Braves get Murphy 3 way deal

[Southcack77]

Even if half the core that was extended is really bad, the Braves could easily trade the other half that’s performing well to rebuild quickly. AA has set the team up well for an escape if needed. The only way this truly blows up in AA’s face is if the majority of these extensions get underwater. (At $9m per WAR that basically means < 2 WAR performance).

OTOH, it’s probably fair statement to say that this group of players is basically our championship core. Morton’s salary will go to Fried (or a different starter), and we will likely see Rosario/Ozuna money go to an OF in two years. There’s not much flexibility to fill in around the margin. Oh well, first world problems.

The Braves are looking at a rotation similar to the post Big 3 cobbled together rotation from the 2000s at some point.

They won't buy aces so they're pretty dependent on what the farm spits out. They'll have to draft pitching in numbers probably with a college focus.

If they hit at a decent rate they will continue to be a threat. If not they fade out.

[Southcack77]

Well someone doesn’t understand something, and it probably means it’s us without some bit of info about the financials of the organization.

The only way this makes sense from a luxury tax perspective is if the long term plan is to jack payroll up so high 5 years from now that they benefit from having a cap number less than the actual payroll number. If they can pay $260M on a cap number of $240 in 5 years that would be pretty sweet.

I think they see it as extending the window and aren't sweating the small percentage chance drop of winning it all on opening day 2023.

I'm not sure I see extending Murphy and Olson as extending the window necessarily but I guess it could turn out that way.

I think they do anticipate having more to spend down the road as well.

And the tax in 2026 has got an extra 14m .on that ceiling.

If the players continue to perform then the deals likely look great

I have my doubts and it's a little too constricted for my taste.

Also while the deals are probably fine, extending the players you acquired in lieu of stars feels a little like a publicity play to make the acquisitions feel better.

Probably though, Murphy at 12-15m ia a better deal than Dansby at 25m.

It's reasonable but makes me uneasy.

[Enscheff]

You're definitely right. But I think regardless of if these guys were given extensions or not, there wasn't going to be an ability to change course anyway if the guys don't pan out, because the farm system is so barren. If Riley Olson and Murphy end up turning into pumpkins, they likely wouldn't be bringing back much in a trade anyway.

If guys under arb control decline they are dumped and not paid so that cash can be deployed elsewhere. That is no longer an option for any of these guys now. There is quite literally zero flexibility on this roster now, and no way to pivot anywhere.

[chop2chip]

The Braves are looking at a rotation similar to the post Big 3 cobbled together rotation from the 2000s at some point.

They won't buy aces so they're pretty dependent on what the farm spits out. They'll have to draft pitching in numbers probably with a college focus.

If they hit at a decent rate they will continue to be a threat. If not they fade out.

The pitching staff is a concern. If Soroka beats the odds and comes back 100%, it completely changes the dynamics of the pitching staff. Likewise, Ian Anderson rebounding to be a cheap #3/4 also solves a lot of depth problems.

Otherwise, AA is going to need to spend on a starting pitcher. I don’t think it’s any coincidence the few names AA has been linked to the last two offseason were Verlander and DeGrom.

[chop2chip]

If guys under arb control decline they are dumped and not paid so that cash can be deployed elsewhere. That is no longer an option for any of these guys now. There is quite literally zero flexibility on this roster now, and no way to pivot anywhere.

I think you’re right about flexibility part although I wouldn’t be surprised to see a trade that reshapes the roster (for example, AA trades Albies for starting pitching when Fried walks).

[Chico]

My biggest fear would be Olson and Riley as far as extensions go. Their contracts don’t offer a much lower salary cap figure in the decline years like everyone else’s(1M less) I feel like AA just wanted 2 power guys locked up to eventually cover 1B/DH. We should not draft a 1B or future DH for the next 6-7 years

Strider will have a luxury cap hit of 12.5M when he’s getting paid $20M so he could be flipped to a team trying to stay under the cap if he becomes a #4 or reliever by then.

Acuna, Harris, and Ozzie will all have value.

[chop2chip]

Well someone doesn’t understand something, and it probably means it’s us without some bit of info about the financials of the organization.

