Paul Crane
@PaulCrane7
Follow Follow @PaulCrane7
Word is.. rumblings about Craig Kimbrel + Braves for one year deal.. will update if and when hear more. @ScoutsHonorPod @929TheGame @knoxbardeen
Paul Crane
@PaulCrane7
Follow Follow @PaulCrane7
Word is.. rumblings about Craig Kimbrel + Braves for one year deal.. will update if and when hear more. @ScoutsHonorPod @929TheGame @knoxbardeen
One note of confusion...
Compensation picks for not signing a guy the previous year are "protected" from being lost by signing a QO FA.
What I don't know is if that means a "protected" pick doesn't count toward the 3rd pick designation. If so, the Braves would lose their 3rd round pick, which is essentially nothing to worry about.
jpx7 (02-20-2019)
jpx7 (02-20-2019)
I would be very surprised if Kimbrel has to settle for a 1 year deal. The Wade Davis contract (3/52) should be out there for him...
Kelly, Ottavino, Familia, and Britton all got 3 years, and Britton got $13M per year. I find it hard to believe Kimbrel can't also get 3 years at something much higher than $13M per year.
Totally agree. If the Braves were going to forfeit the pick, I’d have rather seen them sign Pollock.
Question for the more apprised, though: if the Braves sign a second QO FA, do they forfeit a second pick? If not, they may as well sign Keuchel to a short-term deal, provided they’re actually going to sign Kimbrel.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
They would then lose the next lowest pick.
That’s what I thought I remembered, but I wasn’t sure if the rules had changed. Thanks.
I get the excitement over Kimbrel, but I’d honestly rather see the Braves go after, say, Marwin and Gio Gonzalez than forfeit their third highest pick / accompanying pool money for a reliever (decline or no decline).
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
If the pick lost is intact a 3rd rounder, then adding Kimbrel is a great buy. Having 3 picks inside of 65 is all we need. Every round after that is just filler/lottery picks. I am all in on Craig then sign Marwin and I am back on the AA moniker.
Coppy
It all depends, as Enscheff said, on to what extent that #9 compensation pick is “protected” from QO ramifications. The comments and actions of the Braves heretofore this off-season leave me to suspect the second-rounder is the team’s third-highest pick, but that’s just speculation.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
David O'Brien
Verified account
@DOBrienATL
1h1 hour ago
More
#Braves will start Touki Toussaint in Saturday’s opener against the Mets at Port St. Lousy, and Foltynewicz starts Sunday against Astros at WPB. Kolby Allard will follow Toussaint and Bryse Wilson will follow Folty. Those four pitchers are set to work 2 innings apiece.
Get off my lawn!
Teams cannot reoffer the QO. It’s now a “once in a given player’s career” deal—which is one incentive for QO guys to take a one-year and then re-enter the market. So forfeiting the pick on Kimbrel’s behalf would be a sweetener for Kimbrel, but a big loss for the Braves (if the pick is indeed their second-rounder) just for a single season of a reliever.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
And adding Kimbrel would cost the Braves their 2nd round pick.
https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-qualify...ed/c-259650658
• A team that receives revenue sharing will lose its third-highest selection in the following year's Draft. If it signs two such players, it will also forfeit its fourth-highest remaining pick.
Examples: A team with one pick in each round of the 2019 Draft would lose its third-round pick. A team with two first-round picks and one pick in each subsequent round would lose its second-round pick.
The Braves are designated as a revenue sharing team and will lose it's third highest selection.
The Dodgers for example have two first round picks and are losing their 2nd (since they don't qualify for revenue sharing) highest selection which is the 31st overall pick for signing Pollock.
jpx7 (02-20-2019)
Which is the reason adding Kimbrel for one year really makes no sense.
If AA can get him on decidedly favorable terms - 3/$36 million or less - giving up that pick might make some sense. The same thing goes if he were able to add Keuchel on a three year deal.
If you have to push deeper into either player's decline years, I'd just as soon keep the pick - just as I wouldn't give up a pick for one year of either Pitcher since we're obviously not one piece away.
Has there EVER been a statement and question a certain someone should absolutely never have made and asked publicly more than...
Kinda pathetic to see yourself as a message board knight in shining armor. How impotent does someone have to be in real life to resort to playing hero on a message board?
jpx7 (02-20-2019)
Thanks for digging that up. As such, I just don’t really see this lining up for both sides.
If the Braves are going to lose their second-rounder / accompanying pool money, then they’re really giving up a lot for one year of Kimbrel (even at a “reasonable” price like $12-15 million); to make it worthwhile, they’d want to have him around a little longer (say, 3/$45). But Kimbrel either wants something in the five-year range, or the opportunity to re-enter the market next offseason sans QO (and with the chance to erase memories of his postseason sketchiness). Not sure there’s a sensible middle at which the sides can meet.
And that’s ignoring the imprudence of a mid-market team (flush with pitching, no less) spending top-dollar (as in: 10+% of payroll) on any reliever.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
clvclv (02-20-2019)