Search results

Yes, you can field a team with valuable players, but they still won't be good. Building a team that only loses 100 games instead of 110 games is really irrelevant. The idea is to build a foundation where you can get good and stay good for a while. To me, that would me drafting valuable players...

Yeah, I didn't see any real strategy. I mean, if the Dodgers left Price unprotected, which happened in this scenario, would a team not draft him then market him to other teams offering to pay down some of the cost. For instance, Price is owed $64M over the last two years of his contract. Would...

I read it as players guaranteed 50% of pro-rated salary, not 50% of full season salary. So, if there is a 81 game season, then the players are guaranteed 50% of 50%.

I agree with you. IMO, if you're going to take a tough sign do it in the first round. If you can't sign him then you get a replacement pick next year in what should be a deeper (lots of returning guys) and better scouted group. It's not like you lose a lot of development time since it's not...

I would think the full year of service time for NO season is a big incentive for the ML owners to have a season. Otherwise, all players on your team accrue time just as if they were on IL for the entire season, which I guess is one way of looking at it. But, the owners lose a tremendous amount...

I disagree that it isn't a major issue. It's potentially millions of dollars either way. If players get full service time, arbitration kicks in faster for players and they cost more. Argument could be made that age will take some off the field faster which will help even out the costs. But, with...

Does anyone know what happens to service time if the season isn't played? For instance Dansby currently is listed with 3.047 years. Does he open next season with 4.047? 3.547? What? If they get service time, how does that affect arbitration? Lose some cheap years on Acuna and Albies... Also...

Didn't see that explicitly given in the article and couldn't remember from the last expansion draft. Would be more interesting if it was the whole organization...would probably hurt teams like the Dodgers the most, a lot of ML talent AND minor league talent.

I agree with you but would add that Inciarte would either be traded prior to setting the protected list OR would be left unprotected. The exercise as stated assumes certain players being around to be drafted. I think all teams, including Atlanta, would try to trade at risk pieces that have value...

Take a HS guy who won't sign in the first round and offer the minimum possible contract which is slot minus 20% IIRC. When he doesn't sign, get a replacement in next years draft, one pick lower. Then take HS guys at 97, 126 and 156 and be prepared to go OVER slot using the 20% you didn't spend...

Braves have picks at 25, 97, 126, 156 as I understand it. Slot values: 25 - $2,740,300 97 - $599,100 126 - $451,800 156 - $336,600 Why not take an unlikely to sign HS at 25 and offer him slot minus 20%. That gives you an extra ~$550K to use to sign guys over slot at 97, 126, 156. As I...

The worst punishment would have been MLB mandating that the Braves carry all those signed on the 40 man for 6 years and have to keep the scouting department and all the Johns. I mean, come on, how inept do you have to be to spend huge amounts of cash, cheat, and still not sign a true ML...

Nice strawman. If you don't want to address what I did say, address what I didn't.

You start.

I understand what you're saying but it really doesn't apply. I'm willing to admit that there are many, many scenarios where trading Freeman resulted in little to nothing back, especially considering the Johns were in charge. But that's a question of FO competence, not overall correct strategy...

That's a different question. That's a matter of FO competence and you're saying that you don't trust the Braves FO to make a good deal. That's not a question about whether it should be done from a talent and control standpoint but a question about whether the FO can make a good trade. Fair...

That misses the point. The Braves likely would NOT have won 97 games last year or won 90 games the year before. But that is a sign of patience in building - postponing a rush to flawed success for a slower build for a less flawed future. Also, IF the Braves would have traded Freddie, they would...

No. The way the whole "flags fly forever" tag is used around here doesn't apply to me at all. That tag essentially refers to those who are willing to go all in to try to win a WS. I'm actually the opposite. I was willing (and hopeful) that they would rebuild from the ground up and take whatever...

You are confusing the idea that I think Freeman isn't any good with my real point of team value. Freeman IS very good. No question. And, he has been worth his contract and likely will continue to be, barring injury, through this current contract. He is very unlikely to be worth his next...

Anything is possible. He might be great until he's 40. It's just highly unlikely.