...But it's a WAY shorter time. We can't just ignore that. A long-term contract to an uncertain player who has a huge hole in his swing is worse.Originally Posted by thewupk
...But it's a WAY shorter time. We can't just ignore that. A long-term contract to an uncertain player who has a huge hole in his swing is worse.
Until 2023? Or does that somehow not matter to you?
The point is moot because the Braves weren't going to give Heyward an opt out. I think thats a nonstarter with this FO? Someone let me know if thats off base.
Agree to pay you big money over a long term deal and you get to opt out if you want? Nah. No thanks, not unless it goes both ways.
Ivermectin Man
He had a 118 WRC+ the previous 4 seasons before hitting FA. That seems consistent to me. And fangraphs and cotts both have his contract situation as i stated it.
I would pay 8/178 for someone that provides value over 3+/72 for someone that provides no value. Further, the guy with the long term contract has a strong possibility to returning to at least a 3-4 win player while the 3/72 has almost no chance at providing 2 wins.
"Yes, I did think Aldrich was good UNTIL I SAW HIM PLAY. "- thethe
It's still a poor use of funds. You can say that it doesn't matter when it's in a rebuilding year or that it's not long. And those are valid points. But it's still a poor use of funds and can indicate poor judgement.
That really depends on your point of view. Do we field a better team now, to sacrifice later? Not me. Do we get the no 1 pick with better uses of our funds? Get three first round pitchers last year with better uses? I think you are looking at the benefit now, rather than what we are trying to achieve down the road.
Ivermectin Man
We can cherry pick the stats anyway we want. Calling him a 120 wRC+ guy is best case scenario. Worst case...? He's at 69 this year, he's been an awful hitter. Power evaporated. His contract is pretty risky from this point on. The Cubs can afford it better than we can.
22 Mil on a 95 mil payroll is a CHUNK. IF he doesn't perform, its a torpedo for 8 years in the hull of the Braves. I just don't think we can take on that much water and float.
I have boats on my mind. Sorry.
Ivermectin Man
It is possible to acquire long term assets and front load it in these down years for when the team wants to rebuild. I understand it's harder to get such players when going through rebuild but money does talk.
Markakis was better last year than Heyward has been this year, and according to fangraphs has been a half a win worse this year. bWAR has Markakis as better than Heyward this year.
So I'd take the shorter contract because clearly you don't know what you're going to get from Heyward over the next 7 years.
Exactly. Paying Heyward 1/4 of our payroll over the next seven years for the risk he very clearly brings wouldn't be smart.
What am I cherry picking? I am using combined stats over a set period. I am not the one picking out certain years to fit my narrative. Yes I would agree the contract is more risky from this point on given what he has done this year. But the reality is that it's been around 5 months. If it continues the rest of the year and next then I would agree with you but right now I would give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has had solid production with the bat. I would say the same thing about JUp too.
If the Braves keep a sub 100 million payroll they won't be doing much anyways to be honest.
You stopped just short of his 96 wRC+ and chose not to include his 69 this year, his two worst years. To me, he ranges from 120 AT BEST to ~70 at worst. His defense better remain super elite until 2023 to be worth what he's being paid.
Because I feel a season 5 years ago is irrelevant. Usually the last 3-4 is what you want to base your judgement on. But since you are so inclined let's include his junior and rookie season. His WRC+ is the same whether you use the last 4 years or the last 6. And yes I am currently ignoring his stats this season because I see that as a fluke and expect him to produce as he has the 4 seasons prior going forward. Similar to how Andruw had a poor year at age 24. It was a one off that wouldn't be repeated for another 8 seasons. Now if Heyward has another year this bad in 2017 then it's really time to start worrying.
18 mil on a 95 mil payroll is a CHUNK!
"Yes, I did think Aldrich was good UNTIL I SAW HIM PLAY. "- thethe
Keep ignoring the "until 2023" part. $18M matters less to this current team than a 2 WAR playing getting $23M when you want to be competitive.
If we could've paid Heyward $18M until 2019 we would've. But that wasn't an option. So comparing what we're paying Kemp to what Heyward is making UNTIL 2023 is pointless.
The chances of him being a 2 WAR player over the next 4-5 years are extremely low.
"Yes, I did think Aldrich was good UNTIL I SAW HIM PLAY. "- thethe
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote