Sorry Nsacpi
Sorry Nsacpi
Agree completely on point 1 and we'll never know how deep we got with Brantley and obviously money isn't everything.
#2, I do understand what you're saying, but I thought Camargo played best once he had an every day role. I'm worried about how he'll deal without the consistency of knowing what his job is every day.
#3, I think a one year deal is a bad deal if we used the money to sign a guy at a position of strength that keeps us from upgrading a position of need.
You are correct. But it can be good for a team in that you aren't stuck with the bad half of the contract. Machado for instance, may be 4-5 WAR player in 5 years and decide to opt out. The Pads allow him to walk and are clear of future risk. Sure, you are letting him go while he's still considered a good player, but ideally you would spend that money on younger/cheaper alternatives with less risk.
Bud Norris to the bluejays, sorry nsacpi.
Where do you upgrade at then? Or even who, what names?
I'd agree on outfield, but... Pollock costs a pick and he's injury prone, McCutchen's deal could be a bad one.
If they wanted a controllable catcher, and the Marlins wanted Contreras, Riley/Pache, and a pitcher, that's a simple no. Pitching wise there wasnt much out there. I'm not as big on Keuchel and Kimbrel as alot of people here are.
JohnAdcox (02-28-2019)
I tend to think more strategically than tactically. I've long said that the Braves have been on the wrong path from a strategic POV since the whole "reload" mindest.
The strategy has been to build the team within enough to get within range of sustained competitiveness, then go outside through FA and trades to put the team over the top. The Braves didn't improve through trade at all and marginally improved through their FA signings. They brought in a catcher who realistically is likely the mirror of Suzuki in a good case. The exchanged a ~3.5 WAR 3B with what they hope will be a 5 WAR 3B. The replaced a 2.5 WAR RF with the same guy who's a year older or maybe a 1.5 WAR RF. The guy pushed from 3B to the bench probably adds a win to the bench. In other words, they may, MAY have improved the team by 1.5 wins, maybe. That's before growth from the youngsters, assuming there is any and assuming that it outweighs regression in other places. They are counting almost entirely on improvement from within, which doesn't follow the strategy. They have gone against their plan. That may be due to finances. But, if you can't follow through on the plan, then you had a bad plan to begin with.
Garmel (02-28-2019), jpx7 (02-28-2019), TomahawkCult (02-28-2019)
the only way the player opts out is if it’s clearly advantageous to do so. the market is better, the dh is everhwre, the player was consistently great. otherwise he stays.
this favors the player. not the team.
a team wouldn’t push for it unless there a financial benefit. which was my initial point.
"Well, you’ll learn soon enough that this was a massive red wave landslide." - thethe on the 2020 election that trump lost bigly
“I can’t fix my life, but I can fix the world.” - sturg