The only way this makes sense from a luxury tax perspective is if the long term plan is to jack payroll up so high 5 years from now that they benefit from having a cap number less than the actual payroll number. If they can pay $260M on a cap number of $240 in 5 years that would be pretty sweet.

I do think payroll will continue to rise as long as the Braves remain competitive. We have seen this trend for several years and this doesn’t even take into account a new tv deal which will happen in the middle of these extensions.

Of course, the Braves sucking and fans losing interest is how this house of cards falls. The Braves don’t have a Cohen that will spend to brute force a contender.

[DirkPiggler]

My biggest fear would be Olson and Riley as far as extensions go. Their contracts don’t offer a much lower salary cap figure in the decline years like everyone else’s(1M less) I feel like AA just wanted 2 power guys locked up to eventually cover 1B/DH. We should not draft a 1B or future DH for the next 6-7 years

Strider will have a luxury cap hit of 12.5M when he’s getting paid $20M so he could be flipped to a team trying to stay under the cap if he becomes a #4 or reliever by then.

Acuna, Harris, and Ozzie will all have value.

That is an interesting point. Does the cap salary (average AAV) transfer when a player gets traded in the middle of a contract? Or does the acquiring team get him at the average of remaining years on the deal?

Example: Murphy counts $12.17MM/year towards luxury tax for the life of his Braves deal. If he were to be traded after 2024 would he still count as that amount for his new team, or would he count as $15MM due to the $45MM left on his contract?

[Chico]

That is an interesting point. Does the cap salary (average AAV) transfer when a player gets traded in the middle of a contract? Or does the acquiring team get him at the average of remaining years on the deal?

Example: Murphy counts $12.17MM/year towards luxury tax for the life of his Braves deal. If he were to be traded after 2024 would he still count as that amount for his new team, or would he count as $15MM due to the $45MM left on his contract?

I believe the contract stays the same. We’re paying Iglesias 16M but carrying a 14.5M luxury tax salary

[Enscheff]

That is an interesting point. Does the cap salary (average AAV) transfer when a player gets traded in the middle of a contract? Or does the acquiring team get him at the average of remaining years on the deal?

Example: Murphy counts $12.17MM/year towards luxury tax for the life of his Braves deal. If he were to be traded after 2024 would he still count as that amount for his new team, or would he count as $15MM due to the $45MM left on his contract?

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transac...ve-balance-tax

“A team's Competitive Balance Tax figure is determined using the average annual value of each player's contract on the 40-man roster”

I take that to mean Murphy’s “tax number” will be 12.17 for the entirety of his contract, no matter who is paying him any salary in any year. This may cause some players to talked about in terms of their “tax salary” vs “actual salary”. I could see someone like Murphy being more valuable in trades once his “tax salary” is lower than his “actual salary”.

[Slippyjms]

If guys under arb control decline they are dumped and not paid so that cash can be deployed elsewhere. That is no longer an option for any of these guys now. There is quite literally zero flexibility on this roster now, and no way to pivot anywhere.

I think the play is still smarter than locking in FA for 10-13 year contracts. I think there's something to be said about all the club options with no buyouts being put into contracts as well. We're probably locked in with Olson and Riley but I don't see any reason we couldn't really move anyone else. That being said it would go over very poorly if any of the guys that signed these discount deals were traded. I think giving up the flexibility is just part of the cost of putting this team together.

[chop2chip]

Well someone doesn’t understand something, and it probably means it’s us without some bit of info about the financials of the organization.

The only way this makes sense from a luxury tax perspective is if the long term plan is to jack payroll up so high 5 years from now that they benefit from having a cap number less than the actual payroll number. If they can pay $260M on a cap number of $240 in 5 years that would be pretty sweet.

AA on the luxury tax. Maybe we are overthinking this.

