Heyman: Braves 'interested' in Cespedes

[bravesfanMatt]

The Braves will really be needing another bad contract soon. Kind of miss the old days here when somebody would feel the urge to enlighten the forum about a "sunk cost."

Bourn and Swisher are sunk cost. No matter what happens the Braves will pay their contract this year. Hopefully they play well enough that we can get something at the deadline in exchange for us paying their contract.

how is that?

 

[Russ2dollas]

Not sure what the payroll is now. But the only ppl making big Money are freeman Bourne and swisher right?

I think cespedes gives us a chance of being a decent team nxt year. No draft pick. Kicks the mets in the balls.

Why not over pay? 30 million this year. 30 million next year. Nobody to spend it on in 2017 plus it's essentially what u were paying Bourne and swisher. Team option for 25. Helps his ego by big yearly value.

 

[mqt]

Not sure what the payroll is now. But the only ppl making big Money are freeman Bourne and swisher right?

I think cespedes gives us a chance of being a decent team nxt year. No draft pick. Kicks the mets in the balls.

Why not over pay? 30 million this year. 30 million next year. Nobody to spend it on in 2017 plus it's essentially what u were paying Bourne and swisher. Team option for 25. Helps his ego by big yearly value.

Overspending on Cespedes could really mess up our international plans, so no thanks.

 

[Russ2dollas]

Overspending on Cespedes could really mess up our international plans, so no thanks.

Why? I've never heard of another team having a int budget tied to the mlb budget.

Flip aybar if you need some room and play Peterson at ss and kj at 2b.

I'm sure I'm naive here but I think we could actually be good with another solid rh bat.

 

[mqt]

Why? I've never heard of another team having a int budget tied to the mlb budget.

Flip aybar if you need some room and play Peterson at ss and kj at 2b.

I'm sure I'm naive here but I think we could actually be good with another solid rh bat.

The Braves have suggested they're saving for International FA. Word is that we're going to be spending in this market like the Dodgers. We don't have the payroll to do that and still overspend in FA.

 

[clvclv]

The Braves have suggested they're saving for International FA. Word is that we're going to be spending in this market like the Dodgers. We don't have the payroll to do that and still overspend in FA.

Please provide a link tying the amount of money spent on payroll to the amount of money the organization will or will not spend on international signings to payroll.

I'm sorry, but you can't. International spending has nothing to do with the amount of payroll spent on the MLB roster.

Lots of people SAY this without backing it up with proof.

Just the facts Ma'am. Please.

 

[mqt]

Please provide a link tying the amount of money spent on payroll to the amount of money the organization will or will not spend on international signings to payroll.

I'm sorry, but you can't. International spending has nothing to do with the amount of payroll spent on the MLB roster.

Lots of people SAY this without backing it up with proof.

Just the facts Ma'am. Please.

http://www.myajc.com/news/sports/baseball/what-happened-to-all-that-braves-payroll-flexibili/npd74/

“Braves general manager John Coppolella and president of baseball operations John Hart said payroll was affected by the increased spending or planned spending on foreign free agents and the June 2016 draft, when the Braves have the third overall pick — much higher than they picked in recent years and thus a higher signing bonus.

…“We’ve had the ability to spend money,” Hart said. “We’re certainly not going to give away what our payroll number (2016 limit) is; we don’t want clubs and agents and everybody to know what’s going on out there. But we don’t feel we’re restricted. When we look at our payroll there’s an overall bucket that you look at, and part of it is other things – we’re going to have a number of early draft picks; we traded for one and we have the 3-hole pick. We want to be able to be big players internationally.”

 

[smootness]

Please provide a link tying the amount of money spent on payroll to the amount of money the organization will or will not spend on international signings to payroll.

I'm sorry, but you can't. International spending has nothing to do with the amount of payroll spent on the MLB roster.

Lots of people SAY this without backing it up with proof.

Just the facts Ma'am. Please.

It's common sense. The additional money has to come from somewhere. Either the ownership decides to set aside extra money in addition to the normal budget, or the extra costs must come from the normal budget.

I'm sure we have a general international budget that is separate from the MLB budget, but when the decision is made to go way over that budget one year, it's unlikely an ownership group like Liberty will just decide to increase the overall budget by that amount.

We like to think the two are completely separate because it's not our money so we don't have to worry about it...but again, that money has to come from somewhere.

 

[clvclv]

“Braves general manager John Coppolella and president of baseball operations John Hart said payroll was affected by the increased spending or planned spending on foreign free agents and the June 2016 draft, when the Braves have the third overall pick — much higher than they picked in recent years and thus a higher signing bonus.

…“We’ve had the ability to spend money,” Hart said. “We’re certainly not going to give away what our payroll number (2016 limit) is; we don’t want clubs and agents and everybody to know what’s going on out there. But we don’t feel we’re restricted. When we look at our payroll there’s an overall bucket that you look at, and part of it is other things – we’re going to have a number of early draft picks; we traded for one and we have the 3-hole pick. We want to be able to be big players internationally.”

 

[Russ2dollas]

What about the money we saved last year?

Want to spend 30 million this yr on a teenager who is unlikely to ever play or a proven mlb player? I think you need a balance. I like us going for high upside guys and that costs.

But cespedes lets us have a shot to win now. I think we have the money. I'd rather cespedes have it over Liberty

 

[smootness]

“Braves general manager John Coppolella and president of baseball operations John Hart said payroll was affected by the increased spending or planned spending on foreign free agents and the June 2016 draft, when the Braves have the third overall pick — much higher than they picked in recent years and thus a higher signing bonus.

…“We’ve had the ability to spend money,” Hart said. “We’re certainly not going to give away what our payroll number (2016 limit) is; we don’t want clubs and agents and everybody to know what’s going on out there. But we don’t feel we’re restricted. When we look at our payroll there’s an overall bucket that you look at, and part of it is other things – we’re going to have a number of early draft picks; we traded for one and we have the 3-hole pick. We want to be able to be big players internationally.”

The portion you bolded literally says that the payroll is all one big bucket, and everything is included. That would mean that in order to increase the international budget, the MLB budget would have to come down. I'm not sure why you think that helps prove your point.

 

[ixiXSolidXixi]

By that comment of We don't feel we're restricted that can mean that they feel that with the budget they have is enough to make a team good enough to win.

 

[praeceps93]

By that comment of We don't feel we're restricted that can mean that they feel that with the budget they have is enough to make a team good enough to win.

I don't think that was the goal of that statement. The next two sentences don't seem to lend themselves to a win-now mindset. I think they feel their budget is big enough to make an organization good enough to win; not necessarily the MLB team right now. Personally I think they have a fairly large budget for IFAs and the draft that will be supplemented by whatever is unused on the MLB payroll, so a large signing could have an impact to some degree but won't wipe out our plan to go buck wild. I think this because, in traditional years, the IFA and draft budgets are relatively small compared to the payroll and so can be accounted for separately. However, if we plan to go crazy internationally, the additional contract values plus their associated penalties could far exceed our normal budget. It would make sense to dip into the payroll to do that, especially in a "lost year". Hard to say to what degree, but it'll probably happen.

 

[BlackwaterPark]

Am I the only one confused about the sudden boner this new administration has for over rated Cubans?

 

[bravesnumberone]

Well shouldn't we at least try to get one who's actually accomplished something in the majors?

 

[Julio3000]

Am I the only one confused about the sudden boner this new administration has for over rated Cubans?

Sudden?

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Well shouldn't we at least try to get one who's actually accomplished something in the majors?

There is a process that is being traversed through this rebuild. To me, the Braves have to look critically at the current team and decide where it is and is it on track for where they want to be. If you look at this team and decide that it is at best a 70 win team, then adding one expensive bat isn't going to make it a contender. At best what you get is a 75 win team. It doesn't move the needle enough. What it does do is change the team from a last place or near last place team to a more middle of the pack team where there are much less advantages available for a rebuilding team such as draft position, draft pool dollars, rule 5 position, international pool dollar, competitive balance picks, even revenue sharing. So, while it is a bit counter intuitive, it's clear that becoming mediocre is worse for a franchise under the current MLB rules than being dead last. The exception to that is where a team becomes mediocre a year before becoming great, a natural progression of talent.

So, you have to ask yourself if you think the Braves as currently constructed both at the ML level and at the minor league pipeline is on the cusp of greatness. Do they have the talent in the pipeline to develop into a sustained competitor? Or, do they still have a lot of work to do?

To me, that answer is easy. The Braves have virtually 0 power and production bats outside of Freeman (and Freeman is not a classic power and production 1B at this time). You have a 31-32 yo rookie prospect who is out of position for LF who may or may not hit for enough power and production to be considered as slightly below average. After that, it gets really thin. Cespedes, a 30 yo, coming off a career year, who biologically is entering the decline phase of his career, would have to replace either the aforementioned 31 yo rookie OR displace our light hitting veteran OF in RF who is costing 11M per year.

Does adding Cespedes make this an 85 win team (not good enough to actually WIN anything but good enough to make everyone feel a little better?) I guess you can never say never since the Mets might all get the debilitating clap and they might get it from the Nats and the M's might take a three hour tour and end up on Gilligan's island. But, in reality, no this team isn't one player away from being an 85 win team.

So why tie up limited capital if it serves no strategic purpose?

 

[bravesfanMatt]

So why tie up limited capital if it serves no strategic purpose?

I don't think people who want Cespy, want him to necessarily win this year, but to snatch a good hitter in a deflated market for the future. The FA class is weak next year but huge in 2018. I would rather just let the chips fall where they fall this year.. see who we have... trade who we can..Draft the best talent....spend the most after July 2..Then start our signing process in 2017 but really save up for 2018..

 

[Enscheff]

There is a process that is being traversed through this rebuild. To me, the Braves have to look critically at the current team and decide where it is and is it on track for where they want to be. If you look at this team and decide that it is at best a 70 win team, then adding one expensive bat isn't going to make it a contender. At best what you get is a 75 win team. It doesn't move the needle enough. What it does do is change the team from a last place or near last place team to a more middle of the pack team where there are much less advantages available for a rebuilding team such as draft position, draft pool dollars, rule 5 position, international pool dollar, competitive balance picks, even revenue sharing. So, while it is a bit counter intuitive, it's clear that becoming mediocre is worse for a franchise under the current MLB rules than being dead last. The exception to that is where a team becomes mediocre a year before becoming great, a natural progression of talent.

So, you have to ask yourself if you think the Braves as currently constructed both at the ML level and at the minor league pipeline is on the cusp of greatness. Do they have the talent in the pipeline to develop into a sustained competitor? Or, do they still have a lot of work to do?

To me, that answer is easy. The Braves have virtually 0 power and production bats outside of Freeman (and Freeman is not a classic power and production 1B at this time). You have a 31-32 yo rookie prospect who is out of position for LF who may or may not hit for enough power and production to be considered as slightly below average. After that, it gets really thin. Cespedes, a 30 yo, coming off a career year, who biologically is entering the decline phase of his career, would have to replace either the aforementioned 31 yo rookie OR displace our light hitting veteran OF in RF who is costing 11M per year.

Does adding Cespedes make this an 85 win team (not good enough to actually WIN anything but good enough to make everyone feel a little better?) I guess you can never say never since the Mets might all get the debilitating clap and they might get it from the Nats and the M's might take a three hour tour and end up on Gilligan's island. But, in reality, no this team isn't one player away from being an 85 win team.

So why tie up limited capital if it serves no strategic purpose?

The point of signing Ces is not to compete in 2016. The point is there will be virtually no bats to sign next offseason, so if the Braves want to compete by 2017 they need to improve the offense now...especially if an impact bat like Ces is available at a discount rate.

A Ces signing would be a very similar situation to when the Nats signed Werth.

 

[Enscheff]

I don't think people who want Cespy, want him to necessarily win this year, but to snatch a good hitter in a deflated market for the future. The FA class is weak next year but huge in 2018. I would rather just let the chips fall where they fall this year.. see who we have... trade who we can..Draft the best talent....spend the most after July 2..Then start our signing process in 2017 but really save up for 2018..

This is very likely the plan. I think it's unrealistic to think this team can win by 2017. If the target for postseason contention is truly 2018, then Ces doesn't make much sense. But then again, neither do Markakis or Olivera. So who really knows...