullpen: A+

There isn't a better one coming into camp than what the Braves possess. You start with The Rocketman, Craig Kimbrel. The game's single most dominating pitcher in the present day. But even outside of him, the depth and firepower is amazing. Elite left-handed relievers are on the wish list of a lot of MLB teams, yet the Braves once again have not one- but two of them in Eric O'Flaherty and Jonny Venters. Both should be primed for more success in 2013 after being used much more efficiently by Fredi G in '12. Add in the biggest non-Upton offseason move in Jordan Walden, and we now have a power righty arm that can touch the mid-90s and offset the two lefties. At the front end of the 'pen, we have more balance and depth...with lefty Luis Avilan, righties Cory Gearrin, David Carpenter and Cristhian Martinez.

There is not a single guy in this 'pen I'd feel uncomfortable with in the game. The Braves don't have an elite rotation, but they WILL have the ability to shorten games after 6 innings. If our starters can just do that...give us 6...then it's lights out about 95% of the time for the rest of the way.

Lineup: A-

We all know Turner Field is the place where sluggers go to die, but I seriously feel more optimism about the upside of this year's lineup than what I have in a while. Firstly, I think this could be the first year in which Jason Heyward emerges as a potential MVP-caliber player. He has seemingly found a balance at the plate in terms of discipline and power, and he's about to take off. Freddie Freeman is a smart young hitter who also took his game to another level last year, lowering his K rate and increasing his BB rate mid-season. As much as we all dogged Mac, he's (hopefully) going to be healthy this year and I think that means more numbers like what we saw in 10-11 instead of 12. Like Minor for the rotation, Dan Uggla is the X-factor for the lineup. His performance is going to determine a lot. He'll still walk and have a good OBP, but will he be the putrid .220s hitter he was for most of last year, or can he bring that up to the .240-.250 range and turn out the 25+ HR power he displayed the last several years prior to last year?

Now add in the Upton element. What does this give us? Outstanding upside. I already talked about how Heyward gives us a guy who is entering his potential as an MVP-caliber player. Justin Upton already has proven that he IS that kind of a player. The thumb injury slowed him last year more than what people realize, and I think getting out of Arizona will do wonders for his psyche. He's the kind of all-around talent that could hit for 30+ HRs, get on base at a .350 +clip and be the legitimate right-handed force that fits perfect between the lefty bats of Heyward and Freeman. BJ, on the other hand, is less of a certainty than Justin...but still young enough at 28 to regain what he did in Tampa a couple of years ago. Namely, I hope to see his BB% back up to 11% like it was in 10-11, which ultimately would boost that OBP back to the .330 range. BJ is probably going to be our greatest base-stealing threat, and he obviously has what it takes to crank out 20-25 dingers with the bat as well.

I don't think so much pressure should suddenly be placed on Simmons to hit leadoff, but the kid proved a lot of us wrong last year with how he came out and hit at this level. The Juan Johnson platoon-thingy at third base is our weakest spot of the lineup, but even it has what it takes to do better than league average in terms of overall production. I'll take that from the 7th/8th spot of the order. Juan has power, Chris Johnson can hit the ball to all fields at a pretty good clip. They won't necessarily be black holes in the lineup.

Bench: B-

The reason I'm not rating this any higher than a mediocre B- right now is because it's undecided at this point. Here is what we know:

Gerald Laird is the backup catcher. He's not David Ross, but I think he at least gives a VERY young team a veteran clubhouse presence and he can hold his own behind the dish. There are worse backup catchers for other MLB contenders. I won't nitpick here. One of either Juan Francisco or Chris Johnson will serve as the backup third baseman, so there's another bench lock. Reed Johnson will serve as the backup OFer and hopefully might see some spot-starts versus tough lefties. Another steady vet who is reliable. Loved that we brought him back.

Those are the three locks, and those guys are pretty solid bench options. What weighs the grade down to a B- is that we are undecided at the other two spots. We still need a backup infielder, which will likely be Ramiro Pena or ultimately Paul Janish...both who are versatile defensively and can do work with the glove, but are pretty much awful at the plate. The final spot is probably either a backup outfielder or a guy who can also play some first base. Looks like this will come down to either Jose Constanza or possibly Evan Gattis. I'd like to see Gattis make the roster, but I'm very concerned with our lack of a left-handed bench bat. Juan was that guy last year and now we're using him in a semi-starting role. Ramiro is a switch-hitter (but a poor hitter from either side), and then there's Georgie, but everyone else I've mentioned in the bench is right-handed.

Overall grade: A-

We are a team with few glaring "weaknesses", only uncertainties in some areas...such as the bench and starting rotation. I still feel like top-to-bottom we are one of the best teams in the league, on paper. We know the games aren't played on paper, but you have to feel good about the roster Frank Wren has assembled for us. Our rotation will be better through the subtraction of weak links such as Hanson, Jurrjens, etc. Our bullpen will probably be even better than last year, as hard as that is to believe. Our lineup has a higher ceiling than last year, even with losing Chipper, Prado and Bourn. Our bench might be slightly worse, but even that is grasping at straws when it's not even filled out yet.

That's just how I see things right now.

[Colonel Black Bear]

HobnailedBoots, on 15 February 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

No, it's not. It's a slap in the face to the entire purpose of the regular season. They play 164 games to determine the best teams, and then Bud Selig decides that to "make it more interesting," we're going to say those 164 games don't matter. It doesn't matter if the team that would previously have locked up the wild card is ahead of team B by 10 games, they have to go to a 1 game playoff. Why? It makes absolutely no sense. It serves no purpose to determining the best team, because the season has already done that. It serves one purpose only: to try and get TV ratings, and rule changes that are put in place solely for the purpose of increasing ratings are seldom good for the game.

All change is bad.  But I am from Mississippi so.......

[UAdan]

Chainsaw Massaquoi, on 15 February 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

What about the projected Braves order?  MLBTV put it up the other day


1. R - Simmons
2. L - Heyward
3. R - J Upton
4. L - Freeman
5. R - B Upton
6. R - Uggla
7. R - Johnson
8. R - Laird
9. Pitcher

In a perfect world, I'd like to see BJ have an awesome spring and prove he can get on base at a good rate. I would love to see him have his walk rate at 11% again and his OBP at .330 ish...I love Simba as much as anyone else but I still feel like moving him from 8th to 1st in the order after, what, less than 200 at-bats? I feel like it's way too rushed of a move.

I would love to see this:

BJ
Heyward
Justin
Freeman
Uggla
Francisco/Johnson
Simmons
Laird
Pitcher

and when Mac is back...

BJ
Heyward
Justin
Freeman
Uggla
Mac
Francisco/Johnson
Simmons
Pitcher

[UAdan]

Fredi jokingly (or not so jokingly) called out Rev and Jordan Schafer for not being early arrivals to camp. Sure enough, they were two of the earliest arrivals this morning for full-squad workouts.

[UAdan]

Heyward is built like an NFL linebacker.