User Tag List

Page 514 of 561 FirstFirst ... 14414464504512513514515516524 ... LastLast
Results 10,261 to 10,280 of 11206

Thread: 2018 Offseason And Targets

  1. #10261
    PosiBraves Hell Gatekeeper
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    14,878
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 4,198 Times in 2,554 Posts
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBravos View Post
    I wish we would have done more...but what?

    The Machado and Harper deals were so much money and so long term...our team couldn’t take on that risk.

    Really Pollock might have been the only one, but that was also risky....just lest risky. I think that’s the one I would have chosen.

    I still think there are trades, etc out there.
    Any other plan would have required taking on more long term risk, like Brantley for 3 years, or Grandal for 4 years.

    Why were the Braves so risk averse medium/long term?

    My theory: they couldn't take on the total debt.

    MLB rules dictate a team's total debt can't exceed something like 10x their annual revenue. Since they already have a ton of stadium debt, and are planning to take on more, they simply couldn't take on the extra debt for medium/long term contracts.

    And AA calls this "flexibility".
    Gausman had a bad walk ratio for us -CrazyTrain 11/20/2018
    BB/9 with Braves: 2.72

    Fried, Newk and a couple other guys for Bumgarner and give him a pay day for 6ish years -CrazyTrain 10/15/18

    Matt Adams to the Tampa Bay Rays for Jake Odorizzi makes too much sense not to happen -clvclv 10/17/17
    Matt Adams non-tendered by Braves 12/2/17

  2. #10262
    Anytime Now Frankie...
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,588
    Thanks
    310
    Thanked 308 Times in 223 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzworm View Post
    I think most folks are confused and directing there anger at the wrong person.
    AA has done a nice job with the resources allocated to him and kept our window of being a fringe playoff contender for the next 5-8 years open.
    People’s anger should be directed at our owners who clearly have made making money the number one priority.Every team in MLB makes money but there’s a difference between making money like all MLB teams do and being greedy which is what the Braves are.
    I firmly believe we will never win a WS as long as we have this ownership group.
    They will never spend the extra 15-25 million needed to take us from fringe contender to Favorite.
    You add one more good Bat to our lineup and one Solid vet to our rotation to go along with us keeping all our young guys and you’d have a team capable of winning a ship the next 5 seasons.
    Instead best case, while our young players are still under team control we will always be what we were last year which is a nice young team a few pieces away that gets outclassed when we run up against a bigger payroll team with a deeper lineup in the playoffs.
    Couldn't agree more. This organization is not a serious title contender until we have an owner(s) that have that as their stated goal and willingness to spend to make it happen. This was the perfect off-season to add very litte personel wise (substainally money wise) and win a couple championships the next four or five seasons. Somewhere in the back of my mind I see an ownership group consisting of Blank, Glavine, Chipper, and maybe even Ted along with other Atl big wheels next time they win it all.

  3. #10263
    PosiBraves Hell Gatekeeper
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    14,878
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 4,198 Times in 2,554 Posts
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    Going point by point

    1) The Donaldson signing was tremendous value. Would not call getting that sort of value a splurge.

    2) Remains to be seen. We have Muk/Duvall/Camargo/Riley as options. I am concerned Snit has not seen fit to play Camargo or Riley in the outfield yet. That should be happening.

    3) I'm fine with converting prospects to current season value. I suspect AA is fine doing that too. Just insistent that the return is right.
    So the "good value" plan involves taking the internal options at 3B, and hoping they work out in cOF rather than just upgrading cOF directly?

    Come on man, AA had a boner for JD, and you know it. That's why he was the key to the Braves off season.

