Braves Quote For The Day
by gondeee on Jan 21, 2010 2:17 PM EST
in Braves Quote For The Day
Email
PrintThe best quote from today's review of Braves prospects by Baseball Prospectus' Kevin Goldstein has got to be this one:
Jason Heyward has the potential to be a "face of the franchise" talent. He's arguably the best pure hitter in the game, combined with outstanding plate discipline and pitch recognition. He has the ability to contend for batting and on-base titles, all in a massive athletic package that's loaded with tools. His raw power is plus, his speed is average to a tick above, and he's a very good outfielder who can even play center in a pinch. His arm is a true plus-plus weapon. [...] When asked what aspects of Heyward's game need improvement, one scout simply replied, "Nothing."
This sort of brings us full circle from the first post of the day, where I said the Braves don't need another outfielder. (Yes, there is a theme today.) Our pal bigjoe disagrees with me, and seems to still be suffering from "Jordan Schafer shock syndrome." The problem is that any comparison between Schafer and Heyward is miles apart, or at least it should be. There is no reason to put the brakes on the Heyward Train... or rather the "Hey-Tray." He is a once-a-decade talent whose time has come.
124 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
“He’s arguably the best pure hitter in the game”
Sweet jesus, better than Pujols himself?
Here are Pujols's stats: 1.000/1.000/4.000/5.000. That's right. He is batting a thousand, with a thousand OBP (naturally), and every hit has been a home run, and thus his OPS is a perfect 5.000.
I wish you were right, but...
KG said he was the best pure hitter in the minors – not the game.
by KoKo the Monkey (T-Bone) on Jan 21, 2010 2:36 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, Heyward sounds just like that other right-fielding face-of-the-franchise we rushed up to the big boy club.
Oh wait, that isn’t a good thing is it?
Shouldn't Reid Gorecki get a shot in RF before that Heyward kid everybody talks about?
Those two aren’t even comparable. Francoeur always had his things that he needed to work on: most noticeably developing better plate discipline. Besides the fact that Heyward seems to get nicked up more often than we’d like, which I think is a product of the organization being careful with him, name one weakness in his game. You can’t find one.
He’s never seen major league pitching, and he’s never been through the grind of a 162 game major league schedule. He’s never been in a slump at the professional level so we have no idea how he’s going to react. An awful lot of unknowns in counting on him to be the starting RF out of ST.
I pray he turns out as good as advertised, but if he isn’t, we’ve put all our eggs into that one basket and don’t have much of a backup plan. I just think the risk vs. reward of rushing him to the bigs is one hell of a gamble with a kid with this much talent.
Shouldn't Reid Gorecki get a shot in RF before that Heyward kid everybody talks about?
Good points here, just let Melky do it then…..NO JOHNNY DAMON. Still what your saying is true but this isn’t just any other top prospect. You could have said this for Scahfer and probably even Frenchy. But this kid is the best in the game. This could be the 20-teens Chipper Jones. I say give it a chance.
the whole rushing to majors meme irritates the hell out of me. Its like all young baseball players are fragile little ice scuptures that may get dinged or cracked and thus lost forever. This just strikes me as stupid beyond belief.
And pointing at Francoeur as a case in point is double stupid beyond belief. Francoeur performed just fine for his first two and one-half seasons before going deep into the tank. How his forgetting how to hit in 2008 was causally related to being called up mid-season 2005 (at which time he raked) is a stretch of “logic” that I am completely unable to follow.
by fandave on Jan 21, 2010 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
OMG. Just clicked through and gave bigjoe a read.
Rushing him to the majors now could lead to a catastrophic meltdown.
Pleeeheezzzzee! a “catastrophic meltdown”?!
in the real world, young lawyers go into courtrooms and present their first case to a jury; young neurosurgeons in residency programs perform complicated brain surgeries in major urban hospitals’ operating rooms; etc., etc.
