Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 263

Thread: Objectively ranking the top farm systems

  1. #221
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,770
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    270
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,491
    Thanked in
    1,150 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    Pretty sure the Braves current TV deal runs through 2027. In 10 years I think it's more likely cable TV will be well on its way out, and live streaming like MLB.tv is much more prevalent. I'm afraid that means the Braves will miss out on the small window of time where all these mega TV deals were signed by most other MLB teams.

    If I'm the Braves FO, I'm not going to plan my organizational strategy around what might happen with TV money a decade from now. Coppy most likely won't even be around by then, so I doubt he is making a 10 year plan involving revenue from a new TV deal.

    I would hope the Braves are operating under the realities of today and the foreseeable future rather than speculation a decade into the future.

    No, I agree. I do think stadium revenue, plus the non baseball revenue -- if allowed to be applied to payroll -- may bring up the budget. And if the Braves are able to develop a lot of in-house talent, I can see them going market rate on a free agent or two. It's been awhile, but there was a time when the Braves operated with the majors second largest payroll. I don't think they necessarily have to pinch pennies like a small market club. Near top of mid market is probably more realistic but I think it will depend on circumstances. Will be interesting to see what attendance looks like in five years if Braves are winning.

  2. #222
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,770
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    270
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,491
    Thanked in
    1,150 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBravos View Post
    Btw....paying a pitcher a huge contract is a bad deal in most instances. Look at Greinke for example...great pitcher, but who wants that deal?? There are just a handful of pitchers (who play one out of every 5 games), that merit that kind of money. It makes more sense to have many pitchers on the farm and sign position players (who play every day), to your bigger contracts.

    If you are paying a pitcher dearly you need to be pretty sure about the mental makeup and the stuff. I would not have paid Greinke.

  3. #223
    Steve Harvey'd
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    18,927
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,856
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,322
    Thanked in
    3,346 Posts
    you don't pay 32+ pitchers to multiple years at max dollar. you basically rewarded him for his good work with your rival, while you get his decline years on your team. Moronic.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to bravesfanMatt For This Useful Post:

    JohnAdcox (02-23-2017)

  5. #224
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,248
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,995
    Thanked in
    6,104 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post
    Ok, I got you. But if mid-market teams are already at a disadvantage due to an inability to be a player for the top FAs, then it just seems like you're consistently putting them at a slightly bigger disadvantage by shipping all their pitchers before their deals are up.

    Again, I definitely think it makes sense to do that at times, and probably in a majority of cases, but there is also something to be said for allowing your team to remain as good as it can be while you're competitive. It is more difficult for a mid-market team to build a sustained winner, but it's also more difficult for them to win any championships if you're constantly taking the top off the pitching staff.

    And even for big-market teams, if your contention is that trading these pitchers with 1-2 years left on their deal maximizes value and helps you long-term, why would that not be the case for them as well? Wouldn't it still be a better use of assets to trade Arrieta now? Why would you hold onto him?
    Buying a FA gets a team more immediate certainty at the beginning of the deal. Signing Lester got the Cubs a good pitcher that season, and they will be stuck paying a declining pitcher more than he is worth at the end of the deal. They can afford to buy that (relative) short term certainty at the cost of wasting money at the end of the deal.

    The Braves can not afford to waste money at the end of deals. They are never going to be able to afford a Top 5 payroll. So they have to take on more risk early by relying on young players who will never be wasted money (they can just be released), but might not be productive in the present.

    Risk now, or risk later. Since a win now is worth more than a win later, it makes sense to push risk back...if you can afford it. The Cubs can. The Braves can't. The Dodgers can. They Indians can't. The Yankees can. The Rays can't.

    Over time, teams with the financial advantage have a clear and decisive competitive advantage. The saber movement allowed low revenue teams to close that gap by being smarter with player valuations, but now that the rich teams are getting even smarter than the original smart teams, that advantage is gone. Teams like the Dodgers, Cubs and Yankees took the Rays and A's game plans, injected 10x the money into it, and are now even better than they were 10 years ago.

