Not Braves related, but I agree with Curt’s point in regard to Bonds. I don’t like him, but he should be in the Hall.
Wasn’t aware of the Phillies having a new TV deal. That was depressing to hear. Reading between the lines, the current TV deal must have been put together for Turner’s benefit, bit surprising there was no form of option to end that deal in the event of a change of ownership.
I think the TV deal has EVERYTHING to do with why we’ve made few moves. For that, I applaud not making a “splash” with a deal. Last year’s FA move with BJ could hamstring us for several years. I am ecstatic that they can put a team on the field that is even competitive. Face it, ATL just doesn’t have the resources to get someone who would make them a World Series favorite. In fact, the Braves management will be in desperate crisis mode when their younger players choose free agency. If moving to Cobb County generates ANY revenue, it was a wise decision. What nostalgic feel do you get from a team struggling to compete in four years from now. Then, how long would it take to rebuild a winning franchise, with a medium market team? Look at the Royals. And now, look at the Twins and Blue Jays. A few compulsive mismanaged moves, and that will be ATL.
Yes, the Nationals would be favorite…they did upgrade, but obviously, they can afford it. Others have been talking about Atlanta not being able to afford Kimbrel, and they’ll likely have to move him. ATL has been unable to buy out any of their players free agency, so, things could go downhill quickly. Hopefully, J.R. Graham shows well in Spring Training and Hursh and Lucus Sims continue to progress in the minors. That could be critical. Joey T’s hitting well during off season, which is a good sign. I don’t really know what to expect this year, though.
My two cents on the Hall of Fame: The voting body should be made up of baseball researcher/historian/analyst types. Instead, it’s made up of sports reporters, some of whom haven’t covered baseball in years. MLB’s official historian, John Thorn, doesn’t even have a vote. He should head the committee. Guys like Thorn, Bill James, Rob Neyer and Jay Jaffe should be the types of people voting. I’m not trying to knock reporters and beat writers. They are very good at what they do. But they don’t study and have the perspective of the game and its history like those others.
Shouldn’t they make some declaration about what is getting these guys ‘banned’ too? I’m all for punishing cheaters, but to say – ‘this guy played in this era so I’m not voting for him’ – is ridiculous. What is the criteria? State it publicly. If you are linked to steroids, whatever, you will never get in. I’m not trying to say the vote shouldn’t be subjective, but now it is chaos.
Unbelievable. If the Braves let Heyward go they can kiss competing in their new stadium goodbye. 24 years old. Consistently high WAR. Great on base. Best defensive RF in the game. And he hasn’t even hit his peak yet. The better try everything they can to extend him.
Curt @4, I agree. No one thinks the steroid era was all fine and dandy. Everyone wishes it hadn’t happened. But it happened. The players who used were allowed to play. Their performances counted. The games they helped win are on the books.
And baseball has never been pure. It’s not like steroids came along and made the game “inauthentic” (to use Bob Costas’ word). The games, performances and statistics from the steroid era are on the books, just like the games from the era of widespread gambling, games from the era of segregation, games from the era of amphetamines and the era of spitballs. Players have played hung over or drunk.
There was never this golden era when statistics were pure and infallible, inflated or deflated. There has been plenty of ugliness and messiness throughout baseball history. But some act like the steroid era is the first ugly, messy chapter in the entire history of the game.
It will be unbelievably sad if the Braves become totally irrelevant, because they caved to the pressure of the media to unload a large portion of their diminutive payroll to free agents in liu of investing in their home-grown talent. I think it’s best for the front office to STAY AWAY FROM THE CHECKBOOK, in regards to acquiring free agents. All their good young talent could very well slip through their fingers very fast. I don’t see how McGuirk could say with a straight face that this TV deal is NOT going to significantly impact the team. How do they plan to get around this problem thru the next decade?
Pete Rose IS in the Hall of Fame. He just doesn’t have a plaque.
The HOF is both a museum as well as a recognition of the greatest players. He was part of the Big Red Machine and there are pictures and information concerning that as a part of baseball in the museum. But, unless re-instated, he will NEVER have a plaque.
I have no problem recognizing both Bonds and Clemmons as players (in the museum) on teams and as part of baseball, but I don’t think either should ever have a plaque (IMHO).
The issue I have is that the voters, the people who determine who gets a plaque, have never considered the ugly things that have happened throughout the history of the game that are similar to steroid use or have never considered gambling when making their choices (with the exception of the Black Sox and Rose, because their are explicit rules about not allowing those players into the Hall).
I honestly don’t see the difference between Hank Aaron using amphetamines and Bonds using steroids, in terms of morality or cheating or performance-enhancement, etc. Sure, maybe steroids have a more dramatic impact, I’ll grant the voters that. I have no problem with voters taking that into account and assuming a borderline candidate who used steroids shouldn’t get in. But as far as making some sort of statement about morality or cheating by keeping players like Bonds out while ignoring the amphetamine use of other Hall of Famers, that makes no sense to me.
And if it is about Bonds or Clemens seemingly being bigger jerks than guys like Aaron, well, that’s problematic because there are plenty of jerks in the Hall of Fame and that’s never been a consideration for Hall of Fame voters.
Yep. And do the writers actually believe Cobb or any number of players from the past were so morally superior to other players that they would have refused steroids had they the opportunity to take them?
I don’t blame the voters for mentally adjusting some performances and some stats because of steroids. For example I don’t blame writers for assuming McGwire wouldn’t have been a Hall of Famer caliber player without steroids and keeping him out. But keeping out the best of the best players, like Bonds and Clemens, simply because they used steroids seems kind of simplistic and moralistic to an almost absurd degree.