Nobody says if this patient dies on the table, young Dr. Welby is going to so psychologically traumaitized, he’s going to have a catastrophic meltdown.
all the hand wringing is just a fricking joke as far as I’m concerned.
So you think he should start right from the get go?
"SIGN PUJOLS OR FIRE WREN" ~ Swo12bv
by Smoltz's Beard on Jan 21, 2010 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
Yes I do…In Gwinnette…
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 21, 2010 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
if his ST production and his overall ST demeanor, poise and presentation is judged by the Braves’ professional baseball talent evaluators to adequately demonstrate he is “ready”, baseball-wise, HELL YES!
This is not even a close question, IMO.
Fair enough, just curious.
"SIGN PUJOLS OR FIRE WREN" ~ Swo12bv
by Smoltz's Beard on Jan 21, 2010 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
In the real world, young lawyers sit second chair and get slowly mentored into more of the trials duties. Those that don’t get slammed by the opponents and the courts. It’s good learning experience for the lawyer, but bad for the client. Here the client is the Braves.
OTOH, the real reason is Super 2 status.
That is just absolutely not true outside the large ‘silk stocking’ firms. Nor is it true of surgeons.
A very close friend who is a retired neurosurgeon recently told me a story about his 2d year of residency at a prestigious NYC hospital and a trauma patient being brought in on Christmas morning; he was allowed to make the call and take the person into the OR for an impossibly complex 13 hour brain surgery that he was in no way experienced enough to undertake.
That kinda thing happens all the time and is considered to just damn come with the territory.
The catastrophic meltdown comment is over the top.
IMHO, if Heyward plays well in ST, he’s on the team.
But, I think most fans are placing unrealistic expectations on his production as a 20 year old rookie with just over 1000 PA’s in his career. As good a prospect as Heyward is, there have been other prospects who had similar expectations placed upon them and failed to live up to expectations. The track record for production for guys breaking in with so few minor league PA’s isn’t good by any measure. (See Andruw Jones, Jay Bruce, Justin Upton, B.J. Upton, Matt Weiters, etc).
From a business perspective, the money issue is huge
If he develops as expected, it would likely cost the organization up to $10 or more million dollars to give him an extra year of arbitration. How much more production is Heyward likely to provide over Cabrera/ Diaz over a couple months time? The odds that he’s worth even a single win share is very slim. Paying millions for such a small increase in production is bad business and we are not in a financial situation to give money away. Too many people pretend its a non-issue but it is potentially big dollars. To put it in perspective, the amount of money we would lose by starting Heyward in the bigs is likely greater than the salary difference between Javy Vazquez and D Lowe.
"Four of us wolves, running around the desert together in Las Vegas, looking for strippers and cocaine..."
Actually
that does happen though (the doctor meltdown thing). Many young doctors are traumatized by their first death. The only way to know whether a doctor can handle it is for them to actually do it, but there is a lot (and I mean a LOT) of schooling that they go through before they even get to that point.
Young lawyers have meltdowns too. Any career comes with the possibility that the pressure could crack the beginners. I imagine that MLB, with the high pressure to perform on top of the money on top of the press coverage could do the same.
Not that this is really comparable, and I don’t have a clue what it is really like myself, but just pointing out that the analogy wasn’t great.
by Andy Braves Fan on Jan 22, 2010 10:40 AM EST up reply actions
You're kidding, right?
Francoeur was never the best pure hitter on any team he played for in our system, much less the minors.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
by MichaelProcton on Jan 21, 2010 10:51 PM EST up reply actions
Oh my goodness....
I’ll be there.
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." A. Bartlett Giamatti
I heard analysts say the same
thing about Matt Weiters (or something of that degree). I believe the hype but that doesn’t mean that the Braves should;
a. save themselves some serious money by delaying for 2 months, money that could be very important down the line when they are trying to compete.
let him spend a little time in AAA, a place where less obvious flaws are exposed and players can learn to adjust to those subtle flaws.I’m not against him starting off in Atlanta, but I’m not convinced he should either.
by Andy Braves Fan on Jan 21, 2010 3:04 PM EST reply actions
We should always...
be trying to compete, shouldn’t we?