  6. #225
    Steve Harvey'd
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    18,927
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,856
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,322
    Thanked in
    3,346 Posts
    The luxury tax is the only thing right now keeping parody. although, not a hard cap, it is a bit harsher under new CBA.. and should help level the field a bit more. A hard cap is the only way they can balance the league again. unfortunately, the salaries are so inflated now, a cap will have to be astronomical to even get a few votes by the players.

  7. #226
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    Buying a FA gets a team more immediate certainty at the beginning of the deal. Signing Lester got the Cubs a good pitcher that season, and they will be stuck paying a declining pitcher more than he is worth at the end of the deal. They can afford to buy that (relative) short term certainty at the cost of wasting money at the end of the deal.

    The Braves can not afford to waste money at the end of deals. They are never going to be able to afford a Top 5 payroll. So they have to take on more risk early by relying on young players who will never be wasted money (they can just be released), but might not be productive in the present.

    Risk now, or risk later. Since a win now is worth more than a win later, it makes sense to push risk back...if you can afford it. The Cubs can. The Braves can't. The Dodgers can. They Indians can't. The Yankees can. The Rays can't.

    Over time, teams with the financial advantage have a clear and decisive competitive advantage. The saber movement allowed low revenue teams to close that gap by being smarter with player valuations, but now that the rich teams are getting even smarter than the original smart teams, that advantage is gone. Teams like the Dodgers, Cubs and Yankees took the Rays and A's game plans, injected 10x the money into it, and are now even better than they were 10 years ago.
    But the fact that a win now is worth more than a win later also incentivizes teams to hold onto their best players in a window in which they're competing for championships. I get the idea of mid-market teams not spending a lot on FA while larger-market teams can afford the declining value in later years; that's not what I'm talking about. I'm still talking specifically about trading your top pitchers with 1-2 years left on the deal across the board. While it does maximize the value of the asset in pure value terms, you can also argue that the value of a top pitcher potentially putting you over the top in a playoff series is worth more than the future value you acquire by trading them at peak value.

  8. #227
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,248
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,995
    Thanked in
    6,104 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post
    But the fact that a win now is worth more than a win later also incentivizes teams to hold onto their best players in a window in which they're competing for championships. I get the idea of mid-market teams not spending a lot on FA while larger-market teams can afford the declining value in later years; that's not what I'm talking about. I'm still talking specifically about trading your top pitchers with 1-2 years left on the deal across the board. While it does maximize the value of the asset in pure value terms, you can also argue that the value of a top pitcher potentially putting you over the top in a playoff series is worth more than the future value you acquire by trading them at peak value.
    Because a team like the Braves with a $100M-$120M payroll can approach team building in 1 of 2 ways:

    1. Cycle between 90+ win and 75 win seasons as they produce core players and lose them to FA, rebuild, and repeat every 5-ish years.
    2. Continuously sell off players for max value and continually field ~85 win teams that have playoff aspirations every year.

    Given the fact that the playoffs are largely a crap shoot, I would prefer to take an 85 win team into the playoffs every year, rather than taking a 90+ win team into the playoffs for 2-3 years and then miss the playoffs entirely for 2-3 years during a rebuild.

    Teams like the Yankees, Dodgers and Cubs don't have to concern themselves with losing their core players and falling into a 70 win period during which they rebuild. The Yankees were "rebuilding" last year and still won 84 games while constructing a Top 3 farm system. Their vastly superior resources allow them to stay around the 85 win mark consistently by replacing core players via FA if needed. The Braves had to lose 90+ games for 2 seasons while they rebuilt their farm, and they are still dreaming about winning 84 games...which the Yankees did in a rebuilding year.

    The revenue disparity in MLB creates different team building realities for teams all along the financial spectrum. The Braves need to realize where they are on that spectrum, and plan accordingly.
    Last edited by Enscheff; 02-23-2017 at 01:58 PM.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Enscheff For This Useful Post:

    The Chosen One (02-26-2017)

  10. #228
    Mr. Free Trade
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,139
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    470
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    834
    Thanked in
    514 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    Because a team like the Braves with a $100M-$120M payroll can approach team building in 1 of 2 ways:

    1. Cycle between 90+ win and 75 win seasons as they produce core players and lose them to FA, rebuild, and repeat every 5-ish years.
    2. Continuously sell off players for max value and continually field ~85 win teams that have playoff aspirations every year.

    Given the fact that the playoffs are largely a crap shoot, I would prefer to take an 85 win team into the playoffs every year, rather than taking a 90+ win team into the playoffs for 2-3 years and then miss the playoffs entirely for 2-3 years during a rebuild.

    Teams like the Yankees, Dodgers and Cubs don't have to concern themselves with losing their core players and falling into a 70 win period during which they rebuild. The Yankees were "rebuilding" last year and still won 84 games while constructing a Top 3 farm system. Their vastly superior resources allow them to stay around the 85 win mark consistently by replacing core players via FA if needed. The Braves had to lose 90+ games for 2 seasons while they rebuilt their farm, and they are still dreaming about winning 84 games...which the Yankees did in a rebuilding year.

    The revenue disparity in MLB creates different team building realities for teams all along the financial spectrum. The Braves need to realize where they are on that spectrum, and plan accordingly.
    There is a third, albeit more risky option: Rebuild in such a way as to attempt to establish a dynastic period based upon waves of really cheap in-house young talent, rounded out with a sprinkling of Star talent (year after year after year 90+ win teams and in the hunt every year). This is the "change the culture and market position rebuild." It's really what happened with the Braves in the early 90's and what is happening with the Cubs now. This is the approach that takes attendance for the Braves from ~2M per year into the 3.5M range and changes the internal outlook on payroll (now supported by revenues) from mid-market to large market.

    Market size is largely a function of ownership commitment. Atlanta alone is easily one of the top 10 MSA in the US. When you add in the surrounding area that is by default Braves territory (Central and East Tenn, SC and much of NC, AL, MS, N Florida), the market size is tremendous. If Liberty is OK with what they get with the team viewed, positioned and funded as a mid market team then it will stay a mid market team. But, there is a path to large market revenue, even with the middle of the pack TV package.

    I can see the Braves springing for a big ticket FA if it fills the right hole.

    For instance, let's say the Braves progress relatively well over the next couple of years and are on the brink of contention going into 2019 but they badly need more offense and have a hole at 3B (Freeman has continued to play at second half 2016 levels). Attendance is creaping near 3M.

    I could see the Braves making an aggressive move on Machado, even if it costs $30+M per year (Call it 7 years $250M) or more because it would (should) be supportable within the framework of the team at that time.

    You could see a team like: CF Inciarte $5M, 2B Albies (cheap), SS Swanson (pretty cheap but not as cheap as he should be, thanks 2016), 1B Freeman $21M, 3B Machado $35M, LF Michael Brantley ~$15M (or someone like him), RF Acuna cheap and C

    That looks like a pretty strong line-up and Brantley (or whoever) goes away with Maitan taking over LF in 2020.

    But, to do that, you would need a lot of the young pitching to work out and perform cheaply. If you have $10M in starters 2-5 and $10M in the pen and $5M in the bench you would have $25M SP/RP/Bench, $5M Inciarte, $21M Freeman, $35M Machado, $15M Brantley, $10M Catcher,, $10M balance of team= $121M. If the budget is, by then, in the $150M range, you have about $30M left over to look for a top of the rotation starter (but you can't be paying this guy $30M at the end of his career when he isn't worth it).

    Then it becomes a balancing game in years 2020 and beyond. Freeman's $22M comes off the board after 2021 and the Braves shouldn't be offering him a new long term deal even if his play is still good. Brantley (or whoever) goes away, replaced by Maitan, etc. So, that $35M+ commitment to a FA like Machado could be managed, even without the Braves having a top five payroll in baseball.

