From the comments section of the last quote for the day comes this gem from commenter fandave:
The whole rushing to majors meme irritates the hell out of me. Its like all young baseball players are fragile little ice sculptures that may get dinged or cracked and thus lost forever. This just strikes me as stupid beyond belief.
Word! At some point every prospect is going to have the face the possibility of playing 160+ games and standing in the batter's box against scary major league hitters. That's what they've been waiting for and playing for in the minor leagues! A kid that hits .400 for over a month in the high minors has very little left to prove in the minors.
The arbitration argument (that Jason Heyward would be a "super-two" if we brought him up to start the season) is a ridiculous one. We need to compete for the postseason with the best team on the field from opening day until the end of the season, and Heyward gives us the best chance to do so. Coddling him will not do us any good.
0 recs | 225 comments
Preach it Brother!!
If he is ready call him up. Let our talent evauators make that call and not economics or fear of failure.
bbxxj - January 21, 2010 via mobile
i really hope they start ja-hay in the majors….saves me some time cause otherwise id have to call him up myself in this years ‘the show’… :)
lemke2blauser2bream - January 21, 2010
I agree except that...
…except for times like the time that Jose Canseco pitched, prospects do not have to stand in the batter’s box against scary major league hitters.
cavebird - January 21, 2010
Sorry, but I have to disagree
Keeping Heyward down the first two months to control his service time is not coddling him in my opinion, though I do agree with Fandave’s assertion. I fully believe Heyward is ready for a taste of the majors but my point is that we have bigger issues/questions that will impact our season more than whether or not Heyward starts the season in the majors. Like whether or not Glaus can stay healthy, will Chipper return to form/stay healthy, can Saito and/or Wagner return to form/stay healthy? When you weigh these questions against the potential cost of retaining Heyward when he hits super 2 then I’m leaning on the side of what’s best for the franchise long term.
scstrato - January 21, 2010
Agreed.
Smoltz's Beard - January 21, 2010
and someone disagrees with you...
The Mayans would say screw the long-term (specifically past ’12), bring up Heyward now!
Although their most similar sport to baseball involved throwing others decapitated heads around, they knew a whole lot about stars. Luckily, Heyward is one of the most probable stars in the minors…
bwellnjonesco - January 21, 2010
I, uh …. sorry I got nothing.
scstrato - January 21, 2010
“nothing” is more than to be expected…
Long story short…I think if Heyward has a strong spring, then l think he should start immediately. Long term will wait. We should wait and worry about that bridge when we cross it.
bwellnjonesco - January 21, 2010
that’s the kind of thinking that leads to u arrivng at a cliff and the bridge has been blown up
Swo12bv - January 21, 2010
Or regretting not having a certain stud fireball pitcher in your system still…but, we won’t go there.
justincredubil02 - January 21, 2010
Which of the three are you referring to?
jeg - January 21, 2010
The one that is on the team in Arlington.
justincredubil02 - January 21, 2010
I wouldn’t mind having a certain Cardinals pitcher fronting our rotation right now either…
jeg - January 21, 2010
Ah, I see what you are getting at. Who is the third?
justincredubil02 - January 21, 2010
This is of a different variety but miss-allocation of resources also wound up with us being forced to deal the superior Javy Vazquez in lieu of Derek Lowe. Or just the Lowe signing in general was a desperate move. I understand why the organization signed him and it was an active attempt to contend but that money could have been put to better use (we could have drafted the bests HS arm in the draft for 2% of the total value of Derek Lowe). That money could cost us the ability to lock up Jurrjens and Escobar down the line as well.
jeg - January 21, 2010
I gotcha.
I can’t disagree with anything there, but I will say that I was not disappointed by the Lowe signing at the time.
I am STILL ok with it, seeing as how we still need him. Sure, I would prefer Vaz, but honestly, Lowe is still one of the better pitchers in the game.
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
So you're saying that was a bad deal?
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
No. I am just saying that is the price you pay for short-sightedness.
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
So let's start offering all sorts of money...
in 2013 and beyond.
Mr. Sanchez - January 21, 2010
Anyone Remember?
The last time we had an outfielder that was supposed to make this kind of contribution, wasn’t his name Andruw Jones? He pretty much made our lineup scary for pitchers and our outfield a black hole for hitters. He started playing young and he did DAMN well for us and he wasn’t the complete player Heyward is. Let him play from the start and pay him what he wants. That’s what a franchise player is isn’t it? Everyone keeps saying he has the potential to be a franchise player……Let’s do it. Give him a chance and move on from there.
DontKillJohn - January 21, 2010
Very good point. There are always Andruws and Martes but we will never know until we give it a go.
bbxxj - January 21, 2010
This.
I wouldn’t imagine there is still anyone pissed off that we traded Ron Wright for Denny Neagle.
The Keith Lockhart Era - January 21, 2010
We had that comedian from Blue Collar Comedy Tour as a prospect? And we traded him for the whore-chasing human choo choo? Sonuva…
Rhyno18 - January 21, 2010
Close...
…but it’s Ron White.
cavebird - January 22, 2010
I know
I just like calling Denny Negle “the whore-chasing human choo choo”
Rhyno18 - January 22, 2010
Yeah, trading Jason Schmidt for Denny Neagle was the stupider move.
bigjoe - January 21, 2010
Denny Neagle pitch pretty darn well for us. I’d say that we came out fairly well in that trade, Schmidt or no.
soup du jour - January 22, 2010
pitched*
soup du jour - January 22, 2010
to be our 5th starter? I think that was a wasted move...
we had enough pitching to make the post season with or without the Train man. And once we made the playoffs, he was a wasted spot.
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
Andruw was supposed to be the complete player that Heyward is
acie4mvp - January 21, 2010
arguably he didnt become that because he was rushed to the majors…so ahhh ya
Swo12bv - January 21, 2010
would you actually make that argument?
VivaLosBravos - January 22, 2010
It is impossible to make that argument, or to make the argument against it.
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
its not impossible to make its impossible to prove. theres a difference i can make an argument for anything, only certain arguments can be proven.
Swo12bv - January 22, 2010
Yeah, that’s a better way to say it.
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
I know
Swo12bv - January 22, 2010
i see what your getting at you shouldnt use arguably in that way, bc everything can be argued…Touche sir….I would in fact argue that Andruw Jones didn’t reach his ceiling at least partially bc he didn’t fully develop in the minor leagues
Swo12bv - January 22, 2010
And I'd disagree...
saying that Andruw’s failure to reach his max capability was due to a lacking work ethic and inability to make adjustments at the plate. But they are both arguments lacking any substantial evidence either in favor of or to the contrary.
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
Everyone wants to blame Andruw's failings at the plate on work ethic
But the phenomenal defense can only be the result of at least a good, if not exceptional, work ethic. The man played in over 150 games for 11 straight years, played in like 250 consecutive games, while making every catch possible.
The big problem is everyone thought Andruw should be a high-average guy due to his speed and his early success, but it never manifested. His approach at the plate was flawed and he over-swung (especially in his last years here), but I can’t criticize the work ethic he showed from 1996-2006. He certainly did let his body go after 2006, though-too much fast food in his diet.
Bronn - January 22, 2010
Is that work ethic you describe?...
or just good luck health wise and an amazing feel for defense? But that flawed swing is what I’m mainly referring to, and how many low, outside breaking balls did he flail at? Never learned, never adjusted really, still made the same mistakes again and again and again.