“Obviously, the tax is a factor just in terms of the dollars. From a cash standpoint with everything that we’ve done and these trades and so on, we’re kind of in the same place,” Anthopoulos said. “Even when you factor in, we’re over the tax, we’re gonna pay 20% on the overage. But again, it’s 20% on the overage, it’s not a significant amount currently. We were never really focused on the tax specifically. I have a payroll amount cash wise that I work with. That’s where I’d say 99% of my time is spent. If we go over the tax, that means we’re spending a million dollars of tax or $1.5 million in tax or $2 million in tax. I’ll just include that in my math of my of my payroll going forward. So I know, it’s a big thing maybe from media standpoint, but from our standpoint, we pay attention to everything, but I’d say that the dollars going out the door in the current year is what I pay attention to. I just have to bake that in. So, we were always prepared to do it in the right deal. This was certainly the right deal and if the right deal presents itself again in the next week or month, we’ll be open to doing it again.”

[bravesfanMatt]

AA on the luxury tax. Maybe we are overthinking this.

So wouldn’t back loading a contract signal we are pretty much tapped out. Especially if it pushes us over tax and paying on money not spent.

[VirginiaBrave]

AA on the luxury tax. Maybe we are overthinking this.

Deal in a month or two? Possible Fried extension offer?

[Heyward]

I love watching opposing fans about wet their pants in anger over these Braves extensions

Mets fans in particular always cry about it when we sign someone to an extension lol.

[JxnMissFan]

Mets fans in particular always cry about it when we sign someone to an extension lol.

The Mets have extended several of their players this offseason at the high market rates they helped to create.

[Heyward]

The Mets have extended several of their players this offseason at the high market rates they helped to create.

I meant stuff like this, just one fan. But saying there's no cap while technically true, the Mets, the Yankees and maybe the Dodgers are the only teams who can spend like THAT. Every team has a budget, you cant just give every player market value deals.

[striker42]

This guy railing about the Braves signing players to reasonably priced extensions has no idea what he's talking about. I doubt he's ever thought about the effect of risk. It's easy for him to discount the possibility of injury or a decline in effectiveness because he's not the one with millions upon millions of dollars at stake. He's not the one who is one pitch to the face away from being out of the game.

If Murphy or Acuna or Albies hadn't signed their extensions, they would be shouldering all the risk. The potential reward would be significantly higher but they're risking the potential of significantly lower pay in the process. By signing extensions they shift the risk to the Braves. The Braves get the reward of lower salaries but at the risk of ending up with players that are hurt or ineffective being drags on the payroll. In order to shift the risk to the team, the players have to give up something and what they give up is higher salaries.

Trading the potential for greater reward for a guaranteed level of reward is a perfectly reasonable choice. If you offered me $10 million that I could take home or I could roll a dice and as long as it wasn't a 1 I'd get $20 million, I'm taking the $10 million.

[50PoundHead]

If guys under arb control decline they are dumped and not paid so that cash can be deployed elsewhere. That is no longer an option for any of these guys now. There is quite literally zero flexibility on this roster now, and no way to pivot anywhere.

It's angles like this that people are missing. A lot of folks are getting sticky pants over the extensions to the core and it works (probably to varying degrees with each guy) as long as there isn't a major hiccup. Like you say, non-tendering is no longer an option with any of these guys. I guess we'll have to see how the risk/reward balances out.

[bravesfanforlife88]

This guy railing about the Braves signing players to reasonably priced extensions has no idea what he's talking about. I doubt he's ever thought about the effect of risk. It's easy for him to discount the possibility of injury or a decline in effectiveness because he's not the one with millions upon millions of dollars at stake. He's not the one who is one pitch to the face away from being out of the game.

If Murphy or Acuna or Albies hadn't signed their extensions, they would be shouldering all the risk. The potential reward would be significantly higher but they're risking the potential of significantly lower pay in the process. By signing extensions they shift the risk to the Braves. The Braves get the reward of lower salaries but at the risk of ending up with players that are hurt or ineffective being drags on the payroll. In order to shift the risk to the team, the players have to give up something and what they give up is higher salaries.

Trading the potential for greater reward for a guaranteed level of reward is a perfectly reasonable choice. If you offered me $10 million that I could take home or I could roll a dice and as long as it wasn't a 1 I'd get $20 million, I'm taking the $10 million.

He's absolutely right....everytime I go to a game, I have a spreadsheet with me to make sure I am cheering for the guys I feel like are getting paid their value or over their value....

What an absolute tool.