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." A. Bartlett Giamatti
Not at the expense of the future. There is a fine line. The trick is not to miss the forrest because we can’t see through the trees.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 21, 2010 3:34 PM EST up reply actions
Scouts have said the same things about a lot of guys, including Francoeur. Believe it or not, Heyward is no sure thing.
The only time the Mets win is in the offseason.
No, scouts don't say things this good...
…about many prospects. There are a few, but not many, and Franceour wasn’t one of them. I am sure good scouts noticed Franceour’s batting eye issues.
Matt Wieters was a better hitter in the minors than Jason Heyward, spent 2 months in AAA, and then came up to Baltimore and…didn’t save the earth like everyone thought he would. Whopppp whopppppppppppppppppp
Wieters did really start to mash the last month or so in "09
I thought hurricane season was over........
by bravesguy311 on Jan 22, 2010 9:32 AM EST up reply actions
Just about got his BA up to .300 on the year, even.
Pretty damned good for a kid getting his first big-league experience at a position that tough.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
by MichaelProcton on Jan 22, 2010 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
Matt Wieters is a great case of the Orioles not evaluating their own talent well. They had a plan from day one of Spring Training and were unwilling to change that plan when Weiters was struggling in AAA (and trust me, I’m a Norfolk season ticket holder, he needed more time in AAA). So he wasn’t really ready when they called him up and he struggled. He ended up well by the end of the season and considering his outstanding defense they got a good season out of him, but it could have been a lot better if they had evaluated their own situation better. This is the big key for the Braves, judging how ready Heyward is in a vacuum, not how ready they need him to be.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
Exactly
I’m not saying he definitely needs time in AAA, but just that it isn’t out of the question and that oter top prospects haven’t performed to expectations.
by Andy Braves Fan on Jan 22, 2010 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
I'm tired of hearing about him
In the sense that I’m just really ready to see him play tired of all the hype and whatnot. I think anyone that believes that he going to be a world beater immediately is a little misguided, not to say that he couldn’t come in right away and hit 30hrs and knock in 100rbi, I think some should temper their expectations just a bit given his minimal abs in AA and AAA. I really hope he comes out and wins rf outright and isn’t just handed the position as some have already seemingly given him(though I don’t think that will be hard given the little competition at the position).
I like Melky a lot more than most but I’m not sure how I feel him being the everyday right fielder if Heyward isn’t ready, nor am I a fan of having to depend on Diaz everyday. Not saying that we NEED to go get another outfielder just being a realist.
Bigjoe is right and Gondeee is wrong
And from your comment to Bigjoe’s article — the reason the Braves didn’t make the playoffs is not b/c Hanson wasn’t with the team at the start of the year. The reason they sucked in the first half is b/c they had 4 guys OPS < 700 (FYF, Schafer, GA, KJ) and a 1B with 750 OPS after the first two months . Tommy Hanson would have lost all the games where the offense produced absolutely nothing that JV, JJ, and the rest of the pitching staff lost.
The problem is that...
Hanson would not have replaced JV and JJ in the rotation, he would have replaced Jo-Jo. Would having him up from the start of the year added two wins? Possibly. Would that possibly have meant a playoff spot? Certainly possible (i.e. we wouldn’t have mailed in the last four games). Do we know that leaving Hanson down cost us a playoff spot? No. Is it possible? Yes.
No problem at all
You didn’t read my post. It said: “Tommy Hanson would have lost all the games where the offense produced absolutely nothing that JV, JJ, and the rest of the pitching staff lost.” Nowhere in the post will you find a combination of words “Tommy hanson replaced JJ / JV”. The point is that in the first two months the Braves lost 19 games. Of those games, they scored 3 or fewer runs in 14 of them. You’re not going to win games if your starting staff + bullpen has to hold the opposition to less than 2 runs. The point, as clearly indicated above, is that everyone in the starting staff, regardless of whether it was Vazquez, JJ, or Jo-Jo would more likely than not have still lost those 14 games. Tommy Hanson does not account for your hypothetical two wins.