Still, I just don’t think a lack of minor league development is really that much of a link to his problems.
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
Sure is work ethic
No one ever accused him of dogging it on defense, when he’s running around 20 times per game.
Plenty of people saw poor effort during the 4 times he was at the plate in the game.
And I agree-what would he have learned in 3 more months tearing up AAA that he didn’t learn in 11 years in the big leagues?
Bronn - January 22, 2010
Actually, Bobby did accuse him of dogging it on defense...
did he not yank him mid inning at least once after a basket catch?
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
its show-boating, not dogging it…he made the play. Its the same reason Bobby has benched Yunel a couple times…
Swo12bv - January 22, 2010
i would point to the psychological affects of promoting a young kid who has been praised his whole life until he reached the majors. Sure he was pretty good, when he came up but had he spent more time in the minors, his flaws would have revealed themselves, and then the coaches could have helped him correct in a lower pressure situation. if you want to say its his work ethic, i would agree, and I would point to the fact he never developed the work ethic he needed in the minors.
I dont necessarily buy into the promoting too early destroying confidence, but i feel with top prospects they are gonna do enough to keep themselves int he majors and then get slightly better as time goes. WHereas its possible that an extra month or two in the minors (as we did with Hanson) could help iron everything out and the player dominates from the get go. Unfortunately we don’t have nearly enough data to determine which approach is correct, there aren’t enough high end prospects that make it to that point.
Swo12bv - January 22, 2010
When you're the consensus "best hitting prospect in baseball..."
Is there such thing as a low-pressure situation?
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
fair enough
Mr. Sanchez - January 23, 2010
FTFY
Rhyno18 - January 21, 2010
Andruw was a black hole offensively in his first 580 PA’s, posting a .730ish OPS while striking out 135 times.
jeg - January 21, 2010
THANK YOU
You beat me to it but I was just going to use that example. We need Jay Hey right now. Let him play.
JKowalek - January 21, 2010
Present and Future
A baseball team is still a business, and businesses often have the eyes only for the future and not always the present.
The braintrust of a business, like say the Braves, probably thinks it’s better for the future, to hold off on Heyward’s callup, so that they can get more Heyward in the future. Even if it means trotting out a less talented outfield for two months, and suffering the consequences of having inferior players costing the Braves games.
90% of the businesses I’ve experienced would do the same thing – sacrifice a little now, for more of a good thing in the future. I had a similar conversation with a Nats friend about Stephen Strasburg, and how the popular belief is that only a perfect ST would get Strasburg on the opening day roster; to which I had to disagree with – if he demonstrates that much brilliance, why wouldn’t the Nationals want to have him for longer and cheaper? His ass is starting in AAA. Kind of the same thing I think is what’s going to happen with Heyward.
royhobbs - January 21, 2010
I agree, good things are worth the wait,
we’ve waited this long, what’s another 2 months, especially considering that would give us more control over him in the future.
HEYJUDE - January 21, 2010
Strasburg isn't the same?
He already has a signed contract that runs through the first few arbitration years, correct? In that case, you start him right away since you’ve already given up the financial advantage of avoiding super 2.
fphjr01 - January 21, 2010
This time you did bring the relevant facts.
Strasburg is different—-his contract makes it not a particular financial advantage to keep him down. Somehow I doubt that was accidental.
cavebird - January 21, 2010
Although I think Strasburg is a different case all together no matter his contract, and I disagree with royhobbs on that case. The Nationals need marketable stars, and the best business solution would be to start him now to try and generate excitement so they can make money for the future.
soup du jour - January 22, 2010
So why not, as seems the case with Evan Longoria...
start working on that long term extension with him now? See what terms he’d want, if they’re acceptable for a player in his position, and maybe the super two stuff becomes moot that way.
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
My thoughts exactly
Bronn - January 22, 2010
You're right
I forgot that Stras had the big contract already – that in consideration, I’d only start him in AAA if he demonstrates a lack of true ML readiness in ST, but otherwise, he’s making the money, time to cash in.
royhobbs - January 22, 2010
pretty much. but as Dave Matthews used to say,
The future is no place to place your better days.
Chief Noc-A-Homa - January 21, 2010
I came on here about to bust out a business analogy, but you beat me to it. Well done, sloth.
bigjoe - January 21, 2010
If he’s ready, bring him up.
DawgB - January 21, 2010
FIGHT!!
Scott Coleman - January 21, 2010 via mobile
What’s the big deal? Just leave him in Gwinett for two months. We’ll get by with Diaz in RF.
TradeAndruw - January 21, 2010
If Heyward is in AAA for two months...
…Diaz is in left field and Melky/Hinske play right. Diaz is a disaster in right but passable in left.
cavebird - January 21, 2010
I'd think Bobby...
would wait and see who he’s most comfortable with where. That is one of Melky’s advantages in that he can be adequate in all 3 spots, so IF he’s starting on opening day (please note the big IF), Bobby has options of putting him in left, with McLouth and Diaz in CF and RF, or CF with McLouth in left, or in right with Diaz in left. The versatility is nice.
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
Can someone explain "Super-Two"
bravesforever16 - January 21, 2010
It's an arbitration classification
Players with less than three years of service time are not eligible for arbitration (in most cases) and therefore can be renewed at league minimum until after their third full season at the ML level. However, if a player has two full service years plus at least 86 days of service time in the year before the two full seasons and is in top (I think it’s 17 but I could be wrong) percent of players with more than two but less than three years of service then they will be eligible for arbitration at the end of their second full season. In other words, wait til June to bring him up and Jason Heyward will be paid the minimum for 3 2/3 seasons instead of 2 2/3. Hope that helps, and if i’m off on anything hope someone out there can help out.
RaymondBatista - January 21, 2010
word
well, considering Ted ain’t writing the checks no mo, maybe bring him up in June. but June at the latest
Chief Noc-A-Homa - January 21, 2010
Almost correct.
However, it means you pay the minimum for 3 2/3 seasons instead of 3 full seasons. If you bring him up at the start it is still three full seasons. If you wait, you get the extra 2/3 of a season but not a whole extra season. The only way to get only 2 2/3 seasons is to bring a guy up right before he is past the super 2 stage.
cavebird - January 21, 2010
Right, however I believe the larger advantage on delaying Heyward until June 2010 would be pushing his arb years out by one, from 2013-15 to 2014-16, and by pushing his FA out from 2016 to 2017.
This way, not only do you win based on time value of money, but you also capture his 2016 year, closer to his peak.
Yakker - January 22, 2010
Heyward should start in AAA
I believe that he is ready to put up above-average numbers starting in RF, especially considering his defense, but how much money do we save by denying the possibility of Super 2 status? I think what Bigjoe basically said is that signing another RF that will put up above-average production is RF is essentially free as long as we don’t pay them more than we lose by having Heyward reach arbitration sooner. It seems like picking up a player like Nady or Damon for 5 million or so would cost less than Heyward reaching arbitration sooner, and it is likely they would put up at least as good of numbers as Heyward would until June. And there is much less risk of serious failure. That said, it will be unbelievably hard to wait for Heyward to get to Atlanta and I will be unbelievably excited to see him regularly if he starts opening day.
eyy - January 21, 2010
Actually, if he starts in Atlanta on opening day...
…he wouldn’t be a Super 2. He would have three full seasons when he hits arbitration. If we brought him up a week into the season he would be a super 2.
cavebird - January 21, 2010
And it would still put him on the same time frame though..
as if he were up on opening day. The only way to gain financial advantage from delaying Heyward’s call up is by waiting until closer to the All Star break.
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
Why do we use "we" when referring to the Braves and money
I think we’ve been playing OOTP too long. I don’t care if the Braves have to pay an additional $5 mil 3yrs from now, who cares? They may sign him to a long contract next season like Longoria or something, who knows? What we do know is that odds are it’s going to help the team right now. If he’s going to play, and not rest, then he might as well be playing in a Braves uniform where his talent actually helps the Braves win the division (opposite of what happened with Hanson/Jo-Jo Reyes last season).
ronjba - January 22, 2010
Couldn't agree more.
People complain about the Braves not being able to spend money this season on Damon etc. and then want Heyward to stay in the minors for monetary reasons? Come on! Heyward is going to be better than Damon or anyone else we can get off the scrap heap and at the fraction of the price. This kid has the potential to be the face of the franchise for years to come. If he is good enough now, let him play. We have some of the best talent evaluators in the MLB, so if he starts opening day obviously they think he is ready for it so who cares what a bunch of fans are saying on message boards. If he helps us put the best product on the field (although I don’t speak for the management) I feel like the franchise will reward him with his due respect via salary when it comes time. Chipper’s salary will be coming off the books in the years to come when he is due arbitration and his first contract (not to mention Lowe, Kawakami, Hudson etc.). Do you not think this kid will be worth every penny in arbitration or the salary we offer him? Please, I repeat, PLEASE do not compare this kid to Jordan Schafer. Seriously, it is offensive. While I still like Schafer anyone in their right mind would admit that he isn’t even in the same universe as Heyward. Couple that with the fact that he was playing with a broken wrist and you just can’t make an analogy to Schafer about “not being ready” to be brought up. If Heyward offers us the best option in RF he should start from day one. That is the bottom line. Someone else brought up a good point about Hanson. How many other people wish he would have cracked the opening day roster? I’d like to see someone try to claim the reason he did so well in the majors thanks to that extra seasoning in the minors (aka continuing the dominance he already had displayed time and time again).
lingsched - January 21, 2010
No, Schafer WASN'T playing with a broken wrist.
MichaelProcton - January 21, 2010
It really depends on how the Braves see themself as a team without Heyward. Do they believe this a playoff caliber team without him? I certainly do and an OF of Diaz-McLouth-Hinske would more than suffice for a couple of months. Hinske is perfectly capable of an .800 OPS, decent power (~25 HR per full season), and plus defense in RF. Can we honestly expect much more than that out of Heyward right off the bat? I’m not denying he’s a super talent but to pen him in for better stats right away is a dangerous proposition. We’d be best served going with Hinske in RF to start the year with Cabrera as the fourth OF imo, that OF isn’t going to kill our playoff chances like GA-Schafer-Francoeur did last year and it delays paying Heyward big money another year.
McCann's the Man - January 21, 2010
Play it Smart
Have Heyward start the year in the minors for the ‘Super 2’ reason. Same thing they did with T.Hanson last year. When can they call him up, like June 15. Bobby likes to give the vets a chance first anyways.
Lot of money to be saved by doing this.
jbird29 - January 21, 2010
did anybody with the Braves ever suggest Super 2 as a consideration for Hanson being held down? don’t think so, but could be wrong.
fandave - January 21, 2010
I don’t think they would officially say they ever kept a player in the minors to delay the arbitration clock. I don’t know if a player would have any standing to file a grievance for a team preventing a player from starting their service time but there have been at least a couple of cases (Glen Perkins is the most recent one I remember) in which players were sent down later, preventing them from getting super two status and had successful grievances heard. Plus it would probably piss off whatever top prospect you had if you officially said “you’re good enough kid, but we want you on the cheap for an extra season”.
RaymondBatista - January 21, 2010
They wouldn't say it
But that’s what they did. No other reason to explain why you leave a top prospect giving up 1 run per 7 innings in and leave Jo-Jo giving up 7 runs in 1 inning in the bigs.
ronjba - January 22, 2010
Sure there was.
They believed in Glavine, and they had every reason to until his fluky shoulder injury cropped up in the batter’s box.
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
Glavine was not healthy enough...
to join the discussion until mid season. On opening day, we had Jojo, Medlen, and Hanson as what appears to be the main three contenders. Glavine wasn’t in the mix until much latter in the year once he rehabbed.
And Batista, I think the scenario you describe almost played out with Evan Longoria (good enough to play now, but sent down for arb reasons), but his long term extension kept it from becoming anything more if they had kept him down for more than a couple weeks.
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
Not even REMOTELY true.
Until the shoulder injury, Glavine was on schedule to be ready by the first of May, by which time Reyes had only gotten two starts.
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
So what's not true if he's May?...
“On opening day, we had Jojo, Medlen, and Hanson as what appears to be the main three contenders.”
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
"Glavine was not healthy enough... to join the discussion until MID SEASON"
Last I checked, the middle of the season doesn’t come a month into it. And, as noted, at that point, we’d have had only two of the seven or so shitty starts from the pre-Tommy #5s.
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
And considering your comments on his reinjury...
he wasn’t healthy enough to be in the mix until then.
Mr. Sanchez - January 23, 2010
“No other reason to explain why you leave a top prospect giving up 1 run per 7 innings in and leave Jo-Jo giving up 7 runs in 1 inning in the bigs”
There was, though. As I stated,
MichaelProcton - January 25, 2010
His being cut...
when he failed to regain velocity, velocity he never showed this year, disputes the “they believed in Glavine” and makes it look more like he was a backup plan/hope he makes it but won’t hurt us if he doesn’t type player.
Mr. Sanchez - January 25, 2010
He was throwing fine before the shoulder injury.
MichaelProcton - January 26, 2010
This ‘Super 2’ consideration is something all teams look at now. It one of the few means for teams to work the free agency system to there advantage. Put it this way, would you rather get the first 2 months of rookie-play from Heyward, or get another year of service at his 4th year?
jbird29 - January 21, 2010
is it mostly the determinative consideration, a major consideration, or a minor, or is it highly variable and depend on things like the team’s competitive needs, large contracts to be coming off the books, and the prospect’s anticipated impact ?
fandave - January 21, 2010
You hit the nail on the head, there are many variables in my opinion. The player in question is obviously the biggest variable, ie Jason Heyward vs. maybe a Diory Hernandez. Clearly there would be less “thought” put into holding Diory down. The market of the team in question, their finances, how far off are they from competing, etc….
Basically all teams consider the question, but it obviously has a bigger impact on smaller market/more frugal teams.
scstrato - January 21, 2010
Hanson also didn't light it up at ST...
He was not one of our top five starters. Heyward could well perform at the level of a top-three OF.
MichaelProcton - January 21, 2010
Would say that the Braves definitely took ‘Super 2’ into consideration when the made the determination to start Hanson in the minors last year. It just didnt receive the chat because there were enough starters available.
