With the fact that we've given out all of these extensions and tied up all this money for the future, it has many on here assuming our payroll in the future has gone up by a lot. Got me thinking, had we known this, should we have considered keeping McCann?
Hasn't this topic already been discussed from every angle? They would've liked to have brought McCann back for his leadership and production. It was known that he was going to be seekign significant length for his FA contract. With decline through his 30's, and beating on the body from the catcher position, it was a slam dunk that he was going to sign in the AL to eventually DH.
Hawk (02-21-2014)
I love Mac and think most here are underestimating his loss because they think Gattis won't be too much worse of a hitter and ignore the many other skills Mac brought to the team (one can only hope Gattis learned a lot under Mac's tutelage)
But no I wouldn't have paid him what the Yankees paid him. Keeping Mac would have meant no Kimbrel and probably we would have had to have moved Medlen this offseason. Because unlike Julio, SImmons, etc. Mac's money would hit immediately. Even Freddie who's closer to FA than them doesn't hit immediately.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Hawk (02-21-2014)
The money we're committing doesn't have much to do with 2014 payroll. Or 2015 for that matter. With both McCann and Hudson, the issue was how to fit them into the 2014 and 2015 budget. There is also the detail that we have Gattis ready to take over for McCann and five good young cost-controlled pitchers leaving less of a need for Hudson.Originally Posted by NYCBrave
Love Mac but he isn't going to be worth that contract, I would be shocked if he doesn't start breaking down soon.
The Atlanta Braves signed Nick Markakis for 4/45 - Never forget 12/3/2014
"Klay Thompson > James Harden" - Heyward
"Chris Bosh is the MVP of the Miami Heat" - Heyward
"Hibbert is better than Dwight Howard"- Heyward
"Steven Adams will be a top 10 center in two years - thethe
I'm probably with BRule here. You'll note the Braves are committed to the young core of guys and will build around that and McCann's age (and expected decline) made him less of a priority. I will be surprised if Gattis out-hits McCann, but stranger things have happened.
Really, I think he's already started breaking down. It'd be kind of the opposite of our organizational philosophy, "through his age 31 season."
Last year was the only year he's been under 120 games played....but that number has been declining each of the last 4 years.
The Atlanta Braves signed Nick Markakis for 4/45 - Never forget 12/3/2014
"Klay Thompson > James Harden" - Heyward
"Chris Bosh is the MVP of the Miami Heat" - Heyward
"Hibbert is better than Dwight Howard"- Heyward
"Steven Adams will be a top 10 center in two years - thethe
Just because you have money doesn't mean you should spend it. McCann was beginning his decline. It won't appear that way next year bc of the dimensions of Yankee Stadium, but we wouldn't have performed here at the level he would need to to justify that deal. I like what the FO is doing...
The pitchers love throwing to Gattis and Gattis is better at throwing out base runners than McCann and he's no worse at blocking balls in the dirt than McCann. The difference is minimum. We're not talking about Brian McCann from 2011 and years previous. We're talking about the 2012/2013 McCann.
Every time Gattis has a slump fans will say 'yes' and every time Gattis is going well, fans will say 'no'. Same with the number of times BMac is on an ESPN or FOX highlight getting a big homer or gamewinner. But BMac is playing a position that tears most players up over a long career so the odds of him remaining the same are slim. I trust the FO to have considered all of that when deciding on BMac. If he had let it be known he would resign for less just to remain a Brave for life, then they might have kept him. But he was always going to get his last big payday and the FO didn't think the price warranted the expenditure.
McCann had a choice as far as I know (the Braves offered him something, didn't they) but he simply made the choice to wear pinstripes for more money and years.
Because he missed the start of the year due to surgery.
I actually think he will improve by playing for the Yankees. For one he can play more by DHing and then he's a perfect fit for that stadium. I see 30 bombs from him this year.
But no we shouldn't have paid him at that price and length of contract. The Braves are clearly going after their young guys and keeping them through their prime. Resigning Mac would have been against this philosophy.
Even if Gattis doesn't produce to his capable levels ever, I still would not have signed Mac for that contract. It's not smart. And would have severely hampered our ability to sign our younger, more important guys long-term.
AUTiger7222 (02-21-2014)
No.
Love Mac but he's got a lot of wear/tear on him.
Still a great catcher, probably top 5-10 but all that mileage will catch up sooner or later.
It was best for both sides to part ways.
Here's a question, and maybe it deserves it's own thread, but knowing now that we're spending money, do you think we should've retained Hudson?
No.
The money we spent this off-season had very little affect on this year's pay roll. Not even much to next year, really.
It's too risky for us that Hudson would not have lived up to that deal. He's 38. We have a lot of young pitching. No real reason not to give them a shot.
Fair enough.
If he had come cheaper, I wouldn't have minded. Not for 11 mil/year, though.
Coincidentally, isn't Mac the only previous Brave to sign an extended contract that buys out his arb and a couple FA years while he's young, like what Wren is doing now? I know an identical contract extension was proposed to Francoeur at the time, but he passed it up, thank the baseball gods.
The only player i'd like back was EOF.
Huddy at 11 mil a year for his age 38-39 seasons, meh.
And Mac at that cost while probably not being able to keep Kimbrel, no thanks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote