Heyman: Braves 'interested' in Cespedes

Enscheff said:
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...
Click to expand...

they don't, but them combined probably is still less per year than Ces.. HO, I still wait and see on... he is so cheap.. if he is only 75% as good as Ces/Jup for the next 4 years, then we are good with him. never got the Nick signing.. but if he can come back with some power, he might be moved at the deadline.
 
Enscheff said:
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.
Click to expand...

But has the Werth signing been that great for the Nats? I would argue that it hasn't mainly based on the fact that he has had a couple of good years along the way but is aging fast with a recently passed half season making $21M and two more $21M seasons on the books for his 37 and 38 yo seasons. He is now an albatross on a young team that has matured to the point where they SHOULD be contenders, yet have underperformed. Yes Werth lent veteran presence in the early years and was valuable but his best usefulness predated the best maturity arrival date of their best young players AND they didn't exactly take the rebuild approach that the Braves are taking. They moved hard and fast on several high end FA and veteran, expensive trade targets that are likely out of the league of the Braves to pursue.
 
If you go back for the last 4 or 5 years there are only a few FA position player contracts that do not look like horrible deals right now. I think that's partly why you saw all the pitchers go first in FA and the hitters remain. Teams are seeing that giving hitters big money for what they've done and not what they're going to do is not the best way to build a team unless you have a small window to compete or you have buckets of cash to blow.

I've seen it mentioned a couple of times that free agency next year is weak thus we're not going to be able to get any hitters. From everything we've seen from this FO along with the stockpiling of prospects leads me to believe we're going to go the trade route to fill our needs for hitters not free agency.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
But has the Werth signing been that great for the Nats? I would argue that it hasn't mainly based on the fact that he has had a couple of good years along the way but is aging fast with a recently passed half season making $21M and two more $21M seasons on the books for his 37 and 38 yo seasons. He is now an albatross on a young team that has matured to the point where they SHOULD be contenders, yet have underperformed. Yes Werth lent veteran presence in the early years and was valuable but his best usefulness predated the best maturity arrival date of their best young players AND they didn't exactly take the rebuild approach that the Braves are taking. They moved hard and fast on several high end FA and veteran, expensive trade targets that are likely out of the league of the Braves to pursue.
Click to expand...

The Nats won 69 games in 2010, and then signed Werth for 7/126 going into his age 32 season, signed through his age 38 season. They won 80 games in 2011, and 98 games in 2012. Jayson Werth hit in the middle of the lineup for a young team, had a down year in 2011, but was superb from 2012-2014.

Ces is 2 years younger, and can be had on a 6 year deal. He could very well serve the exact same role for the Braves that Werth served for the Nats. A 6 year deal will have him out of Atlanta by age 35, which is precisely when Werth started to seriously decline. He would be the perfect 4th hitter to slot behind Freeman, and he won't cost a draft pick to sign.

If Ces can be signed for something along the lines of 6/130 I would be very much in favor.
 
Enscheff said:
The Nats won 69 games in 2010, and then signed Werth for 7/126 going into his age 32 season, signed through his age 38 season. They won 80 games in 2011, and 98 games in 2012. Jayson Werth hit in the middle of the lineup for a young team, had a down year in 2011, but was superb from 2012-2014.

Ces is 2 years younger, and can be had on a 6 year deal. He could very well serve the exact same role for the Braves that Werth served for the Nats. A 6 year deal will have him out of Atlanta by age 35, which is precisely when Werth started to seriously decline. He would be the perfect 4th hitter to slot behind Freeman, and he won't cost a draft pick to sign.

If Ces can be signed for something along the lines of 6/130 I would be very much in favor.
Click to expand...

He only played in 81 games in 2012. I'd say he's had 2 good years out of 5 and sadly that's probably still better than most FA hitters have done over the last 4 or 5 years.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
But has the Werth signing been that great for the Nats? I would argue that it hasn't mainly based on the fact that he has had a couple of good years along the way but is aging fast with a recently passed half season making $21M and two more $21M seasons on the books for his 37 and 38 yo seasons. He is now an albatross on a young team that has matured to the point where they SHOULD be contenders, yet have underperformed. Yes Werth lent veteran presence in the early years and was valuable but his best usefulness predated the best maturity arrival date of their best young players AND they didn't exactly take the rebuild approach that the Braves are taking. They moved hard and fast on several high end FA and veteran, expensive trade targets that are likely out of the league of the Braves to pursue.
Click to expand...

The Werth signing was worth every penny.

I get that the more numerically-inclined group tends to break everything down into something they can explain "simply" - often on a spreadsheet in an effort to quantify things for others - like $$$/WAR, etc.. This isn't intended to open some kind of "Us vs. Them" debate in any way - there's no doubt that information is useful and helpful when used in context. I think most everyone understands that that information is valuable to a point.

What I (and quite a few of the "experts" apparently) believe is that the Werth signing - and a potential Cespedes signing in the Braves' case - can't strictly be quantified in typical $$$ value terms. Many people have clamored for a sign that the "tear down" phase is over. Whether it's Cespedes or someone else, at some point the organization is going to have to give a player a market value deal (or even slightly above) to PROVE to other prospective free-agents that they're now "serious" and ready to compete soon and establish Atlanta as a legitimate destination.

Much like "clutch hitting" or other intangibles, that's a value that the numbers guys haven't been able to measure in simpler terms - yet. The point some have made above is one I agree with - IF you're going to have to hand out one of those deals you're really not completely comfortable with, why not do it when it can at least be done on a player without TONS of suitors and with team-friendlier terms than many expected he was likely to land?
 
Horsehide Harry said:
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?
Click to expand...

I was referring to the overrated Cuban comment.
 
Reports tonight saying there is a "mystery team" involved with Cespedes. Anyone know if these guys and gals are on the case?

clip-art-scooby-doo-193082.jpg
 
While it's entertaining to wonder what it would be like if he went to DC, I'm glad he will be with NY instead.
 
clvclv said:
The Werth signing was worth every penny.

I get that the more numerically-inclined group tends to break everything down into something they can explain "simply" - often on a spreadsheet in an effort to quantify things for others - like $$$/WAR, etc.. This isn't intended to open some kind of "Us vs. Them" debate in any way - there's no doubt that information is useful and helpful when used in context. I think most everyone understands that that information is valuable to a point.

What I (and quite a few of the "experts" apparently) believe is that the Werth signing - and a potential Cespedes signing in the Braves' case - can't strictly be quantified in typical $$$ value terms. Many people have clamored for a sign that the "tear down" phase is over. Whether it's Cespedes or someone else, at some point the organization is going to have to give a player a market value deal (or even slightly above) to PROVE to other prospective free-agents that they're now "serious" and ready to compete soon and establish Atlanta as a legitimate destination.

Much like "clutch hitting" or other intangibles, that's a value that the numbers guys haven't been able to measure in simpler terms - yet. The point some have made above is one I agree with - IF you're going to have to hand out one of those deals you're really not completely comfortable with, why not do it when it can at least be done on a player without TONS of suitors and with team-friendlier terms than many expected he was likely to land?
Click to expand...

nailed it on the head
 
Enscheff said:
This might be the best bargain contract of the offseason. The Mets did well here.
Click to expand...

Is this really a bargain? It could turn out well for the Mets for 1 year, but they've had to pay a steep price. Where did they even get the money? It's actually pretty risky for the Mets because if he regresses back to 2012 and 2013 numbers, even 2014, he will not take the opt-out the Mets could be saddled with an albatross for 3 years that will force them to lose one of their prized pitchers.

Jon Heyman of MLB Network reports that the Mets have agreed to a three-year, $75 million contract with Yoenis Cespedes.

The average annual value of $25 million ties the all-time record for an outfielder. The deal also includes an opt-out clause after the first season (where he'll earn $27.5 million), which would allow Cespedes to test the free agent waters again if he desired. He was forced to wait much longer into the offseason that he would have preferred, but in the end gets to return to the Mets where he slashed .287/.337/.604 with
 
If the Mets win the WS it's a win. Chances are they do it's because Cespedes is balling again. This was a no-brainer for the Mets.
 
nsacpi said:
It has indeed. Except for the silly perspective which you see around here quite often that no move has any value unless the team involved wins it all.
Click to expand...

Depends what your goals are. If it's to be winning games in the regular season then sure. If you desire to win in the playoffs then so be it. I think most fans/team would go with the last one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top