In general, try supporting an argument with facts rather than random supposition.
Well if you want facts, dig deaper.
On May 3rd, Reyes started against the Astros. He went 5.1 innings, giving up 4 earned runs. The Braves lost 7-5. On May 8th, Reyes started against the Phillies. Reyes got shellacked, giving up 8 runs, 4 earned, in 5 IP. All four unearned runs were because of a Reyes throwing error. The Braves lost 10-6. In 14 of his 21 starts, Hanson gave up 2 runs or less. In two more starts he gave up 3 runs. So, yeah, I would say that Hanson in the rotation could have won two more games last year.
If you want to bring facts against an anal lawyer-type like me, bring some serious facts. Don’t bring the weak stuff in here.
by cavebird on Jan 21, 2010 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If you were my lawyer, I'd ask for public representation
As bigjoe mentioned below, cherry picking examples doesn’t prove your point. While you purport to present a “fact”, in reality you are only offering up a hypothetical, again. I can play your game too — if May 3rd is Tommy’s 1st start, then he gives up 6 runs on HR’s and the braves lose anyway. The only weak stuff in here is your failed attempt to distract from the real issue because it’s too damaging to your argument. The Braves record with the 5th starter was 3-5 through May 31, and 22-20 with everyone else.
My point which has continued to go on unaddressed is that on the whole, the offense was severely lacking. PITCHING WAS NOT THE ISSUE.
Nice try to argue against a strawman.
My initial post said that if Hanson was up from the start of the year we possibly could have won two more games. You said no, that wasn’t likely. I responded by pointing out two games we could have won. Then you speculate that if May 3rd was Hanson’s first game we still would have lost. However, in my scenario, Hanson is up from the start of the year, so it wouldn’t have been his first start. My only point was that if Hanson was up from the start of the year and pitched like he pitched when he was up, we could have won two more games. The games on May 3rd and May 8th demonstrate that point.
In the end, the big problem with your argument is that your basic premise is flawed. You state that hitting was the problem early and our pitching was still pretty good. That is true, but irrelevant. Improving pitching or hitting leads to winning more games. A team that averages only 2 runs per game can still do well if they only give up an average of 1 run per game. Any improvement gives the team a better shot to win, whether pitching or hitting. And Hanson, if up from the start and pitching like he did when he was up, would have been an improvement over the 5th starters we were trotting out there. Yes, improving our hitting would have been nice, but improving the pitching could have still helped win more games.
We can never be certain what would have happened if Hanson was up from the start of the year; this is reality, it isn’t a lab experiment where we can control other variables. However, to make the best hypothesis, we can see what Hanson did while up and compare it to who he would have replaced. Given those numbers, yes, it appears quite possible that Hanson being up could have caused us to win two more games. That was my point, and you have entirely failed to refute it with any credible evidence or argument. Objection overruled.
Umm...
Hard to say. Parr, Reyes, and Medlen all sucked out loud.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
by MichaelProcton on Jan 21, 2010 11:01 PM EST up reply actions
point still remains that they all sucked terribly in their starts. Even if Hanson came up and pitched those first two games where he got a bit shelled he still would have won more games down the stretch.
People arent realizing that the other part of this is that Medlen possibly would have been in the BP a lot sooner therefore ridding us of Bennett, Boyer, or Acosta in the BP.
by drumzalicious on Jan 22, 2010 4:33 AM EST up reply actions
woah
Medlen only sucked for his start. He has been an anywhere from average to lights out as a reliever
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
I'm well aware.
But the 5th starter discussion would seem not to include his performance as a reliever.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
by MichaelProcton on Jan 21, 2010 11:21 PM EST up reply actions
fine
fair enough. Still, Medlen was one game, Parr and JoJo were like 50
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
dunno
I don’t even know why it was brought up. None of the three had really pitched as a starter last year
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
What gondeee said earlier……..Diaz/McLouth/Heyward
Viva los Bravos ~
by Chief Noc-A-Homa on Jan 21, 2010 3:19 PM EST reply actions
I say just let him earn it. Give him a real honest shot to earn it in ST and if he struggles send him down to AAA for a few months while Melky handles RF respectably (hes nothing special but he isn’t awful) or if he tears it up just give him a spot on the opening day roster.
By aquiring Cabrera Wren is allowing Heyward’s bat tell us if he is ready and not block him but not create a huge need to bring him up either.
by bbxxj on Jan 21, 2010 4:08 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
So what if it's between earning it and struggling?
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
by MichaelProcton on Jan 21, 2010 11:02 PM EST up reply actions
eh
his stats from last ST would tell me to give him the job. as far as what struggling would be. id say .200/.280/.320 with a ton of K’s
by drumzalicious on Jan 22, 2010 4:35 AM EST up reply actions
We shouldn't rush Heyward.
I say start him in AAA, and call him up in June if he does well. Remember, people said these same things about guys like Alex Gordon, Andy Marte, Delmon Young, etc. I’m not saying Heyward will be a failure, but many “can’t miss” prospects have indeed missed.
The only time the Mets win is in the offseason.
he has proven
everything he can in the minors. Just look at his raving reviews from across the minds of baseball. Everyone is saying he is ready to prove himself at the next level, which is the Majors.
We need a franchise outfielder, so why not use the one we have?
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 21, 2010 5:33 PM EST reply actions
He hasn’t proven anything at AAA.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 21, 2010 5:40 PM EST up reply actions
just because he hasn't played much AAA
doesn’t mean hasn’t proven he can handle it
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 21, 2010 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
…that’s the very definition of “unproven”…
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 21, 2010 6:09 PM EST up reply actions
what is it you think
he still needs to prove then?
Like the quote said: "when asked what aspects of Heyward’s game need improvement, one scout simply replied, “Nothing.”"
the minors are there to allow players to improve their skills until it is major league ready. If he doesn’t need any improvement, then he has proven he is major league ready…
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 21, 2010 6:16 PM EST up reply actions
he needs to prove that he can hit at AAA before we call him up.
there is a big difference between improving on something and proving something.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 21, 2010 6:27 PM EST up reply actions
in this context
those two things directly relate to each other.
If he doesn’t need any more “improvement”, then he has proven he no longer needs to “prove” anything in the minors.
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 21, 2010 6:35 PM EST up reply actions
not at all…
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 21, 2010 6:40 PM EST up reply actions
ok
you articulate your point so vividly here that there is nothing else i can say…
::takes my ball and leaves::
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 21, 2010 7:17 PM EST up reply actions
I mean, just because someone dominates at the lower level does not mean that they will at the next. I thought this was simple enough to not have to go into detail about, but I guess not.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 21, 2010 7:38 PM EST up reply actions
no...
but when somebody dominates at the lower level, it does mean they are ready at a shot to play in the higher level. that’s how the minor leagues work.
my whole entire overall point is that Heyward has proven he deserves a shot at being a contributor in the majors when the season starts. If the Braves put him in AAA, and he does as expected, then all we are going to find out is what we already knew.
…and that’s just a waste of time AND ability
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 21, 2010 7:52 PM EST up reply actions
His tryout should be Spring Training.
If they think he can contribute right away, I am all for it.
But, like you said, he needs to prove that he can play at the higher level – which for him is AAA, not the Majors. AAA is the next step.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 21, 2010 7:58 PM EST up reply actions
as much as i like talking to walls...
i think i have expressed my point adequately that Heyward has proven enough in the minors and its time to start his campaign in the majors.