Someone mentioned the Rays kept Longoria down for super-2 considerations. Also, didnt the O’s keep Matt Weiters down last year for ‘super-2’ reasons?
Majors league teams can do this because of the vaugeness of ‘when a prospect is ready for the bigs’. Also, a player like Heyward and others is still young enough to where they wont rock-the-boat. Its only 2+ months of time that they have to wait.
I would bet alot of money that Heyward starts the year in the minors.
jbird29 - January 22, 2010
I'm confused...
If you admit we had five starters who looked like better pitchers at the time (including, yes, JoJo), why does that imply that Super Two was taken into consideration.
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
If you view a current list of top 100 list of baseball prospects, believe me they all will be up for ‘Super 2’ consideration by there respective teams at some point in time. When do I bring this guy up? Now or later. Thats just the way of the game.
Last year, Braves had a good idea they where going to bring Hanson up in 09. I Gee, I wonder if the ‘Super 2 consideration’ was part of there decision as to when he was brought up. Hell, ya. If not then whoever makes those decisions, shouldnt be making those decison.
jbird29 - January 22, 2010
Here’s the thing. How many at-bats has this kid had above AA. Not many, though I’m too lazy to look up the exact number. Please look at Matt Wieters last year. He was the next coming before Heyward, and he did NOT light the world on fire. Heyward should start in AAA because 1) it does help with future costs, and 2) and I know this will surprise people… HE MAY NOT BE READY
eaheckman10 - January 21, 2010
It was either 13 ABs or 13 games…I can’t remember.
justincredubil02 - January 21, 2010
Either case makes my point
eaheckman10 - January 21, 2010
Yes, one which I agree with.
justincredubil02 - January 21, 2010
It was 13 AB, but not really...
…they don’t count the AAA playoffs in that, so it is a few more.
That being said, Wieters is not a good comparison as he was older and a catcher which is definitely different when coming to the majors. It does make McCann’s performance all the more impressive.
cavebird - January 21, 2010
Heyward....
Wasn’t Schaefer supposed to be an “immediate impact player”?
NC Bravesfan - January 21, 2010
No, but Schafer was.
justincredubil02 - January 21, 2010
Defensively, certainly.
MichaelProcton - January 21, 2010
I hope they're standing in the box against scary PITCHERS...
Elsewise, it’s no wonder why many don’t see initial success with all the confusion.
MichaelProcton - January 21, 2010
As some may recall
I’ve been saying this all along
In my opinion the only reason to slow up someone of his massive talent is if there is a discipline problem at the plate. That is obviously not the case, and Heyward comes in from day 1 as the 2nd most disciplined hitter on the team after Chipper.
I’m also in the camp that believes delaying Tommy last year may have cost us a playoff spot.
I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin’
Sid Bream's Moustache - January 21, 2010
I am sayin' that.
And did in the other thread. With Hanson starting instead of Jo-Jo at the start, we could have easily won the games we lost on May 3rd and May 8th, which may have been enough for us.
cavebird - January 21, 2010
It is not an accurate prediction
I haven’t chimed in on this argument yet, so I figured I might as well toss in my thoughts on the matter. Everyone who has made this argument “assumes” the outcome, or offensive output, would have been the same regardless of who started for the Braves. The problem with this theory is significant in that there are too many variables to count that could have affected the outcome. Could the opposing manager left his starter in longer if the game was closer? Could he have used better relievers to limit the runs we may have scored later in the games? These questions are limitless. The only fact that we can derive from this scenario, Tommy starting instead of JoJo, is that the game would have been different, period. There is absolutely no way whatsoever to accurately assume the outcome!
scstrato - January 21, 2010
There's no way to know for sure
But the odds would have improved tremendously. I agree, Hanson should have been brought up sooner, it was a pure money move. Same reason we traded Vazquez, pure money move. Hanson would have not made every 5th game a joke and uphill battle from the start.
ronjba - January 22, 2010
Wait
You are disagreeing because we made a “money move” to control Hanson for longer and we lost Vazquez because of a “money move” but you want Heyward in the majors to start regardless of “money”? So what happens when we have to make another “money move” in 2013? What’s that old saying … you can’t have you cake and eat it too?
scstrato - January 22, 2010
Lack of sufficient evidence...
if Tommy starts the year up, you don’t know how that impacts him down the stretch. Does his arm wear down? Does he fatigue mentally? Do opponents adjust and begin to hit him harder? The entire “Opening with Hanson in the 5 slot means we make the playoffs” is completely argumentative and lacking evidence on both sides of the argument.
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
You all need to stop assuming that Heyward is going to come into Atlanta and bust out the .800 OPS his first month. Everyone is going to jump down my throat and call me a pessimist, which is simply not true: I’m a realist. Andruw Jones had numbers BETTER than Heyward’s (rawr batting average!) as a 19 year old, and he didn’t start lighting up The Show until 1998. If Heyward absolutely shits the bed during the spring, do you still bring him up because you think HE’S READY, HE DID WELL FOR A MONTH IN MISSISSIPPI LAST YEAR? And then he struggles…and then what? You’re screwed. Letting him start the year in Gwinnett isn’t coddling him, its being smart. He can lose nothing if he stays in Gwinnett and succeeds. He can lose EVERYTHING if he starts in Atlanta and fails.
bigjoe - January 21, 2010
lets try this again
THIS GODDAMNIT!!!
‘sigh’ it just isn’t the same after you fuck up on the reply
Rhyno18 - January 21, 2010
Agree to an extent
I don’t see Heyward providing anything more than average power this season. It’s just highly unlikely that a still growing 20 year old will stay strong enough to hit 25 hrs over the course of a full season. If he isn’t going to produce power right away, why not let Melky play for a couple months because even optimistically speaking Heyward won’t be worth a win more than Melky. We have nothing to lose by holding him back to start the year IF he doesn’t perform well in ST. In that case, he can get to mid-season form before he is broken into the big leagues and increased the odds of success. This would cost us we will pay for the increased production in every year of arbitration. It’s just the more efficient management of a valuable resource.
jeg - January 21, 2010
He can lose everything?
How do you figure? The kid’s got great makeup. If he struggles, he won’t bitch like Francine-y, and he’ll go down and put his shit together. And to suggest that Jones was the more ready player because of his BA is ridiculous.
Jones had a 1.70 K:BB ratio; Heyward has had a 1.31. That’s more than 20% lower.
MichaelProcton - January 21, 2010
Exactly
I don’t think anyone has demonstrated the risk of “rushing” Heyward.
VivaLosBravos - January 22, 2010
Heh. Wasn’t looking at BA there slick, quoting your fearless leader in the mainpost. Andruw had a .323 ISO as a 19 year old over 3 levels. His BB:K was around .6, which for Andruw is great. He also stole 30 bases. THAT is a 5 tool player.
bigjoe - January 22, 2010
So if Francoeur had managed a .3 BB:K in AA before we called him up...
Would that have said he had great discipline because it was a good rate “for him?”
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
just for clarification, is this argument that he’ll be so psychologically distraught after his debut that his performance will suffer?
What if he starts in Gwinnett and fails? Wouldn’t that hurt his confidence more?
VivaLosBravos - January 22, 2010
So, when you say “EVERYTHING”(!!!), what, specifically, are you so fearful of?
