2018 Offseason And Targets

Status
Not open for further replies.
NinersSBChamps said:
So you are a greedy MLB player aplologist now? These long contacts have not worked out well for the teams in the past. Miggy and Pujols did/are not aging well. Teams need to be smarter when handing out mega deals like those. MLB contracts are fully guaranteed unlike NFL. It’s gross to think these entitled guys who play a game are somehow being wronged.
Click to expand...

Pujols didn't work out because no matter how great it's dumb to give a 32 year old 1B stupid long deal.

The first Cabrera contract worked out tremendously well. From 08-15 he was the best hitter in baseball. He of course signed that extension when he was 25 years old and covered all his prime years. The 2nd extension he signed was horrible because again like Pujols is going to include every down year of his career. Arod is another case similar to Cabrera.

Signing superstars past 30 (no matter how great) until they are 40 years old at superstar level money is stupid and will always be stupid. Luckily most teams are now realizing this.

Signing superstars that are in their mid 20's to huge contracts is not a terrible idea at all. It just becomes stupid if you extend them again like in the case of Cabrera and ARod.
 
clvclv said:
Says he knows the organization and staff better (although apparently still not well enough to trade anyone away).

Tougher division.

Donaldson - experience, off-field contributions were huge consideration (sounds a bit like groundwork for what a great "extra coach" he'll be if he gets hurt).

Mac - better than Zook.

NL East reminds him of old AL East.



Gee, Gammons really asks the tough questions these days.
Click to expand...

Also said this re Kimbrel.

"Yeah I was asked about that and per league rules I can't say who we're actively in on"

That's different than giving big money to a reliever isnt something we're looking to do or something like that.
 
brian22 said:
MLB players deserve so much better? Lol. Nurses, teachers, LEOs, paramedics, firefighters and soldiers deserve so much better.
Click to expand...

Anyone can be those things though. They don't require a high amount of skill set. Athletes "deserve" more than they are getting because they are the lifeblood of the multi-billion dollar industry they play in.
 
Carp said:
Anyone can be those things though. They don't require a high amount of skill set. Athletes "deserve" more than they are getting because they are the lifeblood of the multi-billion dollar industry they play in.
Click to expand...

simple supply and demand

athletes are entertainers just like actors and musicians.
 
Heyward said:
I meant sports wise genius.

But teams are being much more smarter about contracts now, there arent any 10-12 year deals anymore. Teams are going for higher AAV in shorter deals or a high AAV on a 1-yr deal.

Although like striker said, you just dont have a ton of teams spending anymore which causes a lack of bidding wars for players.
Click to expand...

I promise you Harper and Machado have had multiple 30+ million dollar deals they are sitting on. The greed of their agents who want these decade + deals are what’s holding things up. Heck Harper could have had a 300 million 10 year deal before he even got to free agancy and turned it down. That is crazy stupid money.

These long deals NEVER work out for a team. They are ALWAYS a boat anchor. Either of these two could probably sign a 5 year $40 million deal anytime. It’s just because they want sooooooo many years. If I was a GM....Trout would be the ONLY guy I gave a ten year deal.

As for Kimbrel....yes, he has been awesome. He has an TON of mileage and hasn’t been quite the stud he used to be. So, a team is supposed to pay him his biggest money in his least productive years ...just because...he wants it. Give me a flippin break.

This is an easy fix. Ditch the 100% guranteed contract. Have a base with incentives. If you did, Harper would have his $500 million contract with $300 garunteed, and every year they could jack the ego, pissing contest amount up. If they perform....they make the money. If they don’t...they still get a lot of cash and make off like bandits.

It’s not rocket science.

It’s not the players getting screwed.

How would you like to buy a expensive product with zero guarantee ?....You wouldn’t. Just because owners have money doesn’t mean they should in fact be idiots with that money. Bottom line is to win AND make as much profit as possible.
 
You
Carp said:
Anyone can be those things though. They don't require a high amount of skill set. Athletes "deserve" more than they are getting because they are the lifeblood of the multi-billion dollar industry they play in.
Click to expand...

And nurses are pretty well compensated based on skill set. The others are public sector jobs and their salaries are based on what you are willing to pay in taxes. Not even comparable to players
 
bravesfanMatt said:
You

And nurses are pretty well compensated based on skill set. The others are public sector jobs and their salaries are based on what you are willing to pay in taxes. Not even comparable to players
Click to expand...

Bottom line: If any of you guys on here owned a multi million dollar business and offered a good employee great money, but they wanted more and more each year....before long...you would say “God Bless you...go find another employer”.

Harper and Machado both have warts. They think they are Trout. They are NOT EVEN CLOSE.
 
TheBravos said:
Bottom line: If any of you guys on here owned a multi million dollar business and offered a good employee great money, but they wanted more and more each year....before long...you would say “God Bless you...go find another employer”.

Harper and Machado both have warts. They think they are Trout. They are NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Click to expand...

lol what. your first paragraph does not relate to the situation at all.
 
Heyward said:
Also said this re Kimbrel.

"Yeah I was asked about that and per league rules I can't say who we're actively in on"

That's different than giving big money to a reliever isnt something we're looking to do or something like that.
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like a league rule to me, it sounds like a we are in on Kimbrel and I'm not going to let the word get out and potentially have to outbid myself. CK just "happens" to be in town with no return flight booked and Freeman blushes like a school girl when asked out on her first date when he brings up Craig before he can even be asked by the media. Freeman doesn't have a poker face for sure. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think Craig Kimbrel will be an Atlanta Brave again when the dust settles. The tea leaves are strong with this one!
 
Last edited:
TheBravos said:
Correction....many more times than not. Say what you will, but it’s a ton of risk for the team on a 100% guaranteed deal.
Click to expand...

Sure. There is risk in every guaranteed contract. That said if you look at every big contract signed for players in their mid 20s it usually turns out good for the team. It's those post 30 deals that have stopped and for good reason.
 
thewupk said:
Sure. There is risk in every guaranteed contract. That said if you look at every big contract signed for players in their mid 20s it usually turns out good for the team. It's those post 30 deals that have stopped and for good reason.
Click to expand...

It the ones that go into mid to late 30’s. So if Harper gets 10 years and this deal is good for 6-7 years would it be worth it? I guess so but then you have to also factor how it will affect the rest of your payroll. For the Faillie, they can spend 200 million. But will they want to for the next ten years?
 
We just got lambasted pretty good on MLB radio for having a smaller payroll than last year even though our revenues are way up....
Seemed like they were saying we have a deal or two being worked on....
 
Hulavol said:
We just got lambasted pretty good on MLB radio for having a smaller payroll than last year even though our revenues are way up....
Seemed like they were saying we have a deal or two being worked on....
Click to expand...

I would assume there are better values out there now since movement has been slow.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
It the ones that go into mid to late 30’s. So if Harper gets 10 years and this deal is good for 6-7 years would it be worth it? I guess so but then you have to also factor how it will affect the rest of your payroll. For the Faillie, they can spend 200 million. But will they want to for the next ten years?
Click to expand...

If Harper is worth his contract for 7 years then yeah I would say it's worth it.

You are right that this the type of deal that the Phillies can make while the Braves can't. But for big market teams it's absolutely worth it. The Padres on the other hand are a team that shouldn't invest in someone like Harper but the Padres aren't a well run team either. Similar to the Rangers spending a **** ton on ARod even though he was worth that 1st contract.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top