Olivera traded for Kemp

Enscheff said:
If you can't understand sunk costs you really don't have any business talking about the financial aspects of MLB roster construction, let alone criticizing financial decisions. Folks with your level of understanding should probably stick to admiring hustle and enjoying the pretty uniforms.
Click to expand...

I fully understand sunk costs. The Braves could have cut Oliveira and owed six million. (per year through 2020)

I think it is a bit of spin to say that acquiring an 18 million dollar contract instead of cutting a six million dollar contracts means you've saved money. The two things don't really have much to do with each other.

In reality you've acquired another player at a lot more expense in this case about 12 million.

I don't see the two things are really all that connected.

However, thank you for responding to my post in the most condescending way possible.
 
Dustin Peterson needs to play some in right field while he is in the minors (if the Braves plan on Kemp playing left field).
 
thewupk said:
Do semantics really matter to you? HO is a sunk cost. That's 28 million the Braves were eating regardless. So this trade could be looked at as keeping HO and getting Kemp on a 3/26 year deal. Word it or rationalize it however you want.
Click to expand...

I think the semantics are being played by the folks saying Kemp is on some kind of discount.

Rather than being on the hook for 6 million, the Braves are on the hook for 18 million.

I'm not actually against the deal. I think its just fair to point out it is a bit of the gamble in the short term. Kemp hasn't really proven to be worth 18 million or 12 million per year any time recently. He's very injury prone and getting up there in years. It's pretty questionable whether a team with him as their second best hitter can be any good.

But, I don't think the Braves are much of a contender with or without him until 2018 or 2019 anyway, so the contract should be coming off by the time it actually matters. he didn't cost a prospect, a player, or a draft pick, so that's good. I see this as another attempt by the front office to flirt with respectability while rebuilding. It's maybe not a great bet, given that the trade value of Kemp was apparently negative twenty five million dollars plus.

But if he should work out, maybe they can flip him for a prospect at a later date. I have a hard time seeing him as a key piece of a good team again, but stranger things have happened.

Going for a solid looking team that doesn't embarrass itself, I'd say.
 
Southcack77 said:
I think the semantics are being played by the folks saying Kemp is on some kind of discount.

Rather than being on the hook for 6 million, the Braves are on the hook for 18 million.

I'm not actually against the deal. I think its just fair to point out it is a bit of the gamble in the short term. Kemp hasn't really proven to be worth 18 million or 12 million per year any time recently. He's very injury prone and getting up there in years. It's pretty questionable whether a team with him as their second best hitter can be any good.

But, I don't think the Braves are much of a contender with or without him until 2018 or 2019 anyway, so the contract should be coming off by the time it actually matters. he didn't cost a prospect, a player, or a draft pick, so that's good. I see this as another attempt by the front office to flirt with respectability while rebuilding. It's maybe not a great bet, given that the trade value of Kemp was apparently negative twenty five million dollars plus.

But if he should work out, maybe they can flip him for a prospect at a later date. I have a hard time seeing him as a key piece of a good team again, but stranger things have happened.

Going for a solid looking team that doesn't embarrass itself, I'd say.
Click to expand...

There are a few ways to look at the money aspect of it. But what it boils down to is the Braves are adding 12 million per year for the next 3 seasons and clearing 8 million in 2020. I don't think anybody is saying the Braves are saving money.
 
thewupk said:
There are a few ways to look at the money aspect of it. But what it boils down to is the Braves are adding 12 million per year for the next 3 seasons and clearing 8 million in 2020. I don't think anybody is saying the Braves are saving money.
Click to expand...

I understand how the front office wants to spin it but I don't really think it makes sense.

It's essentially making a big bet on kemp rather than cutting losses on Oliveira. Kemp has now been dumped by a couple of teams now. We will see what braves get out of him. To me he's an arthritic hip away from being an albatross.

But I'll trust they have a short term financial plan,that this move is a part of, that won't tie them down too badly when it matters down the road.

I don't think they've done anything yet that makes one think they can't manage the budget. Course, it hasn't been an issue for them during the tear down.

With braves being aggressive to at least appear to improve, I'm interested to see what other moves are coming.
 
gilesfan said:
Im pretty sure the Braves have a cap and dont have unlimited funds.
Click to expand...

Santana move a couple of years ago showed it's a soft cap. They have a budget but they can make tweaks if something makes sense.

We expect our budget to increase.

Not paying guys 30 million a year not to play for us will help too. No more Uggla, CJ, Bourn, Swisher, Olivera money helps.

If he's in LF that means we have RF, 3B and c as areas to significantly improve. I do think that limits some options moving forward. I don't see an obvious fix unless you think McMahon is a stud, can stick at 3B and is available for pitching. I think all 3 are questionable. He's struggled this year. Also LH, which isn't ideal for us.
 
gilesfan said:
You don't alter plans for Dustin Peterson because of Matt Kemp.
Click to expand...

Peterson played 3B so I'm assuming he has an arm. But they put him in LF, so I was assuming he could not play RF. But he'd likely be better than Kemp.

You wonder if the Braves would give him a shot to jump from AA to the bigs. I'd rather he mature and not have 2/3 of the team be rookies with the other 1/3 being over 30 guys.
 
Russ2dollas said:
Peterson played 3B so I'm assuming he has an arm. But they put him in LF, so I was assuming he could not play RF. But he'd likely be better than Kemp.

You wonder if the Braves would give him a shot to jump from AA to the bigs. I'd rather he mature and not have 2/3 of the team be rookies with the other 1/3 being over 30 guys.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Peterson takes some innings at 3B over the winter either in the AFL or a winter league. He's played a bit of CF in Mississippi and they may move him around some. My guess is he starts 2017 in AAA unless he totally blows up over the winter and in spring training. He's clearly taken a step forward this year and if the power develops a little more, I think he'll be a contributor at the big league level.
 
50PoundHead said:
I wonder if Peterson takes some innings at 3B over the winter either in the AFL or a winter league. He's played a bit of CF in Mississippi and they may move him around some. My guess is he starts 2017 in AAA unless he totally blows up over the winter and in spring training. He's clearly taken a step forward this year and if the power develops a little more, I think he'll be a contributor at the big league level.
Click to expand...

if he could play 3B or CF I'd be really high on him as a prospect. Stiff was the word I remember reading about his defense at 3B.
 
Russ2dollas said:
if he could play 3B or CF I'd be really high on him as a prospect. Stiff was the word I remember reading about his defense at 3B.
Click to expand...

That was the word used when explaining the decision to move him to the OF. Curious to see what they do with him going forward. He's certainly had a good season.
 
Russ2dollas said:
Not paying guys 30 million a year not to play for us will help too. No more Uggla, CJ, Bourn, Swisher, Olivera money helps.
Click to expand...

Well, we are still making deals exactly like that though. Markakis and Kemp are pretty much the same types of deals. I'm fine with the Kemp deal simply because I see it as a lesser evil in years we won't be competing anyway, but the chances he lives up to the 10-11 mil a year his contract pays on top of Olivera's contract are extremely small.
 
auyushu said:
Well, we are still making deals exactly like that though. Markakis and Kemp are pretty much the same types of deals. I'm fine with the Kemp deal simply because I see it as a lesser evil in years we won't be competing anyway, but the chances he lives up to the 10-11 mil a year his contract pays on top of Olivera's contract are extremely small.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with that in terms of figures that include defensive, though I haven't watched him enough to understand how bad he might be in left field. I think maybe there is a chance he earns a nice portion of his contract and helps make Atlanta more respectable, which in turn sells tickets keeps the budgets reasonable and maybe keeps the front office out of hot water while they try to accomplish the longer term rebuild.

My concern is that the money might be a stumbling block later, but I guess if they have gotten the right prospects their window is going to still be opening after this contract is done. Also given the dead money on the books, this deal still leaves them more cap room than before and they don't really have as much to spend money on outside of the major league roster going forward with the int'l signing period being potentially out of their reach for the next two seasons.

So aside from potentially money, Kemp maybe doesn't matter. No one expects him to be a world series piece.
 
We're trying to avoid trading away prospects or losing picks. We have a ton of money to spend and this is a good strategic way to spend it. We're taking on a surplus of 3/25, but we're also about to dump off a 2/22. We didn't lose any prospects or picks. We filled a need for RH power in the middle of the lineup.
 
Chico said:
We have a ton of money to spend and this is a good strategic way to spend it.
Click to expand...

Yup. Better than the FA route alternative. I'm also convinced we can trade for McCann on terms that will make more sense than going after a FA catcher.
 
Southcack77 said:
I tend to agree with that in terms of figures that include defensive, though I haven't watched him enough to understand how bad he might be in left field. I think maybe there is a chance he earns a nice portion of his contract and helps make Atlanta more respectable, which in turn sells tickets keeps the budgets reasonable and maybe keeps the front office out of hot water while they try to accomplish the longer term rebuild.
Click to expand...

He's really bad defensively, the numbers don't lie there. But he'll fulfill the main purpose, which is to allow the FO to act like they are making moves to compete, and make the offense look better, which helps sell more tickets. He's unlikely to add any wins over what we have now, but I see it as better than most of the alternatives as the FO has to make moves of some sort moving into the new stadium. The only real issue with adding Kemp and say Mac will be we will really need to find a good deal for Julio this offseason (or at the deadline next year I suppose if the FO is living in the imaginary world where we are competing for the playoffs next year), because I doubt we'll be a potential playoff type team until late 2018/early 2019 if those are our major moves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top