In the history of baseball, the total, sudden and inexplicable loss of ability to perform has actually, although only very occasionally occurred. All-Star pitcher Steve Blass went into the tank so badly, his entire career evaporated and he became infamous for so-called “Steve Blass disease”. Chuck Knoblough (sp?) and Steve Sax had something similar manifest for making accurate throws to 1B. Is the hitting version going to be “Jason Heyward disease”? Is he going to go crazy and jump off a tall bridge?
I’m about to get scared too. Oh noes.
fandave - January 22, 2010
bigjoe...
…I don’t think anyone (well, okay, at least not me, and who else matters?) is suggesting that Heyward should start the season in Atlanta if he struggles during spring training. Hell, I say put him in AAA if he is average in spring training. All I, and I think a lot of others, are saying is that if he tears up spring training and is one of the best three OF we have at the end of spring training, bring him up.
cavebird - January 22, 2010
+ 1 for full agreement.
fandave - January 22, 2010
?
What is the correlation between ST and regular season performance? I think his MiLB body of work will tell a truer story regardless of how well he does.
VivaLosBravos - January 22, 2010
BJ, you preach it!
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
why is a bad month "screwing" everyone
Time to stop babying players. It’s a excuse we need to let die for the most part, that the public has bought IMO. It’s not going to ruin the guy to have a tough first month.
ronjba - January 22, 2010
That is assuming he struggles in spring, what if he excels?...
And Andruw is much less disciplined as a hitter, worse BB rate, worse at making contact, that it appears Heyward is. Too many assumptions are involved for ANY of us to act like we know what should happen with Heyward today regarding his place out of spring.
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
THIS GODDAMNIT!!!
Rhyno18 - January 21, 2010
/facepalm
I fail at the reply button
Rhyno18 - January 21, 2010
As much as I want to see Heyward start opening day...
it just seems like a smarter move to wait till June. The Braves will get an extra 2/3’s of a year of him for cheap (which is a big deal for a mid market team if he really is the next coming) AND he will get an extra two months of seasoning in AAA. The kid has done great but is still young and has basically had no experience above AA. IMO, that’s a huge positive that offsets the fact that we won’t have him for the first two months of the season. There’s no way that Cabrera/Hinske costs us that many games compared with having Heyward in the lineup. It’s not like Heyward is a pitcher (like Hanson) and it’s not like he’s going to post an .800+ ops in his first two months in the majors.
I seem to remember this exact same argument about Hanson last year and about how major league ready he was. Well despite all that the Braves still kept him down and he got the experience he needed in AAA, came up to the majors and killed it…and now we have 3 more years of Hanson at a bargain instead of 2.
Some of you may think it was a dumb/stingy move, but I don’t think any of you will be complaining when Hanson is making the minimum in 2012 as opposed to asking for 13 million dollars in arbitration.
Hold off on Jay-Hey for two months and trot out the vets for a while. I’d still rather have Hinske/Cabrera than FUGA/FYF. Besides, who knows…Cabrera or Hinske could be killing it and we would have a nice trade chip in our hands when Heyward is ready.
pancanbra - January 22, 2010
My argument last spring regarding Hanson is the same argument that I’m making now.
Smart baseball teams making a serious, concerted, fierce push for championship contender status understand that games won the 1st weeks of the season count just as much games won during the late season stretch run. You want the team to believe in itself? You want to mobilize the populace into a frenzy of support, put chanting chopping hooting big crowds into the seats of the stadium, set attendance records, generate big revenue? Here’s how:
Win games! Early, often, at every opportunity! Get out to fast start! Put your best 25 players on the opening day roster!
The bottom-line is all the speculative and hypothetical long-term financial implications simply pale in comparison to the urgent necessity of forging a championship season.
And my belief is that the Braves’ decision to leave Hanson down was a huge mistake of being too conservative, too cautious, and may very well have cost us a playoff berth last season.
fandave - January 22, 2010
The thing is, I don’t believe a 20 year old rookie is going to be the difference maker for us this year in games won and lost.
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
but…but…but…everyone is projecting numbers for him like he’s the love child of Pujols and Ted Williams’ frozen head. He’s a can’t miss prospect! Assuming Bobby gives him 14 days off during the season, I predict a 130-32 record. But I’m a pessimist at heart.
Rhyno18 - January 22, 2010
No one is projecting ridiculous stats..
just likely better than Melky or Schafer. And outside of a free agent, who else ya got?
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
Difference making is really hard to accurately predict right now. I do expect they will be pondering on that throughtout ST and also he tops the early ROY leader board, if he is starting RF from day 1.
fandave - January 22, 2010
When was the last time a rookie (even a ROY) was the difference maker (or even a key piece) on their team’s playoff run?
I am struggling to think of an answer…
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
ahem
You mean besides Albert Pujols? Because I’m pretty sure he carried the Cardinals for the first three full months of his rookie season.
JFP - January 22, 2010
Also that Ichiro guy seemed to ignite Seattle that very same year.
JFP - January 22, 2010
True
but don’t act like that’s the norm. For every Pujols, or Ichiro who is also a terrible example due to the difference in age and development, there are hundreds who fail.
scstrato - January 22, 2010
Also, are we seriously comparing Heyward to two of the greatest hitters that we will likely ever see?
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
no
No in now way was he compared to two great hitters. You asked for examples and I gave them. No comparison was ever made.
JFP - January 22, 2010
sure
it certainly isn’t the norm, and no where in my reply did I imply that it was. The question was when was the last time a rookie was the difference maker or even a key piece on their teams playoff run, so I provided two examples from two different teams in the same year.
I would venture to guess that any rookie who has a good enough year to win the ROY and is on a playoff team was in fact a key piece and possibly a difference maker. Other more recent examples have be postured further down the page so I think this is holding up well.
JFP - January 22, 2010
forgot to add
Ichiro isn’t that terrible of an example since at that time noone was sure how japanese hitters would translate to MLB, the age and development issues do make a difference, but what he did was truly unexpected.
JFP - January 22, 2010
Seems to me
That there was guy, Dustin Pedroia, played a big role on a Boston team that won the freaking World Series.
Also seems to me that if Ryan Howard had played more in 2005, perhaps the Phillies win 2 more games and are in the playoffs instead of the Braves.
Or how about Evan Longoria, as a rookie, playing a key role in putting the Tampa Bay Rays in the World Series?
Bronn - January 22, 2010
Would Hanson have been the "difference maker"..
if he won 2 more games than Jojo/Medlen and maintained his success after call up? No rookie is the true “difference maker” because generally that label goes to the teams best players, a McCann, Chipper, Esco, or Glaus. But a rookie can most certainly be a valuable piece in aiding a team to make the post season, just see all those Baby Braves from a few years ago.
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
No. Hanson would not have been a difference maker for reasons stated in other locations of this blog.
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
last season
a 23 yo rookie made a huge impact for the Braves
ronjba - January 22, 2010
Which playoff spot did they get again?
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
Additionally, let’s not kid ourselves over the impact Hanson made. Yes, he pitched great. But, he was not who we relied on or who we counted on. He was our 5th starter, not our ace.
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
Hmm
Considering that our other four starters were very good also, and our fifth starter SUCKED before he showed up, I’d say he made a significant difference.
Bronn - January 22, 2010
Yup. It was the suckiness of our 5th starter that caused our offense to not score runs.