    There is a minimum bar a contender needs to clear before "value" becomes the deciding factor. It is certainly debatable whether or not the Braves cleared that bar, so touting "value" is going to fall on a lot of deaf ears.
    Gausman had a bad walk ratio for us -CrazyTrain 11/20/2018
    BB/9 with Braves: 2.72

    Fried, Newk and a couple other guys for Bumgarner and give him a pay day for 6ish years -CrazyTrain 10/15/18

    Matt Adams to the Tampa Bay Rays for Jake Odorizzi makes too much sense not to happen -clvclv 10/17/17
    Matt Adams non-tendered by Braves 12/2/17

  4. #10264
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    21,307
    Thanks
    1,519
    Thanked 7,524 Times in 4,691 Posts
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozzie's Chainz View Post
    Oh, I'm fine with the team as it is (even though I would like to add Kimbrel but if the price is right not an off-season breaker either way), just replying to Harry's silliness. I probably should just ignore him, Jedi Master.
    Harry adds a lot of value (there's that word again). Contrarians are good to have around.
    “It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.” Senator Bob Corker

  5. #10265
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    21,307
    Thanks
    1,519
    Thanked 7,524 Times in 4,691 Posts
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTrain View Post
    I said pretty clearly in my last post that adding 6 wins for 30m is great if you use those savings to splurge on something that gets you over the top. Otherwise you're just a cheap team who wins 6 more games than the other cheap teams. Big F whoop.
    There is no such thing as a move that "gets you over the top." Every moves adds or subtracts to your chances. Nothing is guaranteed.
    “It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.” Senator Bob Corker

  6. #10266
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    21,307
    Thanks
    1,519
    Thanked 7,524 Times in 4,691 Posts
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    So the "good value" plan involves taking the internal options at 3B, and hoping they work out in cOF rather than just upgrading cOF directly?
    There is a risk involved in moving a player to a different position and it is fair to include that in an evaluation. But given the kind of deal we were able to sign Donaldson to, I'm good with taking that risk.

    We can look at some similar past moves. This would not be the first time we've moved an infielder to the outfield. Gant. Chipper. Prado. Klesko. It is a mixed bag. But again considering the price on Donaldson I think it is one worth taking.
    “It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.” Senator Bob Corker

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nsacpi For This Useful Post:

    Braves1976 (02-28-2019),jpx7 (02-28-2019)

  8. #10267
    Spring Training Invitee
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    299
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    Going point by point

    1) The Donaldson signing was tremendous value. Would not call getting that sort of value a splurge.

    2) Remains to be seen. We have Muk/Duvall/Camargo/Riley as options. I am concerned Snit has not seen fit to play Camargo or Riley in the outfield yet. That should be happening.

    3) I'm fine with converting prospects to current season value. I suspect AA is fine doing that too. Just insistent that the return is right.

    By focusing on value, we are going to end up with a deeper team than if we focused on position specific needs. One of the bonuses of that is the way at bats get redistributed. Donaldson takes away at bats from Camargo. But Camargo takes away at bats that last year went to the likes of Flaherty. So we are really transferring at bats from Flaherty to Donaldson.

    I am a bit concerned about right field. Snit is old school in his loyalty to veterans. I hope he will be open-minded about giving some of Muk's ABs to other players.
    I have my own reservations about the competitiveness of this team, so I could call this a splurge just because it's 1 year value for a team that isn't going to win it all anyway. Then, when you pull your second point into the discussion, wouldn't it be better value to try to get solid WAR out of two cheap players like Camargo and Riley instead of forcing them to play out of position to sign a guy for $23 mil? Then we could've used that money to sign a cOF to make the team better in the long term?

  9. #10268
    Voted Worst Poster
    '13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner)
    Heyward's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,230
    Thanks
    1,163
    Thanked 1,144 Times in 894 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozzie's Chainz View Post
    They certainly weren't getting Contreras in any deal for only two years of JTR or I'd assume he was never on the table!
    Yeah if it was Contereras, Riley/Pache, and one of our pitchers, that's a no go for me.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Heyward For This Useful Post:

    buck75 (02-28-2019)

  11. #10269
    Shift Leader CyYoung31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    7,664
    Thanks
    1,018
    Thanked 4,895 Times in 2,347 Posts
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozzie's Chainz View Post
    We finish third in the East at worst, the problem is we were the favorites to repeat if Harper had headed West!
    No we weren’t. The Nationals are still the best team in the division on paper.

  12. #10270
    Spring Training Invitee
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    299
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    There is no such thing as a move that "gets you over the top." Every moves adds or subtracts to your chances. Nothing is guaranteed.
    You're splitting hairs. Would it make you feel better if I said "splurge on something that adds a lot more to our chances"?

  13. #10271
    Arbitration Eligible
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    3,358
    Thanks
    712
    Thanked 760 Times in 504 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Heyward View Post
    So they get his good years and not his decline years? Not rocket science.
    a player opt out is more beneficial to the player than the team. i don’t understand your point.
    "You show your bias against me with your consistently negative reaction to my brazen lies."

  14. #10272
    Spring Training Invitee
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    299
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    There is a risk involved in moving a player to a different position and it is fair to include that in an evaluation. But given the kind of deal we were able to sign Donaldson to, I'm good with taking that risk.

    We can look at some similar past moves. This would not be the first time we've moved an infielder to the outfield. Gant. Chipper. Prado. Klesko. It is a mixed bag. But again considering the price on Donaldson I think it is one worth taking.
    ...but the issue is that JD is only here for one year and then we spent a full season jerking around two 3B that should be focused on getting better at hitting instead of learning to play the OF. Why create that headache for one year of JD?

  15. #10273
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    21,307
    Thanks
    1,519
    Thanked 7,524 Times in 4,691 Posts
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTrain View Post
    Then, when you pull your second point into the discussion, wouldn't it be better value to try to get solid WAR out of two cheap players like Camargo and Riley instead of forcing them to play out of position to sign a guy for $23 mil?
    Actually no. I prefer taking on Donaldson than taking on Brantley or McCutchen at what they signed (and we don't know they would have signed for the Braves at that price).
    “It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.” Senator Bob Corker

  16. #10274
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    21,307
    Thanks
    1,519
    Thanked 7,524 Times in 4,691 Posts
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTrain View Post
    ...but the issue is that JD is only here for one year and then we spent a full season jerking around two 3B that should be focused on getting better at hitting instead of learning to play the OF. Why create that headache for one year of JD?
    Players (especially younger players) change positions all the time. Gant and Prado are two examples. Gant played the infield his entire minor league career and first season in the majors.

    And to me having Donaldson on a 1 year is a good thing.
    “It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.” Senator Bob Corker

  17. #10275
    Spring Training Invitee
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    299
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    Players (especially younger players) change positions all the time. Gant and Prado are two examples. Gant played the infield his entire minor league career and first season in the majors.
    OK, cool, two examples.

    I still want Austin Riley figuring out how not to strike out one out of three at bats instead of learning to play RF this season.

  18. #10276
    Spring Training Invitee
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    299
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    Players (especially younger players) change positions all the time. Gant and Prado are two examples. Gant played the infield his entire minor league career and first season in the majors.

    And to me having Donaldson on a 1 year is a good thing.
    ...but why? I'd be fine with moving JC or AR to the OF if that's where they need to go long term to make room for Donaldson, but for one season? Why?

  19. #10277
    Voted Worst Poster
    '13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner)
    Heyward's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,230
    Thanks
    1,163
    Thanked 1,144 Times in 894 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would have done Brantley for the money he got but if he preferred Houston over Atlanta, nothing we can do. And i'll pass on that McCutchen contract.

    And adding Donaldson moves Camargo to the Zobrist/Chris Taylor/Marwin role where he plays everywhere and gets 450+ AB's. And there's no such thing as a bad 1-yr deal. Never. Obviously we needed to add a better outfielder, and that's the big whiff by AA this winter.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Heyward For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (02-28-2019)

  21. #10278
    Voted Worst Poster
    '13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner)
    Heyward's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,230
    Thanks
    1,163
    Thanked 1,144 Times in 894 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Super View Post
    a player opt out is more beneficial to the player than the team. i don’t understand your point.
    What, the team getting his decline years is all of a sudden good news? Ok.

  22. #10279
    Arbitration Eligible
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    3,358
    Thanks
    712
    Thanked 760 Times in 504 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Heyward View Post
    What, the team getting his decline years is all of a sudden good news? Ok.
    dude what? can you really not understand that an opt out is beneficial to the player?? it’s not rocket science.
    "You show your bias against me with your consistently negative reaction to my brazen lies."

  23. #10280
    Voted Worst Poster
    '13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner)
    Heyward's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,230
    Thanks
    1,163
    Thanked 1,144 Times in 894 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    AA said we offered 3/90 to Harper, same deal they offered to Machado.

Posting Permissions

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