iamshack

Way to keep your poise there Gavin, after getting in a bit of a jam and bringing up the League's best hitter this season and striking him out for the second time.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 08:38 AM) I don't understand. You won't change your mind because an obstinate, arrogant GM won't admit he was wrong about a stiff he picked up in a trade? I hope Gavin Floyd makes me look bad. Up to now he makes Jaime Navarro look like a Cy Young pitcher. In the meantime, any other pitcher with Floyd's track record would have been dumped a long time ago. What a train wreck of a season this has become. Whether you were in favor of the trade Kenny made to acquire Floyd or not, I don't know, but I am assuming that's where you believe the arrogance came in. Because if you believe it's arrogant to still throw the kid out there after a rough 14 innings with this ballclub, I absolutely think it would be arrogant not to throw him out there more. This ridiculous notion that Floyd should not be given more chances this season has picked up steam and started rolling downhill on this website, just as some of the other nonsense that gains popularity around here, such as Javy being a bum, or Brandon McCarthy being the second coming of Jesus. THERE IS NO BETTER OPTION. We acquired him because we thought there was still a possibility he could pitch in this league. Let's give him a real chance now while the games don't mean a thing.

QUOTE(JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 03:53 PM) i know there is a lot of blame to go around but specifically a guy that came into the season something like 20-25 games over .500 its well out of the norm that he would be 5-14 at this point in the year Actually, this could have been done, but we blew it. If we would have come out of the all-star break and won a lot of the games we threw away, we very well could be 7 games back right now. Instead, Jenks blew two games, a couple other games were thrown away, and we're still 12 games back. The Tigers have been in a free-fall the past 2-3 weeks, the Indians have been very inconsistent. The Twins are still hanging around because of them. I believe 87-88 wins could very well win this division. Unfortunately, what we are doing is too little, too late. Unless of course......naw....

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 03:43 PM) How many times do I have to tell you that Schuerholz book is not my first exposure to the Braves? Field okay teams in the Comedy Central, one World Series team, one really good team that he should've fortified (06), and not much else. Oversee terrible drafts, make some bad trades, stand pat at the two thousand seven deadline, and curse out Frank Thomas. I understand you've been exposed to Schulerholz before. But you didn't raise him or the Braves organization in EVERY SINGLE POINT YOU TRY TO MAKE in the past. Over the course of the past 2-3 weeks, every post of yours starts out as "John Schulerholz....," or "The Braves organization...." I'm not the only one calling you out on it either. You've been hanging from Schulerholz's balls every day for the past 2-3 weeks. I don't find it coincidental that it happens to occur at the same time as you've just finished his book. I don't fault you for that- I've been excited about a good read and went and told all sorts of people about it as well- but I think it's clearly skewing your judgment and it's also a case of you remember what you saw or thought of or read last. And that was it. As for Kenny and his teams in the AL Central, you aren't going to try and tell me that the NL East was some powerhouse throughout the Braves run, are you? Give me a break.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 10:55 AM) Why don't people understand that a General Manager's ultimate goal is to win a World Championship but that alone doesn't determine whether or not he is a good or great General Manager? Stoneman's a very good GM. His refusal to make a splash on the trade market isn't to my liking but he is a great GM. Absolutely. By the way, do you think Kenny Williams could build anything resembling a contender with a sub-60 million dollar contender and after having to dump almost all of his big money players? Epstein's fairly good, but I have trouble admiring the work of someone whose financial resources are so much higher than almost everyone else's. Jocketty is a damn good GM. What do Jocketty and Stoneman have in common? They contend every year. You can't have a 200million payroll and be heralded because almost any GM could do a good job with that much money because all you have to do is buy up superstars. And Garagiola was good, but he was essentially a one-hit wonder. Good for him, though, to pick up Johnson and Schilling. Good for him and us. I'll always treasure 2005, but his work before and after is terrible and the organization isn't looking up. What do you mean that team had no holes? The offense was weak and the bullpen overachieved more than we can say. I didn't go into 2005 saying, "Thank God we've got Politte!" No. He did a fair job that year but before and after, he's just not very good. Listen to yourself. You know everything right now! Because you've read a book! You're able to tell us who is a good GM and who is not, and you're only mentioning the ones that have won World Championships! Give me a break, broseph. I find it humourous that you say Jocketty and Stoneman are both great GM's because they compete every year....what the hell has Kenny done? I'll bet his record stacks up fairly similarly to the Angels and the Cardinals over the past 7 years. And Stoneman? Ask some Angel fans what they REALLY think of Stoneman. I have two friends that are both Angels fans, and they run a website similar to this about the Angels, and they tell me how much it sucks to have a timid GM and how they only wish they had a GM with brass balls like Kenny. Now granted, the grass is always greener. But the point is Stoneman could have supplemented several of his "competing" teams EVERY year by trading some spects and instead, he's refused and now many of those prospects have declined dramatically in value. I understand you recognized that fact, but it is a HUGE part of the GM's job- to evaluate his team at the trade deadline and to fortify it for the stretch run- just huge. That is probably more his job and his responsibility than is the drafting of all these great prospects... You're selling Kenny short big time, and it's because you're frustrated with the current situation. We are not as far away right now as many of you would like to suggest, we've just had everything that could go wrong, go terribly wrong this season. But all is not lost...