    What you can't have is catastrophic injury to multiple core players who are making money not to play; complete misses in the farm system despite significantly lower draft position y/y; bad chemistry where the talent and cost is there but the performance is not; significant philosophical changes that turn your process on end; you can't be sentimental - signing a 31-32 YO Freedie Freeman to a new long term deal for 7 years, $210M is where you commit franchise suicide, no matter how good or popular FF has been.
    Last edited by Horsehide Harry; 02-23-2017 at 03:49 PM.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Horsehide Harry For This Useful Post:

    JohnAdcox (02-23-2017), UNCBlue012 (02-24-2017)

  12. #229
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,248
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,995
    Thanked in
    6,104 Posts
    Like I've said before, there is zero chance Machado comes to the Braves. Paying him $35M per year would easily represent 25% of the team's payroll, and it has been shown over and over that teams don't win with a single player taking up that much of the total payroll. It doesn't matter "where the team is", or "what hole it fills". That 25% rule is pretty much a standard rule teams need to follow when constructing a roster.

    Team payroll is mostly impacted by their TV deal, not their attendance, so 3M people showing up at the ballpark won't get the payroll high enough to support a mega-star FA contract anyways.

    When it comes time to fill 3B, the most expensive possible scenario for the Braves will be buying Donaldson's decline years at a cost of less than half of what Machado will command overall. With Maitan's most likely position being 3B, I don't see any scenario where the Braves make such a commitment though. They are most likely to splurge on Lucroy this offseason, and an OFer to replace Kemp/Markakis when the time comes. Cespedes would have been a great fit, in my opinion, but now that Kemp is standing out in LF on a daily basis that idea is out the window. Maybe someone like Braun could be a target for LF in a couple years. Or McCutchen. Or someone else the Braves can get for under $100M on a 4-5 year deal to spend their decline years in Atlanta.

  13. #230
    10 yr, $185 million Extension
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    4,760
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    981
    Thanked in
    766 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    Like I've said before, there is zero chance Machado comes to the Braves. Paying him $35M per year would easily represent 25% of the team's payroll, and it has been shown over and over that teams don't win with a single player taking up that much of the total payroll. It doesn't matter "where the team is", or "what hole it fills". That 25% rule is pretty much a standard rule teams need to follow when constructing a roster.

    Team payroll is mostly impacted by their TV deal, not their attendance, so 3M people showing up at the ballpark won't get the payroll high enough to support a mega-star FA contract anyways.

    When it comes time to fill 3B, the most expensive possible scenario for the Braves will be buying Donaldson's decline years at a cost of less than half of what Machado will command overall. With Maitan's most likely position being 3B, I don't see any scenario where the Braves make such a commitment though. They are most likely to splurge on Lucroy this offseason, and an OFer to replace Kemp/Markakis when the time comes. Cespedes would have been a great fit, in my opinion, but now that Kemp is standing out in LF on a daily basis that idea is out the window. Maybe someone like Braun could be a target for LF in a couple years. Or McCutchen. Or someone else the Braves can get for under $100M on a 4-5 year deal to spend their decline years in Atlanta.
    I don't agree that we couldn't do it.

    If Machado is 25% of the payroll you still have FF and Kemp making big money. Smaller payments to JT and Inciarte.

    The braves could have 2B, SS, RF (Peterson) all on minimum deals. We could have a rotation made up of guys close to the minimum after JT with Folty and 3 of Wisler, Blair, Weigel, Fried, Newcombe. Maybe your 5 is a cheap vet.

    BP could be cheap arms from the system for a while.

    I'm not saying we will do it. I'm not saying we should do it. But I think it's a non-zero chance. Especially if you could dump Kemp's deal to an AL team. I'm on the record that I don't see us being able to dump Kemp but if you did...

    The other issue with the braves is that the park has all of these businesses associated with it. The Braves are getting some piece. So if those ventures do well then the Braves may get enough income to push the budget some.