I mean its not just me sayin this. just pretty everybody else with eyes and a pulse
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 21, 2010 10:14 PM EST up reply actions
Except for everyone who, you know, disagrees.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 21, 2010 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
yup
those would be the two options. good research man
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 21, 2010 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
just like it was proven by...
Andruw, and Schafer, and Furcal, and McCann, and French
by Mr. Sanchez on Jan 21, 2010 10:01 PM EST up reply actions
Andruw is a once in a lifetime type of player, Schafer wasn’t ready (even with the wrist injury), McCann is an exception and Frenchy shouldn’t be part of your evidence.
Besides, only Andruw was 19.
You guys are forgetting that JH is like 2 years out of highschool!
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 21, 2010 10:05 PM EST up reply actions
That is almost the definition of mixed evidence.
I don’t think you can say that Andruw isn’t an applicable comparison—-he is the only one of that set who could have had as much or more talent as Heyward at that age. He is probably the only legitimate Braves comparable. Of course, he struggled at first, but provided great defense and turned out fine.
Schafer, hard to say if he was ready because of the injury, but fair enough to say he wasn’t ready. He doesn’t have Heyward’s talent, however. McCann is an exception? Well, he is the exception to your point, but the point to the other side. Franceour cuts both ways—-he didn’t have Heyward’s abilities as he had obvious flaws in the minors. Furthermore, he did pretty well when he first came up.
The evidence goes both ways and is arguably all irrelevant as Heyward has his own skill set and talents which are quite likely better than anyone on that list except Andruw. The results have gone both ways. I think and hope the Braves will do the right thing—-give Heyward a fair chance but not a guarantee and let his performance decide.
That was pretty much my point. I didn’t bring those names up.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 21, 2010 10:27 PM EST up reply actions
cavebird, nice breakdown
but how is that your point justincredubil?
cavebird is saying that the job is Heywards to lose, while you think he needs to be stashed away in AAA and brought up after more seasoning. im just lookin for some clarity here…
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 21, 2010 10:33 PM EST up reply actions
Cavebird is saying that the guys you brought up are not good comparrissons.
I never said he needed to be “stashed” away, but unless he outright wins the job in ST (IE, plays better than everyone else), he needs to go to AAA.
I am also taking the position that he has not proven that he can hit MLB pitching just because he did it at AA. Skipping AAA is not always the smart, or even next logical step.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 21, 2010 10:35 PM EST up reply actions
ok thats fair...
but i didnt bring up those names either, mr sanchez did
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 21, 2010 10:49 PM EST up reply actions
You are correct. My bad.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 21, 2010 10:50 PM EST up reply actions
And you can't read...
he actually said one of the names (Andruw) was the best comparison we can find to Heyward. And Furcal was just flat ignored. The point is, while you might thinking becoming “proven” in AAA matters, the Braves clearly don’t. If Heyward looks like the best RF we got this spring, Bobby puts him in RF, AAA experience or not. If they feel he could use a little more time, or for financial reasons they want to hold off a year of arb, then he goes to Gwinnett.
by Mr. Sanchez on Jan 22, 2010 10:07 AM EST up reply actions
It's not just the Braves...
There have been plenty of stellar prospects on the Heyward/Hanson level who have been pushed straight from AA to the bigs. See the Marlins for several examples (Dontrelle, Miggy Cabrera, etc.)
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
by MichaelProcton on Jan 22, 2010 11:19 AM EST up reply actions
Way to keep this one civil…I actually CAN read and I agreed that AJ was a good comp, but he is a once-in-a-lifetime type of player. Do you expect Heyward to be that as well?
Also, AJ struggled mightily when he first came up, post-season heroics aside.
Also, I have yet to say that no matter what happens, he should start in AAA like you seem to accuse me of. I have said that if he is our best RF, give him the job – but we shouldn’t expect a special season from him.