The only way I can see justifying that is also trying to change the rules so that they can kick out other Hall of Famers who cheated and used PED’s in the past. When a writer argues for the need to kick out Gaylord Perry in addition to keeping out Bonds, I will applaud such a writer for being consistent.
Tcc @12, so Bonds and Clemens weren’t famous? Essentially that’s what the Hall of Fame portends to be and has been throughout its history, at least in terms of voting for players and giving them plaques. Morality and other forms of performance-enhancement, even some forms that were/are against the rules have been ignored, up until the whole steroid era stuff.
As far as the Hall of Fame being about fame, literally, I’m fine with that being a criterion. I’m fine with there being room for players who are famous but might not truly qualify based on the established performance standards. I think this is the best argument for a Jack Morris, and personally I’m fine with him getting in on the basis of mostly fame. I know that’s probably not related to your point.
And Shaun, to your point, sort of, if they are devaluing players because of their character, should they add value points to players who were exemplary men on and off the field? I know this came up a lot in Murphy’s last year of eligibility, but if people are now being penalized for being jerks, should he get more consideration for not being one?
Clearly, to me, the answer is no. To an almost absurd degree. Murphy’s place in the HOF was justly or unjustly viewed simply through his stats, and seemingly in particular his BA and homerun totals. So if, by all accounts, one of the nicest guys to ever be in the business can’t get some votes for being a stand up guy, why are other guys held up for being tools?
It’s stupid. As so many guys pointed out, to my disdain – “If there was a nice guy Hall of Fame, Murphy would certainly be in there.” Well, there isn’t. And the one in Cooperstown is no exception.
Interesting article I found that confirms my belief all along. Andruw Jones is a Hall of Famer. And its a shame that no one talks about him as one. Smoltz, Glavine, Chipper, and Maddux werent the only HOFamers we saw during that successful run.
“Jones did more than enough before his career fizzled out to be a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate.”
“Five-time All-Star. Ten Gold Gloves. For his career, Jones accumulated 67.8 wins above replacement (FanGraphs version). That’s a higher number than was posted by Barry Larkin, Paul Molitor, Ozzie Smith, Willie McCovey, Robin Yount, Tony Gwynn, and a number of other Hall of Famers. Jones’ WAR total ranks ninth all-time among center fielders; every player ahead of him on that list is already in the Hall of Fame.”
“Jones’ 434 homers is the fourth-best total for any player in history who played at least 50% of their games in center field, behind such luminaries as Willie Mays, Ken Griffey Jr., and Mickey Mantle. ”
Mark @19, I don’t think the Braves have to have a #1 to contend, to win the division or even to reach the World Series. The Red Sox didn’t have a true #1 last season. You could say Lester wasn’t but pitched like one when it mattered. But I see no reason why Teheran or Medlen or Beachy, if he comes back strong, can’t do the same. I think people overrate having an ace and underrate having pitching depth. Having quality arms that you can throw out daily and having quality arms that you can consistently put on the mound late in close games could have more of an impact than having an ace.
Curt @17, I have faith the front office knows what kind of player Heyward is more so than a lot of fans. That doesn’t mean he’s a sure thing for the Braves, of course. I’d bet that there are a lot of front offices that would be willing to give a nice contract to Heyward, and it’s possible the Braves won’t be able to match. But I do suspect the Braves front office knows he’s perhaps *the* key player to sign long-term.
Curt @14, If it’s purely based on performance, I understand keeping Murphy out (because of such a short peak) but you would also have to put in guys like Bonds and Clemens, again, if it’s about performance. I’m with you, though, about the inconsistencies regarding steroid moralizing yet keeping out one of the game’s great gentlemen.
Personally I’m sort of a big huge Hall guy and I do think literal fame should come into play. I think performance should be the primary factor but fame should also count for something. So I have no issues with Jack Morris or Dale Murphy, even if their performances alone don’t merit induction.
Steve, I TOTALLY agree that is Maddux had picked the Cubs I would have been ticked. After hearing how many years he spent with the Cubs, I was like really? Do I think he should go in as a Brave? Of course! But that is my opinion. On the other hand I admire his loyalty to the Cubs. Either way…he will always be a Brave to me and I think everyone here.
Poor jim Rice……. he will ALWAYS be the HOF guy who people will say “well if Jim Rice got in…. then my guy should.”
Does anyone think that it is harder to get into the baseball HOF than the football HOF?
RE: Those questioning signing Heyward and/or #1 Starter
ATL BRAVES HAVE NO $$$
That is what I have been writing about in my two other messages. Guys, you seem smart and generally aware of the state of ATL baseball. Isn’t it obvious that ATL’s current financial status is going to make us irrelevant in the near future?
Q: Why doesn’t ATL sign their current young stars to extensions, or a no. 1 starter?
A: They can’t afford to (with limits to payroll placed on them by Liberty). It has remained stagnant for over a decade. Though money is just a portion to building & maintaining a ball club, it is what makes those questions moot. Because of that TV deal and the tight-clenched grip on payroll, players see the writing on the wall. I’m afraid it’s going to be painfully obvious just how much BJ costs in the near future…I hope I’m wrong, and I hope he can turn things around. As for the $$$ thing, I don’t know what the answer is.
Jason Heyward deserves 8 years as well. As well as Andrelton Simmons. If the Braves wanna compete in the future, Simmons, Heyward, and Freeman are the core. If we lose any 1 of these 3 with no money and no positional prospects coming up then we aren’t that good.
Oh well, I’m reading twitter and multiple people say in two years Heyward is probably gone in two years. Its really ashame. I love Fredi and the deal is great but I truly think Heyward is a better player.