  14. #231
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,248
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,995
    Thanked in
    6,104 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ2dollas View Post
    I don't agree that we couldn't do it.

    If Machado is 25% of the payroll you still have FF and Kemp making big money. Smaller payments to JT and Inciarte.

    The braves could have 2B, SS, RF (Peterson) all on minimum deals. We could have a rotation made up of guys close to the minimum after JT with Folty and 3 of Wisler, Blair, Weigel, Fried, Newcombe. Maybe your 5 is a cheap vet.

    BP could be cheap arms from the system for a while.

    I'm not saying we will do it. I'm not saying we should do it. But I think it's a non-zero chance. Especially if you could dump Kemp's deal to an AL team. I'm on the record that I don't see us being able to dump Kemp but if you did...

    The other issue with the braves is that the park has all of these businesses associated with it. The Braves are getting some piece. So if those ventures do well then the Braves may get enough income to push the budget some.
    Again, teams have consistently shown they can't win while committing 25% of the payroll to a single player. There is nothing special about the Braves and their ability to fill holes elsewhere on the roster cheaply. Every team that thought they could make it work was wrong, and the Braves will be wrong too if they attempt it.

    Find one team that has succeeded over multiple seasons with a single player making 25% of the payroll, and then you at least have some data on your side. Until then, all you are spouting is unsubstantiated conjecture that carries zero weight in an intellectual discussion.

    I'll even go first:

    Rangers paid ARod $22M per year from 2001-2003. His salary represented 25%, 21%, and 21% of their payroll in those 3 years. In those 3 years, they won 73, 72, and 71 games despite ARod producing 8+ WAR in all 3 of those seasons. They traded him to NY, and the Rangers won 89 games in 2004.

    Your turn.
    Last edited by Enscheff; 02-23-2017 at 06:22 PM.

  15. #232
    Boras' Client
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,121
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    528
    Thanked in
    406 Posts
    I totally agree. I am not big on signing ANY player to that kind of deal. The goal should be to keep a player thru the young cheap years and if he is good enough...sign him to a long term reasonable deal (like Julio, Inciarte and Freeman), and then deal him before he hits the market for his massive last contract (unless he is willing to come back at a fair price). Let someone else pay 30+ mil for a guy that will still be productive, but just isn't worth it. That plan will keep a player 8-10 years with the team and still return young cheap talent back to the team.

  16. #233
    Mr. Free Trade
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,139
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    470
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    834
    Thanked in
    514 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    Again, teams have consistently shown they can't win while committing 25% of the payroll to a single player. There is nothing special about the Braves and their ability to fill holes elsewhere on the roster cheaply. Every team that thought they could make it work was wrong, and the Braves will be wrong too if they attempt it.

    Find one team that has succeeded over multiple seasons with a single player making 25% of the payroll, and then you at least have some data on your side. Until then, all you are spouting is unsubstantiated conjecture that carries zero weight in an intellectual discussion.

    I'll even go first:

    Rangers paid ARod $22M per year from 2001-2003. His salary represented 25%, 21%, and 21% of their payroll in those 3 years. In those 3 years, they won 73, 72, and 71 games despite ARod producing 8+ WAR in all 3 of those seasons. They traded him to NY, and the Rangers won 89 games in 2004.

    Your turn.
    OK, that's one. And I'm being serious about this, I can't think of many times it's happened and it did/did not work. It just hasn't happened much unless I am mis-remembering a bunch of guys. Which says that we're dealing with a small sample size. I would also say that specific to AROD, you have to look at the circumstances. In 2000 the Rangers were dead last in their division at 71-91 and they had a horrid pitching staff that was old (avg age 29) with no real up and coming young talent. In 2001 their pitching staff was worse and same avg age. No real improvement in 2002 and they got older. They cleaned house in the SP in 2003 and went younger and brought the avg age down from 29 to 28 but didn't improve performance.

