Miller market 'hot'

Prepare thy anus the Braves are reportedly smitten with Jorge Soler. My guess, we offer Shelby Miller straight up. When they accept we insist they take Vizcaino too. When they refuse citing what happened the last time they traded for Vizcaino we insist they take Albies. When they agree we ask them if they will pay his salary if we add in Teheran. Epstein says they will pay half and we agree to it.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Prepare thy anus the Braves are reportedly smitten with Jorge Soler. My guess, we offer Shelby Miller straight up. When they accept we insist they take Vizcaino too. When they refuse citing what happened the last time they traded for Vizcaino we insist they take Albies. When they agree we ask them if they will pay his salary if we add in Teheran. Epstein says they will pay half and we agree to it.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right.
 
thewupk said:
I think if the Braves offered Heyward 23 million a year he would of signed.
Click to expand...

You're assuming the Braves had 23 million per year to spend on a player at that point in time. Clearly they didn't with their payroll lIke it was.
 
thewupk said:
So all the trades aftewards to clear payroll couldn't have happened?
Click to expand...

That has little relevance to when Heyward was traded. It's impossible for the Braves to know what trades they would eventually make in the future. Furthermore, what difference would it make if we signed him since we're selling off all our good players anyways?
 
Carp said:
That has little relevance to when Heyward was traded. It's impossible for the Braves to know what trades they would eventually make in the future. Furthermore, what difference would it make if we signed him since we're selling off all our good players anyways?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. But they could have affored one more 20+ million dollar player. It was clear then and it's clear now.
 
thewupk said:
It doesn't. But they could have affored one more 20+ million dollar player. It was clear then and it's clear now.
Click to expand...

How was it clear, when we clearly didn't have the payroll to afford a 20+ million dollar player at the time?
 
thewupk said:
It doesn't. But they could have affored one more 20+ million dollar player. It was clear then and it's clear now.
Click to expand...

Serious question for anyone and everyone.

EVEN IF the organization had the financial flexibility to pay market value for one of the available top of the market free-agents, why complain that they didn't pay it for Heyward???

Many posters here constantly go on about how paying for an "Ace" would be stupid because he alone wouldn't make the team a contender - that the rest of the team around him would have too many holes. I can certainly see that point of view. Doesn't the same ring true for keeping Heyward?

You'd have Freeman and Heyward making over $20 million per and couldn't afford anyone else - how much better off would you be???
 
cajunrevenge said:
Prepare thy anus the Braves are reportedly smitten with Jorge Soler. My guess, we offer Shelby Miller straight up. When they accept we insist they take Vizcaino too. When they refuse citing what happened the last time they traded for Vizcaino we insist they take Albies. When they agree we ask them if they will pay his salary if we add in Teheran. Epstein says they will pay half and we agree to it.
Click to expand...

My anus is ready.
 
Seems like a bad time to trade Miller seeing as how there are about a billion starters available this year. I personally would wait till either the trade deadline or next offseason.

Plus you never know what can happen. If Olivera turns out to be a positive surprise with the bat (More power than assumed) and Albies and Smith show that they are going to be ready to go in 17, then suddenly the Braves might be closer to being competitive then they think. And if that's the case they should probably hold onto Miller.
 
Carp said:
How was it clear, when we clearly didn't have the payroll to afford a 20+ million dollar player at the time?
Click to expand...

The Braves are masters at shedding payroll as we have seen. It's not difficult to see them still making the Kimbrel/Upton trade to clear enough salary to bring in a 20+ million player.
 
clvclv said:
Serious question for anyone and everyone.

EVEN IF the organization had the financial flexibility to pay market value for one of the available top of the market free-agents, why complain that they didn't pay it for Heyward???

Many posters here constantly go on about how paying for an "Ace" would be stupid because he alone wouldn't make the team a contender - that the rest of the team around him would have too many holes. I can certainly see that point of view. Doesn't the same ring true for keeping Heyward?

You'd have Freeman and Heyward making over $20 million per and couldn't afford anyone else - how much better off would you be???
Click to expand...

You are better off than doing that then paying market value for average players like Markakis who cost more in $$/WAR than your higher end players.
 
weso1 said:
Seems like a bad time to trade Miller seeing as how there are about a billion starters available this year. I personally would wait till either the trade deadline or next offseason.

Plus you never know what can happen. If Olivera turns out to be a positive surprise with the bat (More power than assumed) and Albies and Smith show that they are going to be ready to go in 17, then suddenly the Braves might be closer to being competitive then they think. And if that's the case they should probably hold onto Miller.
Click to expand...

I don't know... looking at his peripherals, Miller is likely to be near the peak of his value. Don't make the same mistake we made with Minor And Hanson
 
thewupk said:
And Jurrjens and Horacio.
Click to expand...

Not to mention... after Greinke signs... Miller is probably then the most valuable and attractive commodity left as far as SP's go. With him likely re signing with the Dodgers and Price signing with the Red Sox that also doesn't do anything but increase his value. That's two teams that were never going to trade for him anyways since they can buy whoever they want.
 
weso1 said:
Seems like a bad time to trade Miller seeing as how there are about a billion starters available this year. I personally would wait till either the trade deadline or next offseason.

Plus you never know what can happen. If Olivera turns out to be a positive surprise with the bat (More power than assumed) and Albies and Smith show that they are going to be ready to go in 17, then suddenly the Braves might be closer to being competitive then they think. And if that's the case they should probably hold onto Miller.
Click to expand...

I personally think a straight-up deal for Soler or Baez might be selling a little short given how hot his market is right this moment, but I'm afraid I have to agree with zbhargrove - I don't want to get nothing for him now in an effort to try to completely maximize his value and wind up having him regress (which is entirely possible). Considering the fact that the Cubs still need a leadoff-type CF, I'd see if Theo and Jed had any interest in Miller and Bourn for Soler or Baez and Willson Contreras if we eat half of Bourn's money (or Soler or Baez and Jeimer Candelario if we eat a third of Bourn's contract).
 
thewupk said:
You are better off than doing that then paying market value for average players like Markakis who cost more in $$/WAR than your higher end players.
Click to expand...

If $$$/WAR is the be-all, end-all measuring stick EVERYONE should be lining up to offer Zobrist four years and it'd take five to get him.
 
clvclv said:
I personally think a straight-up deal for Soler or Baez might be selling a little short given how hot his market is right this moment, but I'm afraid I have to agree withzbhargrove - I don't want to get nothing for him now in an effort to try to completely maximize his value and wind up having him regress (which is entirely possible). Considering the fact that the Cubs still need a leadoff-type CF, I'd see if Theo and Jed had any interest in Miller and Bourn for Soler or Baez and Willson Contreras if we eat half of Bourn's money (or Soler or Baez and Jeimer Candelario if we eat a third of Bourn's contract).
Click to expand...

Yah just straight up for Baez or Soler is not enough... but definitely as a cornerstone of a deal, that would be acceptable. Also, would have to make room for Soler. Baez makes me more nervous with this playing style but fits a better need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top