bravesnumberone
Well-known member
Nope you can't go back now. Trading him was necessary for the survival of the franchise.
Jason Heyward Open to Extension w/ Cardinals
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
Nope you can't go back now. Trading him was necessary for the survival of the franchise.
VirginiaBrave
Well-known member
Heyward will not sign during this year unless the Cards come up with Yankee type money. He wants to play in NYC in front of family. All that Georgia boy stuff is nothing but hype.
No, I certainly can since my original argument was that I don't think Heyward will be worth what he is projected to make in free agency which is anywhere around 25-28M. 20M is much more palatable for where the Braves sit in terms of salary cap.
I think War gives Jason slightly too much credit based on defense (fangraphs), but he's still as 4-6 war player no doubt. At the low end he's worth $28,000,000 per year on the market, on the upper end hes worth $40,000,000.
Considering his age and potential upside, an average annual value under $30 million is a steal for Jason. Pablo Sandoval is a 3 win player, he signed for $19 million per year.
Unless you think Sandoval is anywhere close to Heyward.......
I don't base what a player is worth because some organization decides to make a bad signing. Plus, I think the Red Sox are probably banking on him loving the Green Monster.
I would never come close to paying Heyward that since you are going to be paying for a skill which on the back end of the contract would be diminishing. I'd be all for paying Heyward 30M if he showed some sort of conssitency at the plate. If he only gets 20M (which he won't) then it was a mistake to let him go. I'd suspect though that regardless of his WAR numbers that if he has another lackluster year at the plate he won't get near the amounts that some are projecting him to be "worth".
chop2chip
Well-known member
I do take issue with the $ per WAR argument.
Just because 1 WAR is worth 7 million on the open market doesn't make it an efficient use of resources.
Also, I think $/WAR should be viewed in a more nonlinear way. An S curve sounds more reasonable because I don't for the life of me believe that a 1 WAR player should be worth 7 million (should be far less) in the same way I don't believe a 10 WAR player should be worth 70 million. I think those averages are heavily skewed by the median. But to be honest I haven't read any literature and I don't have any data. It just seems oversimplified.
Position players have been getting about 7 million per fWAR this offseason. I mean our very own Nick Markakis has averaged like 1.5 WAR or so the last few years and is projected to be a 1.2 WAR player in 2015. He signed for 11 million a year.
You are right that there should be some sort of S curve though for higher WAR players. It does stay pretty steady up to 3 WAR or so. As you get into the 4+ WAR players you do see a decline in millions per WAR because as you said a 10 WAR player will never make 70 million just as a 5 WAR player won't make 35, etc. So it does start to level off. Which is why if you can afford it it's better to lock up those 4+ WAR players as you can get better bang for your buck. The Braves are going to be paying Markakis a little less than half of what they could of signed Heyward for. And Heyward is 4 times the player Nick is with a **** ton more potential.
Playeds arent going to consistently average 10 WAR oer year. Its uselful is looking at projected WAR over the life of the contract. How many olayers going to put uo a 35 WAR over a 7 year deal?
The most effecient use of funds is a player in his first 6 years but its hard to win with only those players.
I dont think 7 mil for a 1 win player is as bad as it seems and then when uiu can go 2-14, 3-21, 4-28; i
The most effecient use of funds is a player in his first 6 years but its hard to win with only those players.
I dont think 7 mil for a 1 win player is as bad as it seems and then when uiu can go 2-14, 3-21, 4-28; i
chop2chip
Well-known member
That's a good way of putting it. I guess it would make more sense to lock up the higher WAR players as opposed to loading your team up with 1-3 WAR FA's from a cost efficiency stand point.
But I think a valid argument exists not to pay Heyward 25 million plus for the player he currently is. Heyward does seem to be a higher variance player and there is an opportunity cost, obviously. I also think it's reasonable to say that replacing his defensive value (or let's say 80% of it) is easier than replacing a player like J Up's offensive value because defense (especially OF) is and will probably always be undervalued on the open market, so why pay market value for his defense? I would actually be curious what the dollar per defensive WAR is. I have a hunch it's going to be skewed lower than oWAR.
There is also the added argument of is Shelby Miller + Tyrell Jenkins + (difference in Shelby's and Jason Hayward's and Waldens future contract) > JH and Walden. I think there is a reasonable argument to be made here for trading Heyward even without factoring in the possibility of him leaving.
But I tend to find myself on the other side of the spectrum supporting extending Heyward to a big money contract, but I'm super biased because he was my favorite current player.
chop2chip
Well-known member
Well it depends. When your team isn't constrained in that given year to signing better players and it's a one year deal, then I think paying 7 million for 1 WAR is fine, but paying 7 million per over multiple years is an issue. The reason is that finding 1 WAR players at a rate less than 7 million isn't relatively difficult.
Its interesting though. Obviously the most efficient way to build a winner is going to depend on the market the team plays in. I don't think mid market teams can afford long term contracts with players unless they are secured at below market rates. Teams have to bet early on (in arbitration) on players and hope they out play the contract. Paying free agent rates for star players doesn't seem like a winning strategy for teams with mid tier payrolls. The time to extend Heyward was three years ago. It was Frank Wren's biggest mistake imo.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/base...cle_923aa1e3-6741-50b3-9415-d16e82e192c3.html
Heyward said he’s open to sticking around, just as he was in Atlanta.
He described how the Braves just didn’t ask.
“For me, I’m from Georgia (and) I grew up playing baseball in that state,” Heyward said. “I grew up watching the great teams of the 1990s and got to play for a Hall of Fame manager (Bobby Cox) who helped build that organization. For me, I was never opposed to (staying). There wasn’t a lot of time put in on their part, I feel like, getting to know me as a person and getting to know my mindset on it. Here I am in a good situation, and I’m definitely not complaining.”
Heyward said he’s open to sticking around, just as he was in Atlanta.
He described how the Braves just didn’t ask.
“For me, I’m from Georgia (and) I grew up playing baseball in that state,” Heyward said. “I grew up watching the great teams of the 1990s and got to play for a Hall of Fame manager (Bobby Cox) who helped build that organization. For me, I was never opposed to (staying). There wasn’t a lot of time put in on their part, I feel like, getting to know me as a person and getting to know my mindset on it. Here I am in a good situation, and I’m definitely not complaining.”
BRule
<B>BBQ Lead Hostess</B>
BUT HE WANTED 500 MIL A YEAR, WHY ASK???????
ramadon101
Danville Rookie
Oh lord.
They did approach Casey about an extension. They wanted Jason in Atlanta. To spin this to say we didn't want Jason is just bull****. He wasn't present during those meetings- I've aleady said that. Anyway go ahead and bitch for the rest of your life and exaggerate things.
BRule
<B>BBQ Lead Hostess</B>
Other than Jason being a compulsive liar (probably because he's black & needs crack money)..... why would he lie?
Technically, based on ramadons response Jason hasn't lied.
ok, why would Heyward play the "they didn't talk to me" game if they had serious discussions with his agent?
ramadon101
Danville Rookie
Maybe because his agent didn't communicate to him that the Braves were interested? Or perhaps he takes their interest in extending him at something in between what Freeman got and Casey's dream scenario was akin to non-interest? I've already told you the rules require a team to only request the presence of a player during contract negotiations once - and clearly they never got even close to agreeable terms.
Believe what you want and I will believe what I want. Just stop with the melodrama.