    I just don't think there is a lot of trustworthy data that says it's a bad idea. A risky idea? Sure. What if you sign Machado and he goes all Nick Esasky on you?

    Do I think the Braves will do it? No

    Do I think they should? Given the right guy and right need, yes.

    Why? Because playing for 85 wins every year makes you the recent Pittsburgh Pirates, not good enough to win, not bad enough to break down and rebuild, all while watching their high end young talent march through their system and out the door. The thing is, even then, they are heading for a rebuild because sooner or later they will make a mistake (not moving Cutch when he had more value looks to be a big one) and then they will crater, all without ever winning anything.
    Last edited by Horsehide Harry; 02-23-2017 at 10:01 PM.

  17. #234
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,770
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    270
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,491
    Thanked in
    1,150 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry View Post
    OK, that's one. And I'm being serious about this, I can't think of many times it's happened and it did/did not work. It just hasn't happened much unless I am mis-remembering a bunch of guys. Which says that we're dealing with a small sample size. I would also say that specific to AROD, you have to look at the circumstances. In 2000 the Rangers were dead last in their division at 71-91 and they had a horrid pitching staff that was old (avg age 29) with no real up and coming young talent. In 2001 their pitching staff was worse and same avg age. No real improvement in 2002 and they got older. They cleaned house in the SP in 2003 and went younger and brought the avg age down from 29 to 28 but didn't improve performance.

    I just don't think there is a lot of trustworthy data that says it's a bad idea. A risky idea? Sure. What if you sign Machado and he goes all Nick Esasky on you?

    Do I think the Braves will do it? No

    Do I think they should? Given the right guy and right need, yes.

    Why? Because playing for 85 wins every year makes you the recent Pittsburgh Pirates, not good enough to win, not bad enough to break down and rebuild, all while watching their high end young talent march through their system and out the door. The thing is, even then, they are heading for a rebuild because sooner or later they will make a mistake (not moving Cutch when he had more value looks to be a big one) and then they will crater, all without ever winning anything.
    Most of the examples would probably be teams that had sold off their other assets.

    Braves are about #10 metro area. During the 90s they carried the #2 payroll in baseball at times.

    The new ballpark supposedly will create real estate revenues on top of attendance and suite bumps - remains to be seen what that will drop on payroll.

    At a minimum the new TV deal will give the Braves a market rate deal, which should narrow the gap with the rest of the league. The deal should be above average because the Braves are in an above average market. Even if the cable bubble has collapsed by then, it should be a better deal than they have and other new deals will face the same issue so things should normalize. It's a ways off.

    There are certainly circumstances where a roster with one or two players making the bulk of the money can work. It would require many things going just right.

  18. #235
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,770
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    270
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,491
    Thanked in
    1,150 Posts
    And you make a good point about the Braves true market size.

    I think it extenders farther than most MLB teams as it covers quite a bit of the South.

    Not sure if Braves still have the national reach they used to though. Probably more than most teams.

  19. #236
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,339
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,383
    Thanked in
    7,532 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry View Post
    OK, that's one.
    The Mariners are another team that has concentrated a very large part of payroll in a small number of players, in their case two players (Robinson Cano and Felix Hernandez). To some extent the Tigers have also taken a "stars and scrubs" approach in the past ten years.

  20. #237
    Mr. Free Trade
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,139
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    470
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    834
    Thanked in
    514 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    The Mariners are another team that has concentrated a very large part of payroll in a small number of players, in their case two players (Robinson Cano and Felix Hernandez). To some extent the Tigers have also taken a "stars and scrubs" approach in the past ten years.
    But, I'm not talking about a "stars and scrubs" approach. I'm talking about a rebuilding team with a lot of high end minor league talent, several waves of it, going with a stars and youngsters/cheap control guys.

    None of the teams that have gone stars and scrubs (TX with AROD, Seattle, Detroit) have had anything like a good minor league system OR good young players under cheap contract.

  21. #238
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    I don't think there's any doubt that we need to see our payroll rise into at least the $140-150 million range pretty soon in order to have a chance to sustain success over a long period of time. And I think it might. I think it will climb pretty close to that by 2018.

    Now, that still doesn't make the Machado signing a smart one. It could work out for us if, like Horsehide says, we can combine that with good young, cheap players. But it will require a large chunk of our roster to be guys in the first 3-4 years of their career, so it means we would have to have real success in graduating our farm system into good major league players.

    And Machado is going to be signed to a really long deal, so even if that works out, you'll probably end up with issues on the back end. He'll probably have an opt-out option after a few years, which could help, but there's real risk there.

  22. #239
    Mr. Free Trade
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,139
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    470
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    834
    Thanked in
    514 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post
    I don't think there's any doubt that we need to see our payroll rise into at least the $140-150 million range pretty soon in order to have a chance to sustain success over a long period of time. And I think it might. I think it will climb pretty close to that by 2018.

    Now, that still doesn't make the Machado signing a smart one. It could work out for us if, like Horsehide says, we can combine that with good young, cheap players. But it will require a large chunk of our roster to be guys in the first 3-4 years of their career, so it means we would have to have real success in graduating our farm system into good major league players.

    And Machado is going to be signed to a really long deal, so even if that works out, you'll probably end up with issues on the back end. He'll probably have an opt-out option after a few years, which could help, but there's real risk there.
    No question.

    I will say, that any way the Braves go, they have to have real success in graduating the farm system into good ML players. If all the young pitching craps out, Swanson turns out no better than Jace Peterson, Albies flames out, Maitan and Acuna turn into fool's gold, then the Braves (and management) are dead anyway.

    You have to start with some base assumptions such as the Braves have done a good job of stocking minor league talent that will pay off over the coming years.

    I use Machado as a model. It could actually be some other high end star depending on need at the time.

    To me, it isn't so much about having one player making too much of your payroll as it is how well you manage the payroll through a period of years. IF you have a general overall number of $150M and one player makes $35M of that number, then to be successful, you HAVE to have a bunch of guys that help fill out the team that are both good and cheap.

    In the AROD example from above, the Rangers' best pitcher was a 38 year old Kenny Rogers and they had no real young pitching in their minors or developing on their ML club. They weren't prepared to make the move for AROD, did anyway, and it didn't work.

  23. #240
    "What is a clvclv"
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Nebo, NC
    Posts
    9,634
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,354
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,340
    Thanked in
    1,628 Posts
    If you try to read between the lines of the Hart quote that we "probably still won't play at the top of the market", you kinda wonder if that actually is a bit of a smokescreen and whether Donaldson is a much more realistic target for a big expenditure than Machado. If you use Giancarlo Stanton's deal as a model for Machado, you're probably looking at something like 12 years and $350 million minimum. Of course there's a lot left to be decided before they ever reach the market (if they do), but at that point Machado will be 26+ years old. Assuming both remain healthy, wouldn't it be much more our M. O. to pay a 33 year old Donaldson through age 38 rather than Manny?

    Offer the same AAV ($29,166,667) to Josh as you do Machado at that point - through the same late point in their careers - and Donaldson winds up costing you ~$146 million rather than $350 million.


    You then make Riley a LF and Maitan a RF and start bludgeoning teams to death and don't have to worry so much about ALL the pitching shaking out.
    Last edited by clvclv; 02-24-2017 at 01:15 PM.
    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?

Similar Threads

  1. Sports Illustrated Article Ranking the Value of all MLB Teams
    By USMA76 in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-11-2018, 06:44 PM
  2. Ranking the Braves prospects
    By SJ24 in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 06-05-2017, 08:57 AM
  3. Baseball America's Top 50 Int' Ranking Spreadsheet
    By blueagleace1 in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-02-2016, 09:22 AM
  4. Ranking Managers
    By Coach_Chris in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-26-2016, 11:38 AM
  5. Ranking baseballs managers.
    By jason27nc in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 06-10-2014, 02:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •