My point is that Justin plus a group of replacement level guys for 25M is better than Markakis, Bourn and Swisher for a larger price.Originally Posted by yeezus
My point is that Justin plus a group of replacement level guys for 25M is better than Markakis, Bourn and Swisher for a larger price.
I think we'll end up trading for someone like Matt Kemp. So we'll have a combination of Kemp and Markakis manning the corner outfield. It will be interesting to see what the price is (in terms of what we give up in such a trade and how much of Kemp or some similar player's salary we pay).
actually there is one extra roster spot taken. Bourn/Swisher - CJ = one roster spot. also, I don't expect to see Maybin in a Braves uni next year.
So again, if the Braves wanted a 'Big Bat' for the outfield, they can do it this year.. Bourn and Swisher are NOT the reason the Braves won't go after a big ticket FA..(assuming they don't, we won't know until we know)
you can spin this record all night long but it is still playing the same song my friend..
Entirely possible. Like you, I'm curious to see what the asking price will be on Kemp. .868 OPS in the 2nd half with 15 HRs. GIGANTIC financial commitment.
PS--Wil Myers may cost more in terms of prospects/players and injuries continue to derail him, but I wouldn't be surprised to see if the Braves try to work something on a player of that strata.
Last edited by 50PoundHead; 10-01-2015 at 02:12 PM.
I really don't necessarily agree with that, and especially 7-8 years from now. If you're looking at next year, then why? A big JUp deal would handcuff us halfway through for over double the price of Markakis. Markakis is not handcuffing us at all, much less for potentially 4 years.
We could have gotten the same production from someone like Nori Aoki and paid him half as much for half as long.
Markakis + Uggla money could have afforded us Hayward or Upton...
You are right. The Braves will only have 1 20+ million dollar guy if they constantly pay market value for league average players. Would you rather have 2 Markakis's on the team or one stud at market value prices? One leads to mediocirty while the other leads to good teams.
I think the point most are trying to make is when you pay market value for players. You pay less the better the player is. Heyward likely gets a 25 million per year deal and has consistantly been a 5-6 WAR player. At worst that would be $5 million per WAR. Right now we are paying Nick about 7.5 million per WAR. Sure, you can put all your eggs into one basket so to speak but paying league average prices for mediocity won't get your anywhere.
Again, JUp is going to sign for more than 7 years, and he is likely going to get an opt out clause. You aren't even comparing apples to oranges...you are comparing a Ferrari to a Camry.
You can try to rationalize it all you want, but Upton is in another universe when it comes to what the Braves can afford.
There are a lot of ways to spend a 100M budget. Lots. And quite a few of them allow for 2 players making 20M or more.
At the same time, you have to look at context, which in this instance size of payroll determines a ton. I didn't like the Markakis signing, but unless the payroll increases dramatically, could the Braves afford to be paying two guys 40% of their payroll? Granted, payroll is going to increase with the new stadium, but Wren gumming things up with a few bad contracts put the team in a bind. On top of that, they didn't have a stable of major-league ready prospects to slide into the line-up as replacement players.
You argue from an ideal position and your position is basically right. Teams with star players tend to win. But the bind in which the Braves found themselves didn't lend itself to easy solutions. I agree that the Markakis signing has probably made the medium-term more difficult to navigate (and I think he's a decent player but a terrible fit for us given what I've outlined above) without adding much to our performance, but unless the payroll was set to go north of $125 million (approximately the upper third of payrolls), it would have been difficult to sign either J. Upton or Heyward and have any semblance of a team. You need to put 8 guys on the field and have a competitive pitching staff. This isn't work-up.
You have to a pipeline of major-league ready guys in your system in order to do that. We don't have that now and we didn't have that then. Picking up on your earlier post, if the likes of Todd Cunningham is slated to get more than 300 ABs for you, you're toast.
OK, then let's find a team that has won consistently with 2 guys taking up 50% of the payroll. I'll wait.
Cano and Hernandez for the Mariners take up 42%.
Seems you forgot the "won consistently" part. Hell, or the "won at all" part.
I think the Ms have shown what not to do...
But sure, let's model the franchise after a team that just fired their GM and will finish with 90 losses!
Last edited by Enscheff; 10-01-2015 at 03:33 PM.
Show me a team that constantly wins by having super low payrolls? The Braves have been around $100 million in payroll every year for over a decade now. That's a huge problem in and of itself. If they don't commit to getting with the times and increase payroll due to the constantly rising salaries then I don't think any of this matters. We will be living with a team that must constnatly churn out good prospects because they won't be able to keep anybody once they hit FA. You'll have teams like the Rays and A's that can do this for a few years at a time then they end up at bottom of the league for another 3-5 years while they restock.
If the Braves want to win consistently they need to increase their payroll and thus would be able to afford more than 1 guy making over 20 million.
Yeah a lot of that did have to do with bad contracts. Some weren't even close to being needed. My point is if your are going to spend money then do it on legit talent and not for guys who produce weak results. And even without signing J-Up or Heyward they still didn't have any semblance of a team this year.
Let say Justin is signed for 25M per year. Adding that to Freddie's contract you get the following for the two players by year:
2016 37
2017 45.5
2018 46
2019 46
2020 47
2022 48
Assuming payroll of 130M in 2017, that's 35% of payroll. And presumably that would be the peak with any sort of payroll growth.
Um, several teams win pretty consistently with mid-level payroll. The Braves were under $100M this year, but a lot of that money went into eating bad contracts like the Touki trade. The Braves should consistently have a ~$110M payroll, which puts them right alongside the Royals and Orioles...teams that have won pretty consistently lately. Other good teams in that payroll range or lower: Mets, Pirates, and Astros. Teams that are usually good despite minimal payrolls: A's, Rays.
Hell, the Cards are the model organization for the last decade with a payroll right around $120M.
Teams with huge payrolls that are terrible: Red Sox, Phillies, M's, Dodgers (compared to their enormous payroll).
Maybe you want to rethink your assertion?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote