The Requiem for Chuck James
Chuck James was one of my favorite Braves. I even named one of my fantasy teams after him (The Chuck James Show; not very original, I know). He wasn't one of my favorite players in the traditional sense (i.e., he was a superstar playing for my favorite team, like Chipper Jones), nor was he one of my favorite players in the sentimental sense (i.e., a player from my alma mater, a la Huston Street). No, Chuck James was one of my favorite players because to me, he represented the hope of carrying on the Braves' string of championships and playoff appearances.
First, some history. The last starting pitcher the Braves have successfully developed was Kevin Millwood. Kevin Millwood's first full year was 1998. Millwood's best year was 1999, which not so coincidentally, was the last year the Braves made the World Series. He posted this line at the ripe young age of 228 IP, 205/59 K/BB, 2.68 ERA, .996 WHIP, 167 ERA+, 3rd in Cy Young voting. At the time, Millwood was the hope. Unfortunately, he never produced near those stats for the Braves again, and was salary dumped for Johnny Estrada following the 2002 season.
The next year, 2000, was the first for the Braves without John Smoltz in the rotation, and though not felt at the time (they did go one to win 6 more Division Titles, after all), may have been the beginning of the end for the Braves. Why, do you ask? Ever since losing Smoltz from the rotation, the Braves have had a disturbing trend of failing to develop their own young pitching
2001: The Braves try out two youngsters, Jason Marquis and Odalis Perez. Marquis starts 16 games with a respectable overall ERA 3.48 but a disturbing 98/59 K/BB ratio. Perez takes the hill for 16 games as well, posting a 4.91 ERA and a decent 71/39 K/BB ratio.
2002: Perez is included in the deal to LA for Gary Sheffield. Good return. Marquis bombs in 22 starts (5.04 ERA, 1.53 WHIP), thus ending his time in the rotation. He follows Perez out the door following the '03 season. Both have a couple decent seasons for other teams. Damian Moss comes out of nowhere to post a 3.42 ERA and 1.28 WHIP in 29 starts at age 25. Braves management looks at his 111/89 K/BB ratio and correctly trades him. Good. They trade him for Russ Ortiz. Baaaaad. This is also Millwood's last year.
2003: At this point, the Braves had been coasting with Glavine and Maddux still at superstar level (or near it), plus an electric Smoltz as closer. After 2002, due to budget constraints, Glavine bolts for the Mets, and Maddux starts his trend down to league average-ness. Combine that with a dwindling payroll, and young players become tremendously important. Unfortunately, the Braves have no young pitching. Prospect Horacio Ramirez enters the rotation, and promptly throws smokes and mirrors a la Moss. He does happen upon a 4.00 on the dot ERA, but combines that with a horrid 100/72 K/BB ratio. It didn't take revisionist history to know Ho-Ram would turn out to be terrible. How we got Rafael Soriano for him I'll never know. Nevertheless, the Braves think it's a good idea to keep Ramirez in the rotation for the next three years. He doesn't repay their confidence.
2004: Maddux leaves. Ramirez injures himself early in the season. Braves somehow win division with a rotation of Russ Ortiz, John Thomson, Jaret Wright, Mike Hampton and Paul Byrd. Amazing. At this point, the Braves have a few interesting youngsters: Juan Cruz (acquired from the Cubs) and Jose Capellan. Both turn out to be glorified hard-throwing relievers. They also have Dan Meyer, who they use to acquire Tim Hudson (along with Cruz). Capellan is dealt for the corpse of Dan Kolb. Not one of John's finer moments.
2005: The last division title, thanks to the return of Smoltz to the rotation and the introduction of Hudson. Ramirez sucks again, yet somehow gets 32 starts. Youngster Kyle Davies is introduced, and holds his own in 14 starts to the tune of a 4.91 ERA and a 62/49 K/BB ratio. Did I say holds his own? I meant sucks. But he's only 21! He has potential! Uhh, no. They hold on to the playoff spot thanks to a surprise season by Jorge Sosa and the mid-season of Kyle Farnsworth (playoff performance exlucded). Smoke and mirrors, people.
2006: At long last, Chuck James! At this point, the Braves are done. Their hitting is fine; Andruw Jones and Marcus Giles regress, but they're developing young hitters to go replace them. BFFFL's McCann and Francoeur are the next Braves stars. Adam LaRoche (who would be traded at the end of season) has a monster second half. Kelly Johnson and Ryan Langerhans had ok campaigns in left in '05 and '06 respectively. At least one of those turned out well. So where was the problem? Young starting pitching. Sosa turned back into a pumpkin. Davies...stayed one (8.38 ERA...wow, just wow). Johnny Estrada should've never been traded for Oscar Villarreal and Lance Cormier. But the next hope had arrived! It came in the form of Chuck James, who posted absolutely filthy numbers in the minors. Although scouts had their concerns, James didn't disappoint. In 18 starts, he posted a 3.87 ERA with a 91/47 K/BB ratio and a 118 ERA+. He was young (24), left-handed, and feisty. Armed with a decent fastball and a great change, he had potential. After years of crap in a bucket, this was what I was hoping for. With James and Davies, the chance for the Braves to have the young arms they needed yet again. It was not to be.
2007: James showed a little regression, but I still believed. He went 30 starts, posting a 4.24 ERA and a 116/58 K/BB ratio. He had a propensity to give up the long ball, but if he could just develop a third pitch and get his head on straight...Meanwhile, Davies was already out (5.76 ERA in 17 starts) and youngster JoJo Reyes was horrendous (6.22 ERA and 27/30 K/BB ratio in 10 starts). If we were going to turn things around it had to be with Chuck James. We needed the young pitching. I mean, take a look at the perennial contenders from the late '00s: they all had developed young, solid, dependable starting pitchers, from prospects to the majors.
- Angels: John Lackey, Joe Saunders, Ervin Santana, Jared Weaver (with K-Rod to close...simply incredible development)
- Red Sox: Jon Lester, Clay Buchholz (maybe), and Jon Papelbon (who was 50/50 start/close at one point)
- Yankees: Chien-Ming Wang, Joba Chamberlain
- White Sox: Mark Buehrle, Jon Garland
- Dodgers: Chad Billingsley
- Diamondbacks: Brandon Webb
- Cubs: Kerry Wood, Mark Prior (poor guy), Carlos Zambrano
- Indians: CC Sabathia
- Astros: Roy Oswalt
- Twins: Johan Santana, Francisco Liriano
- Phillies: Cole Hamels, Brett Myers
I mean, every team had one! (well, maybe not the Mets.) Surely Chuck James would be ours! Right? RIGHT?!? And so we entered 2008 full of hopes and expectations. Those hopes and expectations would be quickly dashed with the exit of Smoltz and Hudson from our rotation. But to me, the biggest downfall was Chuck James and his 9.10 ERA in 7 starts. James was supposed to represent the future. The hope. Almost every team in Major League Baseball has developed someone of substance for its own rotation (I realize we developed Adam Wainwright, but he never benefited us). Even crap in a bucket teams like he Pirates and Royals have got young, established pitchers other teams want. The Braves? They have Chuck James.
And so we trudge forth, hoping the future will paint a different picture. We have our new hopes in Charlie Morton (2008 nonwithstanding), Cole Rohrbough, and our next big thing, Tommy Hanson. But for all the press and coverage we give for acquiring Javier Vazquez, or for failing to acquire Jake Peavy, or for attempting to sign Adam Dunn, or AJ Burnett, or Rafael Furcal, I'm here to venture it's not going to mean a damn thing unless we develop our own pitching. First off, we've got the lineup. We've shown a tremendous acumen of developing young hitting, and it's still coming (Yunel Escobar being the latest example). But we once manufactured pitching prospects that other teams would want, only to quickly realize they were pieces of coal. But gone are the days of Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. Now we are the team in need of those prospects. And yet, they're still turning out to be pieces of coal. In order to succeed, this needs to change. We need Tommy Hanson (and his motley bunch) to succeed. To prosper. To star. And if not, it's going to be another long climb to the top.
So fare thee well, Chuck James. I had high hopes for you once. May you find second success on another team, a la Jason Marquis. But let us never forget what once may have been, and how the potential of Chuck James turned into 3rd and 4th place finishes.
1 recs |
45 comments
Comments
Big ups ont he Jamaal Charles pic. Go Chiefs…next year.
by SayHeyWerd on Dec 15, 2008 7:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
+1
I will surely miss him. Let’s hope he bouces back and beats the pants off everyone… except the Braves.
by Bmacbandwagon on Dec 15, 2008 9:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Lets not forget
the uber prospects we gave up for a season of now-departed Tex.
Im talking another bone fide #1 in neftali perez. GG SCHUERHOLZ
by mrsoprano on Dec 15, 2008 10:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i hope big joe stabs u in the dick
"We win today, that's two in a row... if we win tomorrow, that's called a winning streak. It has happened before..."
by Swo12bv on Dec 15, 2008 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
its pretty self explanatory… id draw a picture but im not that talented…
"We win today, that's two in a row... if we win tomorrow, that's called a winning streak. It has happened before..."
by Swo12bv on Dec 16, 2008 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
its not really worksafe
BIG JOE SUCK ONE
by bigjoe on Dec 16, 2008 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I forget…what major league stats did they put up last year?
by soup du jour on Dec 16, 2008 9:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
aha
Thats funny, because what stats is Tex going to put up for us in the near future?
Just admit it was a silly trade that had good intentions, but we know better than to mess with Boras clients.
by mrsoprano on Dec 16, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point…NOT
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 16, 2008 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i love the snarky, yet engaging retort.
by mrsoprano on Dec 16, 2008 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Clever, right?
But honestly, if the goal of the trade was to re-sign Tex long term than you would have a point. But the goal of the trade was to upgrade what, at the time, was one of the worst 1B positions in the majors and get an above average lefty for the pen. And that was a great success.
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 16, 2008 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
still doesnt excuse the fact that we gave up the FARM for a rental. Thats not something a club with our budget can afford to do.
This post was about us not brewing homegrown talent on the mound. It looks like we have, with Wainright and Hanson and Feliz, but the problem is 2 of those three were traded away.
And before you say anything about Feliz being POTENTIAL, it would be nice to still have potential, than nothing at all.
by mrsoprano on Dec 16, 2008 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
we didn’t give up THE FARM. if we gave up THE FARM, we wouldn’t have a top 5 system right now
BIG JOE SUCK ONE
by bigjoe on Dec 16, 2008 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We gave up 2 four star prospects (both of whom look like average major leaguers at best thus far), 2 three star prospects (both of which are still a long way from the majors), and Beau Jones. I hardly think that gutted our system, and I know I’m right because it’s still incredibly deep. And our payroll last year was 10th in the majors at just over 100 million, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. We can talk about Feliz’s potential till we’re blue in the face (believe me, I know this all too well) but the bottom line is that the production we got out of Tex and Mahay is tangible and it made us a better team.
Oh, and I noticed that you just created an account yesterday. Well played, son.of.sourman. Well played, indeed.
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 16, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm working on
The mother of epic SSDD images in the history of the internets.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Dec 16, 2008 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I need to give myself a -1 because I had to google what SSDD means. Single sided double density? Same shit different day?
Regardless of what it is, I’m sure the image will be classic. Not sure if it will top Bigjoe’s picture of Kotsay holding a bag of severed heads, though…
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 16, 2008 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hahahaha. That was classic Serial Killer in the house!
by mvandonsel on Dec 16, 2008 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well we should have known better than to trade for a Boras client. We should have known we had no chance at resigning him when we traded for him.
Yes, at that time it made us a better team, but considering BOTH players were gone or left the next season doesnt bode well for the amount (and quality) of players we gave up.
Bottom line is that we traded a lot and in the end we have Casey Kotchman and company.
ps. what is son of sourman. yes i am new, i had been lurking for a while but i think i can contribute. Please tell me this site is not kind to newcomers.
by mrsoprano on Dec 16, 2008 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m just busting your balls. If you feel you have something to bring to the site, than by all means enjoy your stay. I look forward to many more discussions with you in the future…that is, as long as you stay through the season. Most people sign up during the offseason and tuck tail and run once the going gets tough.
SoS is another poster on this site that I have the exact same argument with, on what seems like a daily basis. You and him both look at the trade in a way that completely baffles me. Your bottom line is that we traded alot and in the end we have Casey Kotchman and company. What exactly do the Rangers have? They have two players that look pretty mediocre thus far in the majors, one player struggling in the minors, and two players that are a ways off but look very good. You know who else looked very good in the minors? Andy Marte.
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 16, 2008 7:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
andy marte for a pile of money, jair jurrjens & gorkys. that worked out pretty well, no?
BIG JOE SUCK ONE
by bigjoe on Dec 16, 2008 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the clarification. Im a braves fanatic, and ill contribute when i have something to say, but im not the kind of dude that leaves two or three word responses. (nothing against if some do, i just dont)
I look at it this way…
We need pitching. We initially offered a shortstop (escobar) amongst others for a Peavy of some sort.
We lost arguably a better shortstop prospect in Elvis Andrus in that trade. Who knows what could have happened.
Neftali Feliz is shaping up to be a Edinson Volquez/Cueto type. For a team that is short of #1 type pitchers, we were in great standing with him and the emergence of Hanson. Its been stated on Baseball America that Hanson and Feliz are arguably the best pitching prospects in the minors.
Salty was a luxury, that I can withstand. But to lose Feliz and Andrus really kills me this offseason. We could have used them.
And to amend an earlier post, yes we have a top 10 farm system. Im not crying that we have zero prospects, but for a rental, we gave up some blue chippers that would have looked mighty good in a braves uniform come 2010 or 2011.
by mrsoprano on Dec 16, 2008 7:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
tell me where andrus would have played. also, look at his minor league stats so far and try not to wince a little bit
BIG JOE SUCK ONE
by bigjoe on Dec 16, 2008 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough. But what makes trading for Peavy, a top flight pitcher, okay but trading for Tex, a top notch 1B, not okay? I know the contracts play a role, but is that what you are caught up on?
We’ll go ahead and focus on Andrus and Feliz, since it’s obvious that is what you have a problem with. I’ll go ahead and say flat out that I’m not a huge fan of Andrus. Toolsy, yes, but hardly a solid bet to be an above average major league shortstop. This right here may be where our differences begin. The kid is barely supporting a .700 OPS and I know he’s still a baby, but I see very little improvement offensively over the past couple of years. He’s got a very nice walk rate thus far, but he’s hitting for zero power and stealing bases at a 71% clip against some very young catchers (he did improve to 77% in AA this past season, but at that rate he’ll get eaten alive by MLB catchers unless he continues to improve). I know BA praised him and all, but I just don’t see where it’s all coming from. But I suppose the fact that he’s young is supposed to lay all my questions to rest, right? And I’m curious, all of the current circus aside, how come Salty is a luxury but Andrus isn’t? McCann is there and Yunel is there. Are you just not a big fan of Escobar?
It sucks to lose Feliz, I won’t argue with you there. But at the time we traded him he had thrown 56 professional innings walking 26 people in the process. As others have pointed out on this site, young hurlers like him flame out all the time. He certainly showed his potential talent in A last season, but when he was promoted to AA later in the year he was back to walking someone close to every other inning. But he’s young and projectable, I get it. At the time of the trade though BP only rated him a 3 star prospect and had this to say about him:
The Good: Well, 18-year-olds who can throw 98 mph don’t grow on trees you know. A classic long, lean Dominican righty with some feel for a breaking ball, he limited left-handed hitters to a 4-for-32 (.125) mark with 15 strikeouts.
The Bad: An 18-year-old who throws 98 mph is a guy you can dream about, but it’s still a lot of dreaming; his secondary pitches are still a work in progress, as is his control.
The Irrelevant: Five of Feliz’ 11 outings, including his last four, came against the GCL Phillies. In those five games, he had 20 strikeouts in 13.1 innings.
In A Perfect World, He Becomes: It’s far too early to say, other than that he might be a guy who ends up racking up some big time strikeout rates.
Gap Between What He Is Now, And What He Can Be: Very, very high. This is a teenager with a lightning arm who could turn into a frontline starter or a dominant closer, but right now, he’s a teenager with a lightning arm.
Yeah, it sounds all well and good but it was hardly a slam dunk then, and it’s hardly a slam dunk now. Homer Bailey, anyone? He posted better numbers in AA than Feliz just did…look at him now. And I read BA’s review of the first Tex trade after it happened and at the time there was nothing that screamed BAD TRADE.
I dunno, both of them are just way too far away from the majors for me to get really, really excited about. And yes, perhaps they could have been used in a package for Peavy but that means that we wouldn’t have made any effort to go after Tex at all. You really would have rather the organization not even made an attempt to get better when it looked like we had a decent shot of making the playoffs? And if we had held on to them who’s to say that we wouldn’t have packaged them into a completely different trade before this whole situation with Peavy emerged? Ugh…I must sound like a broken record. I should just ignore this discussion in the future, I guess. Doesn’t seem like too many people support my view.
It’d be interesting to see where BA, BP, and Sickles would slot the two of them in to our current top-10 prospects list, though.
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 16, 2008 8:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I value Andrus more for trade bait, which is exactly what he was used for.
I guess its always easier to judge in hindsight. I was there when Tex made his first appearance against the White Sox, and I cheered madly.
I just knew we wouldnt have been able to re-sign him, which made me disagree with the trade from the start.
The Braves arent a team that can afford a rental. Leave those to the Yankees and Red Sox.
This post started as a rant about atlanta and its failed attempts at developing pitching, and I ranted because we could have had the Cincinatti Volquez/Cueto mix of prospects right here in Atlanta. Hope. Instead we have to trade more potential for vets.
by mrsoprano on Dec 16, 2008 8:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So, you’re basically upset about losing Feliz?
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 17, 2008 9:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no. to sum it up, im upset that we lost top prospects that we could actually use (for trade bait or a call up) in exchange for a one season rental.
Thats not how the Braves usually do business.
oh wait, we did the same thing for another Boras client, JD Drew.
Fool me once, shame on me. You know the rest.
by mrsoprano on Dec 17, 2008 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You said yourself that you view Andrus as trade bait. If we were to trade him in a package deal for Peavy, Peavy then gives us above average innings for the duration of his contract (assuming that he doesn’t decline, and doesn’t get injured…both of which appear to be possibilities), but we don’t make the playoffs any of the seasons he’s with us…will you come back to this board after the fact and complain that the trade was a bad move?
Or is it okay that the trade did not work out because Peavy was not a rental?
Also, your example of JD Drew doesn’t work because Drew posted an OPS+ of 157 (best of his career) while totaling the most PAs of his career. He was a pivotal reason we made the playoffs that season. You can’t bash the Tex trade because we didn’t make the playoffs, and then bash the JD Drew trade when we did make the playoffs.
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 17, 2008 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but we don’t make the playoffs any of the seasons he’s with us…will you come back to this board after the fact and complain that the trade was a bad move?
Yeah, people will do exactly that, because its exactly what they’re doing now with the Tex trade.
Isn’t hindsight great?
by VegasAces on Dec 17, 2008 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no. i will not complain, because we will have Peavy for 3 or more years.
by mrsoprano on Dec 17, 2008 12:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As far as peavy is concerned, if we have him for more than a season or two, then it will be worth the prospects. I dont mind even a season rental, but not at the price we paid.
Whatever about JD Drew, bottom line was he was a ONE YEAR rental. Yeah he played extremely well in his contract year, but we gave up 2 starters for him. I slam that trade for the same reason as Tex. Im not bashing the tex trade because we did make the playoffs, im bashing it because he was GONE the next season. thats not how you retool your club.
I think if we give up prospects for a player it should be for a minimum of 3 years.
Like Vasquez. That fireballer we traded might be the next pedro martinez, but at the time he was expendable for a solid veteran who is under contract for 3 years.
by mrsoprano on Dec 17, 2008 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough. I’m just trying to understand your point. Can’t say I necessarily agree with you, however.
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 17, 2008 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i’m new and had no problems with anyone
by Brandonba on Dec 16, 2008 7:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tex trade regrets = SSDD = Same Shit, Different Day

No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Dec 16, 2008 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
bling, bling my friend.
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 16, 2008 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
DOLLA DOLLA, DOLLA DOLLA…CHING CHING BLING BLING
BIG JOE SUCK ONE
by bigjoe on Dec 16, 2008 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Whether you can resign a player or not should be irrelevant in the trade. When you trade for a player, you are trading for the guaranteed years on the contract and then the chance to have negotiations first with the player, which usually doesn’t do much unless you’re paying close to market value anyway (Hudson, for example). The point is when the Braves trade for Teix, it was for 1.5 years and not anything after that. The Braves would have had virtually the same chance to signed him in 1.5 years after the contract ended even if he was on a different team.
by VictorW on Dec 16, 2008 8:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good reminiscing
Reading about Kyle Davies made me think about a game against the Reds I was at where Davies didn’t record a single out in the 1st inning before being mercifully pulled by Bobby, but then Oscar Villarreal somehow managed to get out of the jam without allowing a run and got a standing ovation about the size of when Smoltz broke 3,000 Ks, or Chipper hit his 400th.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Dec 16, 2008 8:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Rec'd
This was a fun read for me. It’s interesting how even the pitchers the Braves traded haven’t really developed either. Dan Meyer blew up to injuries. Wainwright has been good, but the injuries could really mess him up going forward.
by VictorW on Dec 16, 2008 8:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
This has been a longstanding thing with the Braves, which is why you always hear the urban myth about why teams should just never trade for Schuerholz’s pitching prospects. They generally turned out to be a giant ball of suck. This was never a problem when we had the Maddux-Glavine-Smoltz triumvirate. We were able to find a halfway decent fourth starter (Neagle, Millwood, etc.) to plug in, and then at the very least an innings-eater to plug the 5th starter. So pitching prospects were, for the most part, pointless.
The problems arose when we started losing the threesome’s wicked awesomeness. Either our front office neglected to face the problems that we needed young, fresh pitching (as evidenced by their trades of Odalis Perez and Jason Marquis, who would turn out to be two perfectly fine starters, and their acquisition of Russ Ortiz, the ultimate crap in a bucket), or there was a breakdown in teaching our pitching prospects, or we were simply unlucky.
Which was basically what the thesis of this post was about: the inability of the Braves to develop Chuck James into a serviceable starting pitcher (for the Braves). Correct me if I’m wrong, the only serviceable starting pitcher the Braves have been able to develop since acquiring Maddux was Kevin Millwood. Again, this is not counting pitchers that came up through the Braves system and turned out to be ok for other teams (i.e., Marquis, Perez, and Adam Wainwright). In short, we really need this to change if we want to be successful going forward, so kudos to Frank Wren for not dealing Tommy Hanson.
by jc25 on Dec 17, 2008 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
‘wicked awesomeness’ is a phrase to be avoided.
by Euruproktos on Dec 18, 2008 5:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
