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
It was the suckiness of our fifth starter...
that caused our offense’s production on average days to not be enough.
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
I'm sorry man
I was with you in your assertion that Heyward is probably ready for a taste, you made some good points in those arguments, but this is just short-sighted drivel. To me it wreaks of homer-ism.
So let me make sure I understand your point, you believe that “smart teams” ignore the long term financial implications of their actions and should do everything in their power to stock up on wins early in the season because it helps the team “believe” in itself and puts fans butts into the seats? Hogwash. The fact is we are potentially talking about a difference in Heywards 4th year salary of up to $10 million dollars, if he is as good as we suspect. Just for the record, that’s 1 million less than Javier Vazquez’s salary this year. I can guarantee you that after this year Frank Wren is very well aware of the value of that money down the road.
Further, not even a month ago you were cautioning us to relax and that our GM should be thinking 3 or 4 moves ahead:
But that somehow doesn’t apply now? We should just ignore the fact that 2 months of Heyward now could mean we wouldn’t have the money to sign an extra all-star 3/4 years from now? Sorry, but there is nothing in your argument here that leads me to believe this is a good idea.
All that aiside, I still have not seen anyone address how the difference between Melky and Heyward for the first two months has more importance to our season than the health, or potential lack thereof, of Glaus, Chipper, Saito and Wagner?
scstrato - January 22, 2010
I like you.
Smoltz's Beard - January 22, 2010
you are right in everything before this, so I’ll give you argument you ask for in reference to the final section. We have no control over the health of Glaus, Chipper, Saito, and Wagner. Their health is the most critical factor to our season, but there is nothing we can do to determine their health. However, if Heyward is indeed more valuable than Melky (which i think he probably is), than we can increase our win total in 2010 by placing Heyward in the starting lineup from day one (that is only if Heyward 2010> Melky’s first two months + Heyward from June til Oct). WIth that said, even if Heyward is the better player from the start of the season, you still keep him in the minors to delay arbitration for the time u mentioned.
You are completely correct that health is the most important factor this year, but there’s nothing the braves can do to insure health at this point (they could have signed less injury prone/ younger players, but at what cost?). so there’s no debate here, thus no one will cover it.
Swo12bv - January 22, 2010
Very true
but that is not my point. We very clearly cannot control the health of these players, no argument there. The question is why risk losing an extra year of Jason Heyward when a significant injury to one of these players could completely derail our season. There is a better chance, at least in my mind, of losing one of them this season than Heyward providing enough boost in April/May to make us a playoff team.
scstrato - January 22, 2010
I guess I don’t see how the two are connected…would u mind trying to explain it to me again…
Swo12bv - January 22, 2010
+1
Andy Braves Fan - January 22, 2010
Agreed!
ronjba - January 22, 2010
“now we have 3 more years of Hanson at a bargain instead of 2.”
We also potentially went to the playoffs zero times last year instead of one.
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
This is a ridiculous argument.
I mean, if I didn’t have a bacon egg and cheese bagel for breakfast, I might have had a sausage biscuit.
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
why would u have a sausge biscuit it doesnt come with egg or cheese….thats just ridiculous.
Swo12bv - January 22, 2010
Cheese is $0.30 extra, and a sausage and egg biscuit is like a dollar more.
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
Certainly it is.
But I’m not the one claiming that the ultimate decision could not possibly have worked out any better.
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
Anything is possible. Arguing about what could have been or what we think may have happened instead is a waste of time.
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
Ha...
Have you not described the vast majority of the banter that goes on in sports blogging?
MichaelProcton - January 25, 2010
How many arbitration eligible players have been locked up with long term contracts just in the last couple of weeks? The point being if budget is stable, payroll is a manageable cost of business and weighed into all these calculated decisions. And the team’s competitive edge at all relevant times is (or should be) the most important criteria.
fandave - January 22, 2010
reply fail
fandave - January 22, 2010
Sure, in a vacuum (or rather a world without budgets or monetary concerns), I would agree that competitiveness is the most important thing. Unfortunately the fact that budgets exist, not to mention revenue sharing, disproves your theory. I’m not arguing that we couldn’t afford Heyward, I’m arguing that Heywards cost would preclude us from signing others.
Maybe a couple of examples might help. First let’s theorize that we don’t bring up Heyward until after the “deadline” for super 2 status. In 2013 we will control his salary regardless of his performance. My guess is that would put him in the $3 to $6 mil salary range.
Now, let’s say we start him in the majors this year. That makes 2013 his first arb eligible season and means we would have to pay him based on his performance. If you are right and Heyward lives up to expectations that could escalate his salary to the $8 to $14 mil range.
So under which scenario do you think he would be more agreeable to settle for a long term deal? AND, under which scenario do you think the Braves will be able to build a better ball-club in 2013?
scstrato - January 22, 2010
But to argue this based on salary
IMO, is to be led by the organization as to why they may not be fielding the best team starting day 1 and be okay with it. We cannot predict salaries in the future, we can try to strategize but we can’t predict. We could buy out his last arbitration year, like Longoria, and then it wouldn’t matter at all (except for the fact that if we lose the division by 2 games his contribution would most likely have helped us win it (over Melky)).
ronjba - January 22, 2010
It wouldn’t, huh? If that last arbitration year cost us up to $10 mil more based on a two month decision you still think it wouldn’t matter? TWO months, actually not even two full months, is what makes Tim Lincecum’s salary this year $13 mil (or thereabouts) instead of $3 mil. So yeah, whats a measily $10 million … Oh, wait, that’s practically Javier Vazquez’s salary this year.
scstrato - January 22, 2010
Not to mention
There is no guarantee that Heyward would want to sign long term like Longoria did. Braves fans can hope, but for a guy with his talent he may well want to go the Lincecum route: year to year arbitration, and will probably take the biggest contract he can get his hands on once he hits FA.
Andy Braves Fan - January 22, 2010
Assuming he excels like Lincecum, which is a good problem...
again, too much speculation on both sides for anyone to actually make a dent. Let’s wait two months and then discuss this. Both sides will have much more information.
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
You're right...if only Chipper weren't making so much money
We could have kept Javier Vazquez.
The big issue isn’t paying people what they’re worth. It’s giving $45 million to Derek Lowe so he can be our 4th best pitcher.
We’re looking at a fairly competitive team this year, when in 2013, we’re almost certainly beyond Chipper, with no replacement in sight. We don’t have a projected outfielder except for Heyward (maybe Schafer), hopefully Escobar is still playing shortstop for us, and we’ve got Freeman at first.
That could be a 60 win team, and we’d end up wondering whether using Heyward for 2 months in the hopes of a playoff appearance might be worth it.
Bronn - January 22, 2010
If he was going to get $36 mil (a whopping $3 mil difference a season)...
would you be happier? Lowe had one of his worst seasons in memory and still wasn’t all that bad.
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
Yes I would
Because we’d likely have traded him instead of JV this offseason.
Bronn - January 22, 2010
Oh...
And any playoff appearance can be a League Champion. And any League Champ can win the WS. Ask the Cards.
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
Gondee
I want to agree with you, but there is more that goes into the Major leagues than that.
I want to make it clear that I am not saying that Heyward should start in AAA, I am not convinced either way.
However, it isn’t just the competition. It is the atmosphere. The Press. The fans. There is a reason they call it “the Show”. There is a lot going on there once a player gets to the bigs. Heyward is a 20 year old kid. Not all 20 year old kids can handle that pressure, and the Braves should be certain before they lay it on him. A couple months in AAA certainly can’t hurt.
Andy Braves Fan - January 22, 2010
Scenarios
1. No matter if Jason Heyward starts the year in Atlanta or Gwinnett, if the Braves are winning, nobody but us internet geeks will really notice.
~ Braves are winning, with Jason Heyward = Good call Frank, Bobby
~ Braves are winning, without Jason Heyward = Even better move by Braves, now we get to keep Heyward for longer for less.
~ Braves are not winning, with Jason Heyward = o shit
~ Braves are not winning, without Jason Heyward = is June 8th here yet?
2. Jason Heyward starts in Atlanta
~ Braves succeed, make playoffs = Good call, Frank, Bobby
~ Braves succeed, win pennant = Wren, GM of year, Bobby, Manager of year
~ Braves succeed, win WS = BEST YEAR EVER
~ Braves do not make playoffs = damn it, now we have one year less of Heyward
~ Regardless of which, Jason Heyward potentially becomes free agent in 2016.
3. Jason Heyward starts in Gwinnett
~ Braves play well = And we’ll get better after June 8th
~ Braves play okay, but could use OF help = I can’t wait until June 8th
~ Braves play poorly = Fire Wren, early severance for Bobby
3A. Jason Heyward gets called up June 8th
~ Braves make playoffs/advance/win it all = Wren, Bobby, geniuses
~ Braves fall short of playoffs by one game more than Heyward’s WAR = Wren, Bobby, goats
~ Regardless of which, Jason Heyward potentially becomes free agent in 2017.
royhobbs - January 22, 2010
good summary.
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
Thinking more on the main post
There is a very recent example of a player who almost was permanently damaged from being brought up (probably) too early. Zack Greinke.
Greinke was brought up at 20, and from here I will refer to one of my favorite baseball writers, Joe Posnanski:
And Greinke almost never threw another pitch again. How tragic would that have been, especially knowing what we know now? Even worse, how many Greinkes are out there that never did step foot on the diamond again. We probably will never know.
So if you think that it is impossible that Heyward isn’t emotionally ready, think again.
Andy Braves Fan - January 22, 2010
Athletes – like everyone else – can have serious psychological challenges. Of course, most do not.
Grienke did. Possibly, being put under ML pressure at a young age made his pre-existing issues more acute, but from what I read about his situation, it seems like a real stretch to suggest he wasn’t quite fragile to in the 1st place and then had problems because of being rushed
For example, SI reported in Maec 2007:
fandave - January 22, 2010
And how
are we to know if Heyward is having similar difficulties?
How are we to know that the pressure can create such a condition in the first place?
Andy Braves Fan - January 22, 2010
By the fact...
that every observer of him (Braves-related, neutral, or otherwise) raves about his makeup and his mental state. Find me those reports about Greinke.
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
Greinke and Heyward may not be perfect comparisons but Greinke’s case does show that rushing a player is a factor that shouldn’t be discounted as myth. Rushing players happens. I’m not saying that starting Heyward this year will be rushing him but we have to be prepared for the possibility that he may not be ready before we just hand him the job without any competition. Doing that would be rushing him.
ajones2522 - January 22, 2010
Exactly
I brought Greinke up to illustrate that, while Gondee and Fandave might be sick of the meme, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t hold some truth.
Andy Braves Fan - January 22, 2010
Gosh, what a shame it would be if he turned out exactly like Greinke
Who endured one bad season (caused mostly by bad luck on balls in play) before becoming the best damn pitcher in the game.
Bronn - January 22, 2010
Sure
that’s great now. My point was that he came really really really close to quitting the game entirely.
Sure, now that we know what he has become because he (thank god) came back, it seems like no big deal. But it was. And that potential came really close to never being realized. What a tragedy that would have been. That is my point. It could happen, and in Greinke’s case almost did.
And as I said, I’m sure there are players out there who did walk away forever. The reason I can’t point them out is because we probably have never heard of them, and that is a shame.
Andy Braves Fan - January 22, 2010
He thought about quitting when he was in the minors, too
Apples, meet oranges.
Weird assumptions:
1) If only Greinke had spent a couple more months in the minors, this wouldn’t have happend (The kid had social anxiety disorder).
2) This is somehow related to Greinke’s 20 year old season, when he was pretty good, instead of the 21 year old season, when he posted a 5.80 ERA and 17 losses on a crappy team (which might make one wonder, “What’s the point?”)
3) Kansas City rushing a kid up to play for a team which won 58 games is comparable to the Braves actually attempting to make the playoffs in 2010.
4) If Zack Greinke had actually given up the game of baseball, it would have been due to playing earlier in the major leagues, rather than due to a pre-existing mental condition.
Bronn - January 22, 2010
Alright
lets try this again.
Greinke is not a great comparable, but he is an illustration of a guy who suffered a mental collapse. This collapse was, by many accounts, exacerbated by being brought up to the bigs earlier than expected and the pressure surrounding that.
Heyward is likely different. Greinke was just the first example that came to mind. However, there may be countless numbers of players who didn’t recover. For some, there were probably warning signs. For others, there may not have been. We probably don’t know who they are, because they are lost in baseball history. But Greinke’s story and others (Khalil Greene was mentioned) show that the pressures of becoming a big leaguer do affect some. The meme has some truth to it.
Is that too difficult to understand and consider?
Andy Braves Fan - January 22, 2010
Frankly
I think you’re making a connection that isn’t there. You’re connecting his early call-up to his mental collapse 21 months later, which is a stretch.
Zack Greinke is who he is, so he was going to have to seek counseling at some point or other.
I’ve read very little where his social anxiety disorder is tied to his debut season in 2004. The aforementioned article by John Donovan talks about how he battled depressing during his minor league stint, and how that depression and anxiety grew over the course of his difficult 2005 season.
I even remember reading an article with a quote from his psychiatrist, who mentioned Greinke hated the spotlight as far back as high school.
Bronn - January 22, 2010
You're using Khalil Greene?
The guy who was a college superstar and the face of a nationally recognized team and got more than five years of service time (including a rookie year that placed him second in RoY voting) before his “issues” cropped up? Sounds like a guy who got sad because he sucked, not something that had magically lingered under the surface.
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
Khalil Greene has similar problems..
he had college and minor league development. Joey Devine had about as confidence-destroying a beginning as any major leaguer could have, and he turned out fine. Some people have these mental problems, some don’t. From all reports, Heyward is nothing like the fragile mental makeups described.
Mr. Sanchez - January 22, 2010
Devine would not have turned out fine (most likely) wearing a uniform with a tomahawk across the front of it.
It was one of those “change of scenery” deals that brought him back to life.
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
Yes
He proved this in 2007, when playing in the Braves’ minor league system, he posted an ERA under 2, striking out 78 in 57 innings. Then in 8 innings with Atlanta in 2007, he gave up 1 ER with 7 strikeouts.
He was clearly on his way out of the league.
Bronn - January 22, 2010
Pretty sure that I never said that, but whatever.
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
Guess I misunderstood the
“brought him back to life” part of your comment.
Bronn - January 22, 2010
I can understand that. I meant that it made him a better pitcher, instead of one that sits at the far end of the BP bench 90% of the time.
