User Tag List

Page 515 of 561 FirstFirst ... 15415465505513514515516517525 ... LastLast
Results 10,281 to 10,300 of 11208

Thread: 2018 Offseason And Targets

  1. #10281
    Approaching Buddy Hernandez Territory Freshmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,041
    Thanks
    803
    Thanked 406 Times in 184 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sorry Nsacpi


  2. #10282
    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 Heyward View Post
    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.
    Agree completely on point 1 and we'll never know how deep we got with Brantley and obviously money isn't everything.

    #2, I do understand what you're saying, but I thought Camargo played best once he had an every day role. I'm worried about how he'll deal without the consistency of knowing what his job is every day.

    #3, I think a one year deal is a bad deal if we used the money to sign a guy at a position of strength that keeps us from upgrading a position of need.

  3. #10283
    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
    We finish third in the East at worst, the problem is we were the favorites to repeat if Harper had headed West!
    Nats are still the team to beat in the East, they had a ton go wrong last year, and were on our ass to end the year. Adding Corbin and what they have, would say they're for sure the favorites, followed by Atl/Phi/NY in whatever order you want too.

  4. #10284
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,211
    Thanks
    800
    Thanked 1,039 Times in 717 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    The downside is that there is no upside for a team.

    The opt out means the only possible outcomes for the team is being stuck with a bad contract, or losing control over a good contract.

    Anyone who can’t understand why opt outs favor the player shouldn’t be inserting themselves into baseball finance discussions.

    You are correct. But it can be good for a team in that you aren't stuck with the bad half of the contract. Machado for instance, may be 4-5 WAR player in 5 years and decide to opt out. The Pads allow him to walk and are clear of future risk. Sure, you are letting him go while he's still considered a good player, but ideally you would spend that money on younger/cheaper alternatives with less risk.

  5. #10285
    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 Heyward View Post
    AA said we offered 3/90 to Harper, same deal they offered to Machado.
    Really?

    So, do we still have $30 mil to spend on getting better or not?

  6. #10286
    It's OVER 5,000! Braves1976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    12,916
    Thanks
    7,211
    Thanked 1,972 Times in 1,461 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bud Norris to the bluejays, sorry nsacpi.

  7. #10287
    Arbitration Eligible
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    3,359
    Thanks
    713
    Thanked 760 Times in 504 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Carp View Post
    You are correct. But it can be good for a team in that you aren't stuck with the bad half of the contract. Machado for instance, may be 4-5 WAR player in 5 years and decide to opt out. The Pads allow him to walk and are clear of future risk. Sure, you are letting him go while he's still considered a good player, but ideally you would spend that money on younger/cheaper alternatives with less risk.
    if machado is showing signs of decline he simply doesn’t opt out.
    "You show your bias against me with your consistently negative reaction to my brazen lies."

  8. #10288
    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 Carp View Post
    You are correct. But it can be good for a team in that you aren't stuck with the bad half of the contract. Machado for instance, may be 4-5 WAR player in 5 years and decide to opt out. The Pads allow him to walk and are clear of future risk. Sure, you are letting him go while he's still considered a good player, but ideally you would spend that money on younger/cheaper alternatives with less risk.
    I think you described the only situation where it might make sense, but I wouldn't bank on Machado (or anyone) outplaying a $30 mil/year contract enough to have the balls to see if he can do better post 30. Inflation be damned.

  9. #10289
    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 CrazyTrain View Post
    Agree completely on point 1 and we'll never know how deep we got with Brantley and obviously money isn't everything.

    #2, I do understand what you're saying, but I thought Camargo played best once he had an every day role. I'm worried about how he'll deal without the consistency of knowing what his job is every day.

    #3, I think a one year deal is a bad deal if we used the money to sign a guy at a position of strength that keeps us from upgrading a position of need.
    Where do you upgrade at then? Or even who, what names?

    I'd agree on outfield, but... Pollock costs a pick and he's injury prone, McCutchen's deal could be a bad one.

    If they wanted a controllable catcher, and the Marlins wanted Contreras, Riley/Pache, and a pitcher, that's a simple no. Pitching wise there wasnt much out there. I'm not as big on Keuchel and Kimbrel as alot of people here are.

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

    JohnAdcox (02-28-2019)

  11. #10290
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,211
    Thanks
    800
    Thanked 1,039 Times in 717 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTrain View Post
    Really?

    So, do we still have $30 mil to spend on getting better or not?
    I'm sure that was a special circumstance, and we'd have probably had to do some shuffling around to accommodate such a contract or heavily backload it.

  12. #10291
    Arbitration Eligible
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,788
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 717 Times in 453 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    Harry adds a lot of value (there's that word again). Contrarians are good to have around.
    I tend to think more strategically than tactically. I've long said that the Braves have been on the wrong path from a strategic POV since the whole "reload" mindest.

