Perhaps because we have had a number of situations in the past where we weren't able to get those short term extensions for young players done. We weren't able to sign Furcal or Heyward like that, or McCann to a second deal when he was hitting FA. Just because we want to sign Swanson to that kinda deal doesn't mean he will do so.
TOP 30 PROSPECTS: New Year's Eve Edition
- Thread starter rico43
- Start date
Perhaps because we have had a number of situations in the past where we weren't able to get those short term extensions for young players done. We weren't able to sign Furcal or Heyward like that, or McCann to a second deal when he was hitting FA. Just because we want to sign Swanson to that kinda deal doesn't mean he will do so.
McCann was a good no call though on the second deal. And realistically we only want to extend Swanson 3 or so years out anyways. He's 23 and having him for 9 years would put him through his year 32 season. Unless the flood gates open and the Braves are back to Ted Turner money we likely don't want to pay Swanson for any longer then that.
So really only two players, Heyward and Furcal, we weren't able to get a few extra years out of it. That's really not that bad.
Agreed on only extending Swanson 3 years or so, but that's one of the main reasons I could see an issue with extending him. He may be looking to cash in on that big 7 year deal since he'll be closing in on 30.
I'm not saying we can't get that deal by any means, I'm certainly hoping we can get a Rays type extension for him done in the future. But too many on here are just brushing it off like it's a certainty. It takes two to tango.
I agree with that point about Swanson and thinking about it earlier. He likely only has that one chance to get the big mega deal. Who knows if that will affect his decision or not. I personally would have kept him down but I have a feeling the new CBA will change those rules and JS knows about it.
Sorry, but that is flawed logic. By losing 1 year of control, we will either A) lose Dansby to FA one year earlier, or B) extend him, but the cost will be considerably higher due to that lost pre-arb year we are burning now. For example, let's assume at the end of the 2019 season we want to extend him for 6 years. By starting him now, he would be starting his second arb year with the 2020 season (super 2). So you'd be locking up 3 arby years and 3 FA years. On the other hand, if we had waited until next June to bring him up, he'd be in his last pre-arb year, so you'd be locking up 1 pre-arb year, 3 arb years, and 2 FA years. That would be a whole lot less costly than the former.
Oklahomabrave
Anytime Now Frankie...
This seems like the biggest potential point. If the CBA changes this could all be moot.
Agreed that a new CBA could completely change this landscape. But until that happens, this current CBA makes seriously considering holding back playing time to gain team control very valuable and one that must be considered.
Exactly, my feelings on him coming up early really depend on how the CBA changes. Could be a moot point or a poor decision depending on that.
ball4life32
Danville Rookie
Maitan now ranked #100 by MLB pipelines.
As it stands Swanson will not be a super 2. That designation is currently for players who come up at some point after the first couple of weeks and before June. Swanson will be pre-arb for 2017-2019 and then Arb for 2020-2022. If he had come up next May he would be pre-arb 2017-2019 and then Arb for 2020-2023. If we waited until June he would be pre-arb 2017-2020 and then arb 2021-2023.
rico43
<B>Director of Minor League Reports</B>
What amazes me more than any of this hold-him-back chatter is that people on this board are worried about how a BILLIONAIRE spends his money. I submit that any of you who dwell on this more than a little are not true fans -- I will go so far as to wager you have seldom if ever dropped a nickel on this team as a fan attending a game. Doing the budget for the next four years is an interesting intellectual exercise -- but at admit that's what it is. You take no pleasure in watching a rookie break in.
BTW, BRAVES WIN!
BTW, BRAVES WIN!
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
People care about the budget four years from now because the budget isn't unlimited and they want the best team possible today and the best team possible then. And the Braves aren't owned by a Billionaire they are owned by a corporation who really only care about stock prices and dividends.
Even IF the Braves don't lose Swanson because of money, assuming he is as good as we all hope, he will still command a lot of money. Having to pay him big money a year before you have to will absolutely have an impact on the rest of the payroll and possible cost the Braves a player they didn't want to lose or force them to forego the addition of a needed player.
If showing concern for fielding the best TEAM as opposed to blindly being happy in a bad season because at least I get to see a bit of the future, regardless of how the now effects the future, then yeah, I'm not a true fan. I've only been following and attending Braves games since the late 1970's. But hey, whatever.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Probably a top 10 prospect for them.
You sir would be quite wrong.
Very well said, of which I completely agree.
Southcack77
Well-known member
Me too. It's how I see it. The only justification is front office really expects to contend in 2017,which seems rather unlikely, and wants Swanson to get work in now.
But that's a really strange reason to promote a guy the front office admits isn't ready.
It's not just about maximizing how many years of Swanson's prime we have under control.
I see that argument, but at the same time is that final year of Swanson's clock going to be worth it if Freeman is past his prime?
I'm sure the front office is also considering the shelf life of Freeman and Julio whom are the parts of the core they have the most money invested in.
Regardless if we can afford to pay Swanson or not, if our farm system isn't producing solid ML players again to replace outgoing ones we're screwed anyways.
I see that argument, but at the same time is that final year of Swanson's clock going to be worth it if Freeman is past his prime?
I'm sure the front office is also considering the shelf life of Freeman and Julio whom are the parts of the core they have the most money invested in.
Regardless if we can afford to pay Swanson or not, if our farm system isn't producing solid ML players again to replace outgoing ones we're screwed anyways.
Close enough! ManBan is #19 on the Angels' prospect list.