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 07:12 PM) I knew plenty about Schuerholz' tenure. A few specific things about the clubhouse and his time in Kansas City, no, or Ligtenberg, but the man is simply amazing. Who's exaggerating his accomplishments? I didn't exaggerate s***. Kenny's GM book could be interesting. Any GM's would be interesting, sure. But I'd highly recommend Schuerholz to you, since he's the one who wrote it and was asked to, while I doubt that nobody will ever ask KW to write a book about his time as GM of the Chicago White Sox. I really would beg to differ.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 07:01 PM) I've always admired Schuerholz. And I finished it quite a bit ago. What would KW write about? "Jon Adkins was supposed to be a stud. Floyd too. Blame Duane! Borchard? Blame Duane!" I don't think KW's book would be half the book that Schuerholz' is because 1. He doesn't have the years 2. He doesn't have the success. Might be worth a good read if he writes about the conversations he's had with Frank Thomas over the years! I think you exaggerate Schulerholz's accomplishments because you didn't really know much about them prior to reading the book. The opposite would go for Kenny's. Not comparing the two, but Kenny has done some things as well. I'd love to hear plenty of stories Kenny could tell about moves he tried to make or didn't make....

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 06:03 PM) The way I see it, a good General Manager is a man who can build or rebuild an organization so that they are genuine contenders and can replenish themselves for several years. He is a man who sets a tone conductive toward success -- read about the Braves clubhouse and operating rules in Schuerholz' book, and you'll know what I mean. He is a man who hires the right scouts, makes the right moves and signs the right free agents. He can deal with great change -- as Schuerholz did when his payroll was lowered by twenty million dollars. He can deal with sudden injuries -- as they did in 2005, particularly. He has built an organization that can deal with all sorts of catastrophies and he can evaluate talent. Billy Beane is a damn good GM. Terry Ryan is a damn good GM. John Schuerholz is a good GM. Anyone can string a championship together, but not a lot of GMs can sustain success. And that's not about Kenny Williams or anyone else. That's just the way it is, and I think, in baseball, I'd prefer fourteen years of great seasons and one championship to what we have or what almost everyone else has. I'd prefer it to what Bankee fans have. Very few people have had to deal with as many challenges in this game as he has as GM of the Braves and he's met all of them. Schuerholz is the one that lured Maddux away from the Yankees at the last minute, by the way, and great starting pitching wasn't all they had from those three. Over the years, he's dealt with them leaving and he's acquired all sorts of players to fill all sorts of voids. Take Kerry Ligtenberg -- Schuerholz picked him up in a shrewd trade with an independent league for a bag of balls and a box of bats. No s***! He was told that this kid had a sharp arm and picked him up. After a year, he closed thirty games out for the Atlanta Braves. They simply know how to coach, draft and scout, and all that can be attributed to Schuerholz. Judging Schuerholz by what they do after Maddux and Glavine left is fine. Maddux left after 04 and Glavine after 02. They survived those departures. They survived when Smoltz HAD to move to the bullpen. Schuerholz is simply a shrewd GM who deserves all the credit in the world for their sustained success, and I'm sure they'll continue to be fine as long as Schuerholz is around. I appreciate your admiration for the franchise. However, I think were you to read a book Kenny will write in the future, you will learn a lot about him and our franchise you aren't aware of. Certainly the Braves are a wonderful franchise. But you're also smitten because you're reading the guy's book right now. It's pretty apparent.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 03:40 PM) Well, that's why I was talking about the Schuerholz Braves, which have won one in seventeen years but their division so many times and been to the playoffs almost every damn year. They can give away a ton of talent in a trade and still have plenty in their system. They always have young players who can come in and work the future. They respect the game and have a fine stadium and their commentators are good, too. Honestly, I respect your opinions, and I agree, the Braves' accomplishments under Schulerholz are probably unparalleled in all of professional sports. However, there is no denying those division titles will always come along with the immediate retort of "they only have one championship to show for it." And while the playoffs is every team's goal, that usually comes with the idea that the odds of winning a championship would be greater than what, one in fourteen? I cannot guess which I would prefer: A perennial playoff baseball team that can never seem to finish the job, or a team like the Bulls, who suffered a terrible rebuilding process for eight years but also managed to win six titles when they were a dynasty. I think I'd chose the latter. I hate comparing baseball to basketball, because there is far more certainty involved in the postseason for basketball teams, but strictly from a fan's viewpoint, it has to be incredibly frustrating to reach the postseason fourteen years and only come out on top once. One last point is that I think when one thinks about those Bulls championship teams, one immediately thinks "well they had Jordan and Pippen and Grant for the first run, and Jordan and Pippen and Rodman for the second run. Do you think those Bulls are a model for the NBA? Absolutely not. This team Paxson has built is far more a model for building a team than the team Krause built (although he is often given credit for adding great role-players). And the same goes for the Braves of the 90's and early 00's. Most people immediately think "they had three hall of fame pitchers on their staff. What team couldn't win division title after division title with 3 HOF'ers?" As another poster said, the key is what they do now, without two of those HOF'ers and as their team grows longer in the tooth. I know I will judge Schulerholz more based on what he does without those guys than what he did with them. Only time will tell.