2018 Offseason And Targets

Status
Not open for further replies.
CrazyTrain said:
I'm a fan, not one of the accountants. Bringing Markakis back was the death knell on this offseason.
Click to expand...

Of course. We are all fans. I would argue that relentlessly pursuing value in trades and signings is the best way to win. I want to win as much as anyone else around here. I'm as much of a fan as anyone else. I'm not an accountant. But the ones I know are fine human beings and want their teams to win too.
 
bravesfanforlife88 said:
Joel Sherman says contrary to reports there are opt outs...

But 13 years...wow
Click to expand...

Again, the length of the contract doesn't matter. 10 years, 13 years, 15 years, 20 years....doesn't matter.

The Phillies were buying the rest of the WAR Harper is going to produce for the rest of his MLB career. Whether they spread it over 13 years or 50 years doesn't make one bit of difference.

The 13 year term only serves to lower the AAV hit for luxury tax concerns.
 
nsacpi said:
Imo Machado and Harper are about the same player in terms of value. So Machado gets 300M for 10 years. Harper gets 300M for 10 years, plus an extra 30M for his ages 36-38 seasons. Seems about right. I think both got paid the going market rate of somewhere between 8M to 9M per expected win.

Neither is a great deal for the clubs concerned. But neither is a disaster.

All of the above is ex ante.

There are other posters around here who specialize in ex post and they will get to practice their specialty in a few years with respect to those two contracts.
Click to expand...

The main difference is the Phils can afford a $300M contract and a $180M payroll...the Padres can't.
 
nsacpi said:
Of course. We are all fans. I would argue that relentlessly pursuing value in trades and signings is the best way to win. I want to win as much as anyone else around here. I'm as much of a fan as anyone else. I'm not an accountant. But the ones I know are fine human beings and want their teams to win too.
Click to expand...

Relentlessly pursuing value in trades should make you flexible to make the occasional big splash signings to get you over the top. The Braves are only interested in putting the cheapest product possible on the field that the fans will still actually watch.
 
nsacpi said:
AA has added an expected 6 wins this offseason at the cost of 30M. 5M/win. The challenge I keep asking of his critics is to show me an alternative that nets you that many or more wins for the same price.
Click to expand...


I think most folks are confused and directing there anger at the wrong person.
AA has done a nice job with the resources allocated to him and kept our window of being a fringe playoff contender for the next 5-8 years open.
People’s anger should be directed at our owners who clearly have made making money the number one priority.Every team in MLB makes money but there’s a difference between making money like all MLB teams do and being greedy which is what the Braves are.
I firmly believe we will never win a WS as long as we have this ownership group.
They will never spend the extra 15-25 million needed to take us from fringe contender to Favorite.
You add one more good Bat to our lineup and one Solid vet to our rotation to go along with us keeping all our young guys and you’d have a team capable of winning a ship the next 5 seasons.
Instead best case, while our young players are still under team control we will always be what we were last year which is a nice young team a few pieces away that gets outclassed when we run up against a bigger payroll team with a deeper lineup in the playoffs.
 
TheBravos said:
Well, I really thought there was another move coming after the Nick signing (like JTR).

I think we really have to hope that prospects and young guys (like Dansby and Ozzie)...really out perform predictions now.
Click to expand...

Someone go find the AA quote where he said, "Signing Markakis for cheap will allow us to make another move".

Where is that other move?
 
nsacpi said:
AA has added an expected 6 wins this offseason at the cost of 30M. 5M/win. The challenge I keep asking of his critics is to show me an alternative that nets you that many or more wins for the same price.
Click to expand...

Value means nothing when the team isn't good enough.

Is an 85 win projection good enough? I lean towards yes, but I can understand why many folks are upset.
 
Enscheff said:
Incorrect.

The Marlins wanted one of Pache/Riley and one of the FV 55+ pitchers.
Click to expand...

Heyman i thought said different but i would have done Riley and a pitcher with filler if that got it done. Im not sure if Contreras would have been in it or not either.
 
Heyward said:
So they get his good years and not his decline years? Not rocket science.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

If Harper is in the middle of "bad years", he isn't going to opt out.

Anyone suggesting an opt out is anything other than good for the player is clueless. The best a team can do is mitigate the value lost due to an opt out by front loading the contract and/or the new "swell-opt" clause.
 
Maybe terry mcdork and DD can create a new banner to fly in BBnT park this season. Winners of most WAR value of offseason and most money spent not on team. Go team.
 
tululush said:
The only way an opt out helps a team is if the player opts our and takes you off the hook for a massive contract. Conversely, the Phils are stuck with that albatross of a contract regardless of what Harper does. For good or bad he’s going to rot in Philly.
Click to expand...


I still struggle to see the big downside to the teams in the opt-out.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
Maybe terry mcdork and DD can create a new banner to fly in BBnT park this season. Winners of most WAR value of offseason and most money spent not on team. Go team.
Click to expand...

Fans have a legit beef if a publicly funded ballpark generates more revenue, but that revenue is used to pay down the private debt incurred by building that new ballpark.
 
Enscheff said:
Wrong.

If Harper is in the middle of "bad years", he isn't going to opt out.

Anyone suggesting an opt out is anything other than good for the player is clueless. The best a team can do is mitigate the value lost due to an opt out by front loading the contract and/or the new "swell-opt" clause.
Click to expand...


The deal is good for the player. It doesn't make it necessarily bad for the team.
 
Enscheff said:
Fans have a legit beef if a publicly funded ballpark generates more revenue, but that revenue is used to pay down the private debt incurred by building that new ballpark.
Click to expand...

Taxpayers of [whatever County built the stadium] perhaps. But their beef is probably more with their elected officials.
 
CrazyTrain said:
Relentlessly pursuing value in trades should make you flexible to make the occasional big splash signings to get you over the top. The Braves are only interested in putting the cheapest product possible on the field that the fans will still actually watch.
Click to expand...

Give me a "big splash" by another team this off-season which works better than adding 6 wins for 30M.
 
Southcack77 said:
I still struggle to see the big downside to the teams in the opt-out.
Click to expand...

The downside is that there is no upside for a team.

The opt out means the only possible outcomes for the team is being stuck with a bad contract, or losing control over a good contract.

Anyone who can’t understand why opt outs favor the player shouldn’t be inserting themselves into baseball finance discussions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top