2018 Offseason And Targets

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heyward said:
I would have done Brantley for the money he got but if he preferred Houston over Atlanta, nothing we can do. And i'll pass on that McCutchen contract.

And adding Donaldson moves Camargo to the Zobrist/Chris Taylor/Marwin role where he plays everywhere and gets 450+ AB's. And there's no such thing as a bad 1-yr deal. Never. Obviously we needed to add a better outfielder, and that's the big whiff by AA this winter.
Click to expand...

Agree completely on point 1 and we'll never know how deep we got with Brantley and obviously money isn't everything.

#2, I do understand what you're saying, but I thought Camargo played best once he had an every day role. I'm worried about how he'll deal without the consistency of knowing what his job is every day.

#3, I think a one year deal is a bad deal if we used the money to sign a guy at a position of strength that keeps us from upgrading a position of need.
 
Ozzie's Chainz said:
We finish third in the East at worst, the problem is we were the favorites to repeat if Harper had headed West!
Click to expand...

Nats are still the team to beat in the East, they had a ton go wrong last year, and were on our ass to end the year. Adding Corbin and what they have, would say they're for sure the favorites, followed by Atl/Phi/NY in whatever order you want too.
 
Enscheff said:
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.
Click to expand...


You are correct. But it can be good for a team in that you aren't stuck with the bad half of the contract. Machado for instance, may be 4-5 WAR player in 5 years and decide to opt out. The Pads allow him to walk and are clear of future risk. Sure, you are letting him go while he's still considered a good player, but ideally you would spend that money on younger/cheaper alternatives with less risk.
 
Carp said:
You are correct. But it can be good for a team in that you aren't stuck with the bad half of the contract. Machado for instance, may be 4-5 WAR player in 5 years and decide to opt out. The Pads allow him to walk and are clear of future risk. Sure, you are letting him go while he's still considered a good player, but ideally you would spend that money on younger/cheaper alternatives with less risk.
Click to expand...

if machado is showing signs of decline he simply doesn’t opt out.
 
Carp said:
You are correct. But it can be good for a team in that you aren't stuck with the bad half of the contract. Machado for instance, may be 4-5 WAR player in 5 years and decide to opt out. The Pads allow him to walk and are clear of future risk. Sure, you are letting him go while he's still considered a good player, but ideally you would spend that money on younger/cheaper alternatives with less risk.
Click to expand...

I think you described the only situation where it might make sense, but I wouldn't bank on Machado (or anyone) outplaying a $30 mil/year contract enough to have the balls to see if he can do better post 30. Inflation be damned.
 
CrazyTrain said:
Agree completely on point 1 and we'll never know how deep we got with Brantley and obviously money isn't everything.

#2, I do understand what you're saying, but I thought Camargo played best once he had an every day role. I'm worried about how he'll deal without the consistency of knowing what his job is every day.

#3, I think a one year deal is a bad deal if we used the money to sign a guy at a position of strength that keeps us from upgrading a position of need.
Click to expand...

Where do you upgrade at then? Or even who, what names?

I'd agree on outfield, but... Pollock costs a pick and he's injury prone, McCutchen's deal could be a bad one.

If they wanted a controllable catcher, and the Marlins wanted Contreras, Riley/Pache, and a pitcher, that's a simple no. Pitching wise there wasnt much out there. I'm not as big on Keuchel and Kimbrel as alot of people here are.
 
nsacpi said:
Harry adds a lot of value (there's that word again). Contrarians are good to have around.
Click to expand...

I tend to think more strategically than tactically. I've long said that the Braves have been on the wrong path from a strategic POV since the whole "reload" mindest.

The strategy has been to build the team within enough to get within range of sustained competitiveness, then go outside through FA and trades to put the team over the top. The Braves didn't improve through trade at all and marginally improved through their FA signings. They brought in a catcher who realistically is likely the mirror of Suzuki in a good case. The exchanged a ~3.5 WAR 3B with what they hope will be a 5 WAR 3B. The replaced a 2.5 WAR RF with the same guy who's a year older or maybe a 1.5 WAR RF. The guy pushed from 3B to the bench probably adds a win to the bench. In other words, they may, MAY have improved the team by 1.5 wins, maybe. That's before growth from the youngsters, assuming there is any and assuming that it outweighs regression in other places. They are counting almost entirely on improvement from within, which doesn't follow the strategy. They have gone against their plan. That may be due to finances. But, if you can't follow through on the plan, then you had a bad plan to begin with.
 
Carp said:
You are correct. But it can be good for a team in that you aren't stuck with the bad half of the contract. Machado for instance, may be 4-5 WAR player in 5 years and decide to opt out. The Pads allow him to walk and are clear of future risk. Sure, you are letting him go while he's still considered a good player, but ideally you would spend that money on younger/cheaper alternatives with less risk.
Click to expand...

Then if Machado has a contract with surplus value, he can be traded for prospects, and a younger/cheaper player can be acquired.

There is no scenario where an opt out clause is a positive for the team.
 
Enscheff said:
This tells me the Braves don't think they need another above average arm in the BP.
Click to expand...

the BP on paper is fairly deep.

RH: Winkler, Carle, Viz, O'Day, Sobotka, maybe Touki.
LH: Biddle, Venters, Freeman, Minter, maybe Fried.

Obviously not the best bullpen in baseball, but it's miles better than what opened last year.
 
Super said:
if machado is showing signs of decline he simply doesn’t opt out.
Click to expand...

I mean he would need to beat 160 million in total value at age 32. So certainly it's unlikely. But assuming he is still a 4-5 win player, it's possible. And if I were the Pads GM, I'd be glad to let someone else pick up the tab on the remainder of that deal
 
Carp said:
I mean he would need to beat 160 million in total value at age 32. So certainly it's unlikely. But assuming he is still a 4-5 win player, it's possible. And if I were the Pads GM, I'd be glad to let someone else pick up the tab on the remainder of that deal
Click to expand...

Which is why front loading the contract to entice the player to opt out is a way to mitigate the overall risk.

The opt out is still a mechanism that favors the player. Period.
 
Carp said:
I mean he would need to beat 160 million in total value at age 32. So certainly it's unlikely. But assuming he is still a 4-5 win player, it's possible. And if I were the Pads GM, I'd be glad to let someone else pick up the tab on the remainder of that deal
Click to expand...

the only way the player opts out is if it’s clearly advantageous to do so. the market is better, the dh is everhwre, the player was consistently great. otherwise he stays.

this favors the player. not the team.

a team wouldn’t push for it unless there a financial benefit. which was my initial point.
 
Enscheff said:
Then if Machado has a contract with surplus value, he can be traded for prospects, and a younger/cheaper player can be acquired.

There is no scenario where an opt out clause is a positive for the team.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you're going here. He's never going to have surplus value.
 
Enscheff said:
Which is why front loading the contract to entice the player to opt out is a way to mitigate the overall risk.

The opt out is still a mechanism that favors the player. Period.
Click to expand...

Again, I agree with that. Pointing out there are scenarios where it can be beneficial to the team isn't a disagreement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top