I really liked Devine, and I wish he could have still been a Brave, but he needed to go somewhere else, if for nothing else than his own good.
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
Wasn't his fault...
Bobby’s paranoia clearly hurt his capacity to contribute.
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
Or the fact that he flat out sucked for all but a few innings in the Majors with Atlanta.
justincredubil02 - January 22, 2010
He only had but a few innings in the majors with Atlanta...
two of the years, he gave up a grand slam in those limited innings, and it blew his ERA out of whack. Take away those appearances, and he was actually pretty solid.
Mr. Sanchez - January 23, 2010
over parts of 3 seasons, he had a combined whip of 2.1. He did more than just give up those 2 grand slams.
justincredubil02 - January 23, 2010
Still, he never got a fair shake
Mr. Sanchez is right, remove the HRs (which were always within his first or second appearances of the year), Devine was always getting better as the season progressed. It’s just Bobby didn’t use him, like the way he didn’t use Boone Logan last year. Sure it’s the span over a year, but in 13.1IP from Sept. 2006 and all his appearances in 2007, he gave up one earned run and struck out 15. Sure, it’s a microscopic sample size, but take out the time frame, and you’ll take 1ER & 15K in 13.1IP any day of the week.
Devine was a great strikeout artist in the making, mostly due to his fastball with great tailing movement, but he is a prime example of Bobby’s mismanagement of a young player. Considering his DJA/TJS in Oakland, it’s for the best we traded him in hindsight, but I had a lot of promise had he been allowed to stay.
royhobbs - January 23, 2010
Oh, I am not saying that he was a talent and a strikeout machine. I loved Devine (even with the HR disasters).
I just think it was one of those situations that wasn’t going to work out for either party had he stayed – whether that be his fault or Bobby’s or a little of both.
justincredubil02 - January 23, 2010
Again...
take out his first two appearances in 05 and 06, then look at how he did. I think he could work out here just fine if we gave him the chance, but we wanted a CF and Kotsay made sense.
Mr. Sanchez - January 23, 2010
take out the first two games in 05 and 06
now look at what he did.
Mr. Sanchez - January 23, 2010
Well, let’s just take out everyone’s bad games and see how they do.
That is a great point you know, “Hey, if you take away all of his bad, he is actually pretty good!”
justincredubil02 - January 23, 2010
since when are you this big of a douche?
we’re not talking some huge amount. It’s 4 bad outings in 25. In the other 21 appearances, he gave up a grand total of 1 run.
I bet you think John Smoltz had his worst year as a reliever in 2002, because of a single game.
Mr. Sanchez - January 23, 2010
Seriously man...
it’s not like I’m saying ignore 2-4 months of Kelly Johnson’s seasons, and using that to prove he was a good player. I’m talking 4 games. 4 total. His final 18 games here, 1 run allowed. But nah, it was never gonna work for him in Atlanta. Just like Jason Heyward has “never” faced a pitcher above the AA level.
Mr. Sanchez - January 23, 2010
Bobby was not going to use him. It wasn’t going to work for him.
I have never once said that he was incapable of pitching well in Atlanta.
I’m done with this.
justincredubil02 - January 24, 2010
no, you just said...
Along with the abvove, “most likely” would not have turned out fine, needed a change of scenery, and would have been at the end bullpen bench.
Mr. Sanchez - January 24, 2010
And I stand by that.
justincredubil02 - January 24, 2010
Greinke was also an emotional trainwreck.
He and Heyward are nothing alike.
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
How do you know
do you have some sort of mind link with Heyward? And by the way, just because outwardly he seems fine in front of reporters and scouts, one would be ignorant to think that depression is always visible in public (which would mean you have no understanding of depression, which a lot of people don’t). You have no idea what is in Heyward’s head, and despite reports that his mental makeup is good you have no idea if that is actually the case.
I can tell you a few ways that they are alike (or will be if Heyward is indeed called up). Both 20 years old, highly regarded, with lots of pressure on them to perform well out of the gate.
Is it a perfect comparison. No. But again, my point was to show that there are cases where bringing a guy up too early did have a severe negative effect. Greinke is an obvious one. I’m sure there are others, and many of them we probably never heard about because they never returned.
Andy Braves Fan - January 22, 2010
Again, the Greinke situation does not support your argument at all.
He had the exact problems before being brought up that he continued to have after being brought up.
There is no basis whatsoever – other than idiotic speculation- to say there was a “severe negative effect” from being in the major leagues.
fandave - January 22, 2010
See my post above.
Bronn - January 22, 2010
Thank you for confirming the already stated fact that the Greinke example is not a perfect illustration.
What’s idiotic is that you don’t think it’s possible to rush a player. Whether or not we agree that Heyward is being rushed isn’t the point. This point is that when other people disagree with you based on this theory, you are saying that theory is garbage. Which, is garbage. Teams rush players all the time. Why don’t we just bring up all our young players since there is no such thing as rushing a player.
ajones2522 - January 22, 2010
Uhm
It’s completely possible to bring a player up before he’s ready. What happens after is the disagreement.
If the guy isn’t ready, he’s not as good as the other guys you have, so you bench him, or send him back down. The myth is that it “crushes” guys.
Joey Devine was rushed to the majors. He wasn’t as good as most of our other options in 2006. So he ended up occupying the last bullpen spot, rather than the second or third. After that, he was phenomenal in AAA in 2007, and just plain sick in Oakland in 2008.
Bronn - January 22, 2010
First of all, if it really does “crush” some guys then you wouldn’t know who they were anyways because their careers were derailed. The reasons you gave for giving a guy a chance are great examples of what happens to players when an organization thinks they are ready. What I’m saying is that if they don’t think he is ready, don’t just throw him into the majors because nothing bad can happen.
ajones2522 - January 22, 2010
Thank you
for illustrating my basic point.
The problem here is that Bronn is mentioning all examples that we know of, namely successful ones. Were there guys who never made it back? I can’t say for certain, but I would put lots of money down that there are. We just have never heard of them because they are forgotten.
Andy Braves Fan - January 22, 2010
Without a concrete example, it’s tough for you to validate your point.
Apparently, there’s a hypothetical example where a guy was good enough to play in the majors, but the strain of being forced to play at a high level before he was ready crushed his confidence, and he never recovered. It’s a nice story, but does this kind of thing actually happen?
I can see if we’re talking about Mark Prior and Kerry Wood throwing 120 pitches a game before their arms were conditioned for that strain, but that’s a physical malady, and doesn’t line up with what you say could happen to Jason Heyward.
Bronn - January 22, 2010
And thanks for your assumptions about my knowledge of depression. I have chronic chemical depression. I’ll ask you politely to shut the fuck up about what I might or might know about.
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
I'll assume you mean clinical depression
Bronn - January 22, 2010
No.
Chemical. As in my brain is fucked up.
MichaelProcton - January 22, 2010
Yeah, they think it shouldn’t be a consideration with Heyward because they think he’s above that. Which is fine. Personally I think he’s probably ready to but I’m withholding final judgement and I’m definitely not writing off a phenomena as BS just because I don’t believe it to be true in a particular instance.
ajones2522 - January 22, 2010
reply fail ^
ajones2522 - January 22, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Talking Chop to post a comment.