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 03:09 PM) That says average to me, at best. I'll say this: Konerko is thirty and plays like he's thirty four. He hasn't got too many good years left, and he's a prime "Trade him for good value before you're stuck with him at a bad value" candidate to me, but besides that -- I guess I've got to laugh at your Schuerholz crack. It's a cute rib. And since I make jokes about the players Kenny Williams thinks he can make into studs all the time, I guess it's well-played. Except for the fact that I gave him plenty of credit for his picks which are the only thing he does particularly well, so it was "accounted for all the errors he's bailed his infielders out of." Range is not really that huge of a factor at the corner infield positions. More important is reaction time, which Paulie seems to be just fine with, despite his incredible lack of speed while running. The statistics which have been listed show that he tends to be average to above average, and considering how important it is for a first basemen to pick errant throws out of the dirt, and how much more frequently such a skill comes into play than plays which require great range, I think it's fairly evident that he is an above average defensive first basemen. Offensively, Paulie is sixth among all mlb first basemen in home runs, eleventh in runs batted in, eighth in doubles, and twelvth in slugging this season. Over the last three seasons, he is third in home runs, fifth in runs batted in, and eleventh in slugging. He is certainly not the premier first basemen in the league, nor is he a spring chicken. But given his relative health over the past few years, and the length and dollar amount of his contract, he's certainly not someone you're looking to dump. I agree with you, he could be had if I was GM for the right price, but his identity on this club and with this organization makes it a tough sell for the fans.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 12:35 PM) He is absolutely above average. A couple years ago I'd have said GG caliber (not now though). Let's look at some numbers. Among all MLB firstbasemen... 8th in FPct 12th in ZR 15th in RF There are 30 teams. He is average or above average in each of those three categories. And oh yeah, he is 4th in games played at 1B, so he's doing that while playing just about every day, despite being an older player. He is, and has been, an above average defender at his position. ETA: That isn't even to mention the intangibles - he is a smart player, and makes very few mental mistakes (which don't always show up in the stats). Agreed, maybe Schulerholz said PK was bad in his latest book. And that's not even accounting for all the errors he's bailed his infielders out of this season.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 07:08 PM) That KW is one of the top GMs of this franchise isn't a testament to how great he is. It's a testament to how bad this organization's history is. If only we could all be like John Schulerholz and the Braves....

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 06:34 PM) Good job holding down the fort DA. Whatever.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 04:03 PM) Amazing what great effect his good outings in 2006 had on his 2007 performance. You're absolutely right. Bullpen pitchers are volatile from year to year. But I suppose you would rather see the guy we have signed to a multi-year deal suck because Haeger should take his spot. I think Haeger should probably take Ozzie's spot, and Kenny's spot, and Jerry's spot too. Maybe Rob Neyer would agree.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 02:32 PM) And he gets replaced on the roster with MacDougal who is averaging a walk an inning this season. Please. Good to see Mac looking good here. We'll need him for next year.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 03:39 PM) As I have posted before, when you have actually paid to see Gavin Floyd pitch more than once, you don't ever want to do it again. Try watching the alternative you are suggesting.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 03:35 PM) 125 innings isn't enough, so I'm sure 175 won't be enough either. I think Floyd has to be in the rotation until at least 2010 putting up these lousy numbers before you considered removing him. You just don't get it. And you never will. This season is lost. There is no one extremely deserving of getting starts in our minor league system right now. We traded for Floyd because we believe he has potential. He has put up the best numbers in AAA this season. Whether we win or lose any games he pitches for the remainder of the year has little affect on the team. However, next season, I believe we can be comptetitive. All of our games will be important to try and win in the beginning of the season. I want no part of Floyd pitching next season if he has shown this season he can not get it done. In my mind, this organization will not be in a position to let him "take his lumps" next season, and so I would be fine with giving up on him after this season. But for right now, we are in a position to let him try and make progress.