My only point is that he has not proven he can handle anything. He has proven that he dominates AA. That does not mean he is ready. He has to show us that he is ready – whether that is in AAA or in Spring Training.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 22, 2010 2:36 PM EST up reply actions
why
is it that you think AAA is such a step above AA?
There is actually an argument made about AA being better in certain respects, bc teams will stash their high prospects there and then move them up to the majors after proving they can play. In fact, that happens frequently across the majors.
Him playing well in AAA is just a confirmation of what we already know. That is part of the main reason for why prospects so frequently jump from AA to the majors. For players like Heyward—who is a once in a lifetime prospect—AAA is just a complete waste of time and ability.
Im interested in seeing what you would think a successful ST campaign for Heyward would be.
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 22, 2010 6:16 PM EST up reply actions
A successful Spring Training for Heyward is one in which he earns a spot on the MLB roster – something that I have not opposed.
If you think AA is better than AAA, then there is no need to continue this discussion.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 22, 2010 6:18 PM EST up reply actions
A: and what numbers would allow that to happen
B: I said in certain respects, not overall. and i stand by my comment
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 22, 2010 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
A: Numbers in ST mean jack squat.
B: In that case, in certain respects, my local softball league is better than AAA.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 22, 2010 6:27 PM EST up reply actions
wow...
A: then how is it that you expect the Braves to evaluate his ST in order for him to make the team? if his jersey looks good? sounds like you agree with me in that no matter what he does in ST, he should be on the Braves roster—that is if ST numbers mean jack squat
B: this goes right along with all the other high quality, information pact comments you have been dishing out
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 22, 2010 6:40 PM EST up reply actions
The average AA player Heyward's age is certainly better than the average AAA player.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
by MichaelProcton on Jan 22, 2010 6:51 PM EST up reply actions
How many 19 year olds are in AAA?
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 22, 2010 7:09 PM EST up reply actions
Making my point for me.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
by MichaelProcton on Jan 25, 2010 10:24 AM EST up reply actions
If you think that teams only look at numbers in ST, I can now understand your comments so much more.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 22, 2010 7:09 PM EST up reply actions
dude are you hammered?
we are talking about Heyward making the Braves roster by his performance in ST. what else could you look at but his numbers?
the whole entire NFL Countdown crew just gave you a simultaneous “c’mooooon maaaaan”
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 22, 2010 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
There is much more to someone’s performance than their slash stat numbers.
Teams don’t look at someone’s batting average in ST to see if that person can handle MLB pitching. They don’t look at the amount of HRs they hit. They don’t look at the total number of RBIs, SBs, etc.
They evaluate the player and how they play the game. What kind of pitches are they swinging at? What kind of routes are they taking to fly balls? Are they making smart decisions on the base-paths?
I mean, I bet I could find 50 players over the past 3-5 years who hit over 300 in ST that didn’t make their team’s roster.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 22, 2010 7:26 PM EST up reply actions
i see your point for sure...
but these are all things that they know about Heyward already. The Braves aren’t going to be seeing his path on a flyball for the first time during this ST. Even my 85 year old cuban grandmother told me she is impressed with Heyward’s patience at the plate and pitch selection the other day.
of course, I am only talking about Heyward, and Heyward only here. If he hits around .300 in ST, look for him to start in RF on opening day. you heard it here
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 22, 2010 7:39 PM EST up reply actions
But they haven’t seen Heyward against anyone higher than AA. That is my point. He has proven nothing other than he can dominate at the lower leagues.
The job is not his to lose. It is his to win. That’s the difference.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 22, 2010 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
but
that is what you do in order to gain a spot on a major league roster. dominate at the lower levels. which he has done, therefore he deserves an opening day spot—this is all according to your logic.
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 23, 2010 2:35 AM EST up reply actions
wha…?
