2018 Offseason And Targets

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheBravos said:
I wish we would have done more...but what?

The Machado and Harper deals were so much money and so long term...our team couldn’t take on that risk.

Really Pollock might have been the only one, but that was also risky....just lest risky. I think that’s the one I would have chosen.

I still think there are trades, etc out there.
Click to expand...

Any other plan would have required taking on more long term risk, like Brantley for 3 years, or Grandal for 4 years.

Why were the Braves so risk averse medium/long term?

My theory: they couldn't take on the total debt.

MLB rules dictate a team's total debt can't exceed something like 10x their annual revenue. Since they already have a ton of stadium debt, and are planning to take on more, they simply couldn't take on the extra debt for medium/long term contracts.

And AA calls this "flexibility".
 
Buzzworm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. This organization is not a serious title contender until we have an owner(s) that have that as their stated goal and willingness to spend to make it happen. This was the perfect off-season to add very litte personel wise (substainally money wise) and win a couple championships the next four or five seasons. Somewhere in the back of my mind I see an ownership group consisting of Blank, Glavine, Chipper, and maybe even Ted along with other Atl big wheels next time they win it all.
 
nsacpi said:
Going point by point

1) The Donaldson signing was tremendous value. Would not call getting that sort of value a splurge.

2) Remains to be seen. We have Muk/Duvall/Camargo/Riley as options. I am concerned Snit has not seen fit to play Camargo or Riley in the outfield yet. That should be happening.

3) I'm fine with converting prospects to current season value. I suspect AA is fine doing that too. Just insistent that the return is right.
Click to expand...

So the "good value" plan involves taking the internal options at 3B, and hoping they work out in cOF rather than just upgrading cOF directly?

Come on man, AA had a boner for JD, and you know it. That's why he was the key to the Braves off season.

There is a minimum bar a contender needs to clear before "value" becomes the deciding factor. It is certainly debatable whether or not the Braves cleared that bar, so touting "value" is going to fall on a lot of deaf ears.
 
Ozzie's Chainz said:
Oh, I'm fine with the team as it is (even though I would like to add Kimbrel but if the price is right not an off-season breaker either way), just replying to Harry's silliness. I probably should just ignore him, Jedi Master.
Click to expand...

Harry adds a lot of value (there's that word again). Contrarians are good to have around.
 
CrazyTrain said:
I said pretty clearly in my last post that adding 6 wins for 30m is great if you use those savings to splurge on something that gets you over the top. Otherwise you're just a cheap team who wins 6 more games than the other cheap teams. Big F whoop.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a move that "gets you over the top." Every moves adds or subtracts to your chances. Nothing is guaranteed.
 
Enscheff said:
So the "good value" plan involves taking the internal options at 3B, and hoping they work out in cOF rather than just upgrading cOF directly?
Click to expand...

There is a risk involved in moving a player to a different position and it is fair to include that in an evaluation. But given the kind of deal we were able to sign Donaldson to, I'm good with taking that risk.

We can look at some similar past moves. This would not be the first time we've moved an infielder to the outfield. Gant. Chipper. Prado. Klesko. It is a mixed bag. But again considering the price on Donaldson I think it is one worth taking.
 
nsacpi said:
Going point by point

1) The Donaldson signing was tremendous value. Would not call getting that sort of value a splurge.

2) Remains to be seen. We have Muk/Duvall/Camargo/Riley as options. I am concerned Snit has not seen fit to play Camargo or Riley in the outfield yet. That should be happening.

3) I'm fine with converting prospects to current season value. I suspect AA is fine doing that too. Just insistent that the return is right.

By focusing on value, we are going to end up with a deeper team than if we focused on position specific needs. One of the bonuses of that is the way at bats get redistributed. Donaldson takes away at bats from Camargo. But Camargo takes away at bats that last year went to the likes of Flaherty. So we are really transferring at bats from Flaherty to Donaldson.

I am a bit concerned about right field. Snit is old school in his loyalty to veterans. I hope he will be open-minded about giving some of Muk's ABs to other players.
Click to expand...

I have my own reservations about the competitiveness of this team, so I could call this a splurge just because it's 1 year value for a team that isn't going to win it all anyway. Then, when you pull your second point into the discussion, wouldn't it be better value to try to get solid WAR out of two cheap players like Camargo and Riley instead of forcing them to play out of position to sign a guy for $23 mil? Then we could've used that money to sign a cOF to make the team better in the long term?
 
nsacpi said:
There is no such thing as a move that "gets you over the top." Every moves adds or subtracts to your chances. Nothing is guaranteed.
Click to expand...

You're splitting hairs. Would it make you feel better if I said "splurge on something that adds a lot more to our chances"?
 
nsacpi said:
There is a risk involved in moving a player to a different position and it is fair to include that in an evaluation. But given the kind of deal we were able to sign Donaldson to, I'm good with taking that risk.

We can look at some similar past moves. This would not be the first time we've moved an infielder to the outfield. Gant. Chipper. Prado. Klesko. It is a mixed bag. But again considering the price on Donaldson I think it is one worth taking.
Click to expand...

...but the issue is that JD is only here for one year and then we spent a full season jerking around two 3B that should be focused on getting better at hitting instead of learning to play the OF. Why create that headache for one year of JD?
 
CrazyTrain said:
Then, when you pull your second point into the discussion, wouldn't it be better value to try to get solid WAR out of two cheap players like Camargo and Riley instead of forcing them to play out of position to sign a guy for $23 mil?
Click to expand...

Actually no. I prefer taking on Donaldson than taking on Brantley or McCutchen at what they signed (and we don't know they would have signed for the Braves at that price).
 
CrazyTrain said:
...but the issue is that JD is only here for one year and then we spent a full season jerking around two 3B that should be focused on getting better at hitting instead of learning to play the OF. Why create that headache for one year of JD?
Click to expand...

Players (especially younger players) change positions all the time. Gant and Prado are two examples. Gant played the infield his entire minor league career and first season in the majors.

And to me having Donaldson on a 1 year is a good thing.
 
nsacpi said:
Players (especially younger players) change positions all the time. Gant and Prado are two examples. Gant played the infield his entire minor league career and first season in the majors.
Click to expand...

OK, cool, two examples.

I still want Austin Riley figuring out how not to strike out one out of three at bats instead of learning to play RF this season.
 
nsacpi said:
Players (especially younger players) change positions all the time. Gant and Prado are two examples. Gant played the infield his entire minor league career and first season in the majors.

And to me having Donaldson on a 1 year is a good thing.
Click to expand...

...but why? I'd be fine with moving JC or AR to the OF if that's where they need to go long term to make room for Donaldson, but for one season? Why?
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top