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 03:32 PM) I really think you're stretching, iamshack. I still think Gavin Floyd has a shot to be the statistical worst pitcher in MLB history. How many more starts do you give him, if he continues to pitch at a 10.00 ERA this season? Say each start from here until september he gives up 6 ER in 5 IP...you just let him keep pitching and pitching? Where do you draw the line? I let him pitch ALL season long. These games mean absolutely nothing to us. And there is no one who is knocking down the door to get starts here. There is absolutely no downside if he gets shelled, other than that he obviously is probably never going to figure things out. But as far as the performance of the team, it really doesn't matter.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 03:30 PM) So pitching well in meaningless games means you can count on him when the pressure is on? I give up. Your argument is weak and you've lost it.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 03:28 PM) That's a good point about Jackson. 3 games out of 6 he's pitched well. Floyd actually had 1 inning last start where he didn't give up any runs. No, the point is that teams stuck with Jackson long enough to allow him to make that progress.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 03:27 PM) Didn't Jackson also have an injury? No significant injuries. He's just struggled to throw strikes at times.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 03:13 PM) On the flip side, you would never be able to rid yourself of a pitcher because 125 innings of getting clobbered is not enough for you to judge one by. Its a case by case with me. Floyd doesn't have anything as far as "stuff" that is all that impressive. He can't throw his breaking ball which does have decent movement for strikes. AAA hitters swing, major leaguers don't. His fastball is ordinary and pretty straight. Until this season, his AAA ERA was around 6.00. No, under my logic, I would rather find out if Floyd can realize his potential during meaningless games in a lost season than to give up on him too early and have his potential wasted. Under your theory, at worst, we lose a few games and Floyd catches on somewhere else and becomes an effective pitcher. Under mine, we lose a few games. Period. If we operate under your parameters, we probably cut our Postseason ace (Contreras) loose before he becomes that. Under mine, we lose a few meaningless games. Big difference.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 03:18 PM) but see Jackson had a 5.46 ERA (three seasons in the NL, one in the AL, sound familiar?) for his first 112 innings of MLB experience from 2003-2006 - almost 2 runs of ERA better than Gavin Floyd has in almost exactly the same timeframe and innings It's a decent example, but Floyd is still worse, and considerably, measurably so. Jackson was the laughing stock of the AL for the first half of 2007...is that really what we have been reduced to? Gavin Floyd might very well go down as the worst pitcher in major league history in terms of statistics... Let's get something clear here. There is no difference between a 5.46 ERA and a 7 ERA in the major leagues. None. It's not good enough. Neither will get it done. And as far as making the leap from pitching to a 7 ERA, compared to a 5.46 ERA, it's extremely negligible. The adjustments necessary between a guy that posts a 5.46 ERA and becomes an effective major league starter and those for someone who posts a 7 ERA are pretty much the exact same. As for Jackson, he is very close to turning the corner. He may be the laughing stock now, but in 3 of his last 6 starts, he's given up 1 run in 18 innings. Granted, he has been shelled in some other outings in those last 6 starts. But the logic is that there is not THAT much difference between any major league team. If he can shutout two teams for six innings and give up one run for six innings against another team, he should be able to be an effective pitcher against any other team. He just has to fix what is necessary for him to be more consistent.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 03:10 PM) [/quote Last I checked the organizations they struggled with in the big leagues initially didn't give up on them. You can't say the same thing about Floyd. I've already stated that the Phillies did not give Floyd the opportunity he deserved because they were not in a position to. They were consistently fighting for a postseason birth. Perhaps if the Phillies had been in the position the Cubs were with Maddux, the Braves were with Smoltz and Glavine, or the Tigers were with Bonderman, they would have given Floyd more consistent starts and he wouldn't be in the position he is now. But guess what? We are in the position where we can give him consistent starts now and so he should be given the chance finally. As for Floyd's stuff, I'm sorry DA, but scouts have always thought Floyd had good stuff. The Phillies' scouts, our scouts, and scouts from plenty of other organizations. As recently as two months ago, we were told that Floyd had the best stuff of anyone in our minor league system. No disrespect intended, but I believe those people far more than what you claim after seeing him for a grand total of about 15 innings.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 03:07 PM) Wrong again. I loved the trade when it happened despite what Baseball Tonight had to say. Jeff Brantley in particular. I never could get the image of Contreras dominating White Sox hitters in September of 2003 out of my mind. I've always been one of his biggest supporters even when a lot of people wanted him gone in 2005 and wanted Burnett in Chicago. I'm not so much questioning your personal memories as I am your logic. Under your logic, we should have dumped Jose after 04'. Or AT LEAST after the first 8 starts or so of 05'.