    The strategy has been to build the team within enough to get within range of sustained competitiveness, then go outside through FA and trades to put the team over the top. The Braves didn't improve through trade at all and marginally improved through their FA signings. They brought in a catcher who realistically is likely the mirror of Suzuki in a good case. The exchanged a ~3.5 WAR 3B with what they hope will be a 5 WAR 3B. The replaced a 2.5 WAR RF with the same guy who's a year older or maybe a 1.5 WAR RF. The guy pushed from 3B to the bench probably adds a win to the bench. In other words, they may, MAY have improved the team by 1.5 wins, maybe. That's before growth from the youngsters, assuming there is any and assuming that it outweighs regression in other places. They are counting almost entirely on improvement from within, which doesn't follow the strategy. They have gone against their plan. That may be due to finances. But, if you can't follow through on the plan, then you had a bad plan to begin with.

  13. #10292
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    21,307
    Thanks
    1,520
    Thanked 7,524 Times in 4,691 Posts
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Freshmaker View Post
    Sorry Nsacpi

    i'm crushed...don't know what to say
    “It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.” Senator Bob Corker

  14. #10293
    PosiBraves Hell Gatekeeper
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    14,880
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 4,199 Times in 2,554 Posts
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Carp View Post
    You are correct. But it can be good for a team in that you aren't stuck with the bad half of the contract. Machado for instance, may be 4-5 WAR player in 5 years and decide to opt out. The Pads allow him to walk and are clear of future risk. Sure, you are letting him go while he's still considered a good player, but ideally you would spend that money on younger/cheaper alternatives with less risk.
    Then if Machado has a contract with surplus value, he can be traded for prospects, and a younger/cheaper player can be acquired.

    There is no scenario where an opt out clause is a positive for the team.
    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

  15. #10294
    PosiBraves Hell Gatekeeper
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    14,880
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 4,199 Times in 2,554 Posts
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Freshmaker View Post
    Sorry Nsacpi

    This tells me the Braves don't think they need another above average arm in the BP.
    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

  16. #10295
    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 Enscheff View Post
    This tells me the Braves don't think they need another above average arm in the BP.
    the BP on paper is fairly deep.

    RH: Winkler, Carle, Viz, O'Day, Sobotka, maybe Touki.
    LH: Biddle, Venters, Freeman, Minter, maybe Fried.

    Obviously not the best bullpen in baseball, but it's miles better than what opened last year.

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Heyward For This Useful Post:

    Garmel (02-28-2019),jpx7 (02-28-2019),TomahawkCult (02-28-2019)

  18. #10296
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,211
    Thanks
    800
    Thanked 1,039 Times in 717 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Super View Post
    if machado is showing signs of decline he simply doesn’t opt out.
    I mean he would need to beat 160 million in total value at age 32. So certainly it's unlikely. But assuming he is still a 4-5 win player, it's possible. And if I were the Pads GM, I'd be glad to let someone else pick up the tab on the remainder of that deal

  19. #10297
    PosiBraves Hell Gatekeeper
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    14,880
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 4,199 Times in 2,554 Posts
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Carp View Post
    I mean he would need to beat 160 million in total value at age 32. So certainly it's unlikely. But assuming he is still a 4-5 win player, it's possible. And if I were the Pads GM, I'd be glad to let someone else pick up the tab on the remainder of that deal
    Which is why front loading the contract to entice the player to opt out is a way to mitigate the overall risk.

    The opt out is still a mechanism that favors the player. Period.
    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

  20. #10298
    Arbitration Eligible
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    3,359
    Thanks
    713
    Thanked 760 Times in 504 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Carp View Post
    I mean he would need to beat 160 million in total value at age 32. So certainly it's unlikely. But assuming he is still a 4-5 win player, it's possible. And if I were the Pads GM, I'd be glad to let someone else pick up the tab on the remainder of that deal
    the only way the player opts out is if it’s clearly advantageous to do so. the market is better, the dh is everhwre, the player was consistently great. otherwise he stays.

    this favors the player. not the team.

    a team wouldn’t push for it unless there a financial benefit. which was my initial point.
    "You show your bias against me with your consistently negative reaction to my brazen lies."

  21. #10299
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,211
    Thanks
    800
    Thanked 1,039 Times in 717 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    Then if Machado has a contract with surplus value, he can be traded for prospects, and a younger/cheaper player can be acquired.

    There is no scenario where an opt out clause is a positive for the team.
    Not sure where you're going here. He's never going to have surplus value.

  22. #10300
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,211
    Thanks
    800
    Thanked 1,039 Times in 717 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    Which is why front loading the contract to entice the player to opt out is a way to mitigate the overall risk.

    The opt out is still a mechanism that favors the player. Period.
    Again, I agree with that. Pointing out there are scenarios where it can be beneficial to the team isn't a disagreement.

Posting Permissions

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