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 23, 2010 3:07 AM EST up reply actions
not true...
maybe small sample, but they have seen him higher than AA, in spring training last year vs. major league pitchers, vs. AAA at the end of last year, and in Arizona later last year. So yes, they have seen him higher than AA.
And the comment on his numbers is ludicrous. If he has a good spring for Atlanta, it is likely he has good slash stats. If he has a bad spring, they are likely not as good. So yes, the #s are reflective of performance.
by Mr. Sanchez on Jan 23, 2010 10:11 AM EST up reply actions
13 ABs in AAA…13. Are you really going to continue to argue this???
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 23, 2010 10:57 AM EST up reply actions
I should ask you the same thing...
But they haven’t seen Heyward against anyone higher than AA.
Are you really going to continue to argue this?
Yes. Because he has had a grand total of 13 ABs higher than AA.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 23, 2010 1:51 PM EST up reply actions
For the record...
…I don’t think the job is Heyward’s to lose. I just think it is (and should be) Heyward’s to win. If he has a mediocre ST but still doesn’t “lose” the job because the other options have a mediocre ST, I think we should send him down. Only give it to him if he shows he is ready.
This.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 22, 2010 8:59 AM EST up reply actions
Then say "this"...
and not the stupid spiel about needing to become “proven” at the AAA level.
by Mr. Sanchez on Jan 22, 2010 10:08 AM EST up reply actions
You really need to stop.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 22, 2010 2:36 PM EST up reply actions
k...
that’s just the impression I got by you stating he deserves a “fair chance” and the Braves should let his performance decide his fate.
anyways, do you really think that Heyward having a mediocre ST means he should go down to AAA?
that means, going by your logic, if Melky hits something like .262/.380/.360 in ST and Heyward goes for .255/.404/.364, you would send down Heyward to AAA and allow Melky a chance to roam RF on opening day… I say by Heyward having a “mediocre” ST means he is ready to start opening day and beyond in RF for the Braves. boom, roasted.
by Jam_2_Fluffhead on Jan 22, 2010 6:08 PM EST up reply actions
What?
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 22, 2010 6:19 PM EST up reply actions
Milky will be awful as a everyday corner outfielder. But I still hope JH stays in AAA for a couple months. It would save the Braves a lot of money. SInce the Braves are cheapskates now, money does matter.
Yes, Cabrera will be just as awful as he has been the last four years...
i.e. probably at least a win above replacement.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
by MichaelProcton on Jan 21, 2010 11:08 PM EST up reply actions
well lets see
If heyward starts the season in RF and is a super two he is Arb Eligible in 2012
At that time we will be rid of Kawakami, but most of that money will probably be going towards a Escobar or J.J. extension. Not to mention McLouth will be gone by then as well.
HOWEVER, 2012 is the last contract year for
Chipper 13 mil
Hudson 9 mil
Lowe 15mil
I dare say we would have enough money coming off the books to lock up Heyward and while we’re at it we would prob be locking up Hanson around that time as well
by drumzalicious on Jan 22, 2010 4:39 AM EST up reply actions
So we’re going to be paying Arb money to Hanson and Heyward (and just look at some of the recent arb numbers for top pitchers and hitters to see that this is likely to be quite a bit of money), while we still still have our current biggest contracts on the books as well? But if we wait a year, those big contracts will be coming off the books, giving us money to spend?
You’re pretty much making the case for why the team should be delaying Heyward’s arbitration.
I think you are off by a year.
Heyward cannot be arbitration eligible until after the 2012 season. A “super 2” is a guy with two plus years of major league service time, almost three years. If Heyward started the season in the majors and stayed up perpetually, he would have two full years of service time going into 2012, meaning he would still not be arbitration eligible. He would be arbitration eligible going into 2013 with three full years of service time. Now, if we brought him up May 1st this year, he would be a super 2 in 2013. There isn’t enough time between now and 2012 for Heyward to become arbitration eligible.
Correct.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
by MichaelProcton on Jan 22, 2010 11:20 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Talking Chop
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
