Around MLB 2016 style

gilesfan said:
.

If you sell me a broken $10 tv and I trade it in plus $40 for another broken tv, I invested $50 in broken tvs. I didn't invest $40 in broken tvs. That mindset is dumb and just used to justifying a dumb trade.
Click to expand...

No, it's like you trade in a worthless $10 tv for a $20 tv that you hope has some value after a nice little tune up. You didn't invest $30 in tv's, you invested 20$ in tv's. But only 10$ was invested in the tv that you hope has some value left.
 
weso1 said:
Yes, but the question is should the Braves have traded for Kemp? To go off the 18-20 million dollar figure is incredibly intellectually dishonest. The question of whether or not the Braves should have traded for Kemp should be based on the 8-10 million dollar figure they actually invested in Kemp.

And that's fine if you think the Braves shouldn't have invested in Kemp because you don't think he's worth the 8-10 million bucks per year on top of what our payroll commitments are already. I say trade Markakis and it evens out.
Click to expand...

But, you aren't paying just the difference. You are paying HO money PLUS the money owed to Kemp to get Kemp. Claiming you are paying Kemp 3/26 or whatever is way more dishonest. Kemp accounts for like 20% of the payroll.
 
gilesfan said:
Matt Kemp and Hector Oliveira have both had roughly the equivalent value this year as Joe Blow off the street.
Click to expand...

again, using stats to fit an argument. however, Kemp was directly related to winning that game last night, so I would say Kemp has more value and I know for certain has more potential future value than HO who will probably never play in the MLB again.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
again, using stats to fit an argument. however, Kemp was directly related to winning that game last night, so I would say Kemp has more value and I know for certain has more potential future value than HO who will probably never play in the MLB again.
Click to expand...

Yes,Kemp provided positive contribution last night. What about all the games where he provided negative contribution?
 
gilesfan said:
But, you aren't paying just the difference. You are paying HO money PLUS the money owed to Kemp to get Kemp. Claiming you are paying Kemp 3/26 or whatever is way more dishonest. Kemp accounts for like 20% of the payroll.
Click to expand...

but the payroll was reduced by HO's amount too.. plus one less year.
 
gilesfan said:
But, you aren't paying just the difference. You are paying HO money PLUS the money owed to Kemp to get Kemp. Claiming you are paying Kemp 3/26 or whatever is way more dishonest. Kemp accounts for like 20% of the payroll.
Click to expand...

Math is clearly not your strong suit. Just stop.
 
gilesfan said:
But, you aren't paying just the difference. You are paying HO money PLUS the money owed to Kemp to get Kemp. Claiming you are paying Kemp 3/26 or whatever is way more dishonest. Kemp accounts for like 20% of the payroll.
Click to expand...

20 million Money owed to Kemp
- 3 million Money sent from the Dodgers
- 8 million Money owed to Olivera who was DFA'd by a horrible team.

= 9 million Money the Braves actually invested in Matt Kemp.

So the Braves added 9 million dollars to their projected future payroll by trading for Matt Kemp. Therefore, when discussing whether or not the Braves should have made the Kemp trade it should be based off the money they actually invested in Matt Kemp, which is the 9 million bucks.
 
weso1 said:
20 million Money owed to Kemp

- 3 million Money sent from the Dodgers

- 8 million Money owed to Olivera who was DFA'd by a horrible team.

= 9 million Money the Braves actually invested in Matt Kemp.

So the Braves added 9 million dollars to their projected future payroll by trading for Matt Kemp. Therefore, when discussing whether or not the Braves should have made the Kemp trade it should be based off the money they actually invested in Matt Kemp, which is the 9 million bucks.
Click to expand...

Yeppers.
 
weso1 said:
20 million Money owed to Kemp
- 3 million Money sent from the Dodgers
- 8 million Money owed to Olivera who was DFA'd by a horrible team.

= 9 million Money the Braves actually invested in Matt Kemp.

So the Braves added 9 million dollars to their projected future payroll by trading for Matt Kemp. Therefore, when discussing whether or not the Braves should have made the Kemp trade it should be based off the money they actually invested in Matt Kemp, which is the 9 million bucks.
Click to expand...

The Braves added that additional money, correct. So Kemp counts 18.5 million per year over the next 3 years, which is however much more than they were required to pay HO. They were not required to take on additional money by cutting HO.
 
semantics.. there is really more interesting things to talk about.

I agree with you in principle though.. in that Kemp additional money may not be worth the value he provides. ultimately it might have been better to just release HO.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
semantics.. there is really more interesting things to talk about.

I agree with you in principle though.. in that Kemp additional money may not be worth the value he provides. ultimately it might have been better to just release HO.
Click to expand...

Right, we said instead of paying 8 million for a worthless player, we are going to send him packing and take on 18 million in a worthless player. Compounding a mistake doesn't fix the original mistake.
 
gilesfan said:
Of course I know the situation. The Braves did not have to invest additional money though. They decided to not only eat HO's contract but also invest the additional money in Matt Kemp instead of just eating HOs contract. Thus, on the Braves payroll, Matt Kemp is charged 18 mil per year (which they agreed to pay).

If you sell me a broken $10 tv and I trade it in plus $40 for another broken tv, I invested $50 in broken tvs. I didn't invest $40 in broken tvs. That mindset is dumb and just used to justifying a dumb trade.
Click to expand...

We are writing checks to Matt Kemp of $18 million dollars annually. That's correct.

We also no longer have to write HO a check for 9.5 million every year. Sunk cost.

Like I said, stop being obtuse. The point you are arguing is completely unrelated to what everyone else is saying.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
I don't think you can say obtuse more than three times without sounding obtuse..
Click to expand...

I would go with beligerent instead of obtuse. The definition of obtuse doesn't really apply to what I was doing. Giles spiking his flag in the rich earth of semantics to make a point that is generally understood and accepted by everyone even if they don't agree, does though.
 
chop2chip said:
I would go with beligerent instead of obtuse. The definition of obtuse doesn't really apply to what I was doing. Giles spiking his flag in the rich earth of semantics to make a point that is generally understood and accepted by everyone even if they don't agree, does though.
Click to expand...

LOL, you are just trying to justify a bad move. Can you agree they are paying Kemp 18 mil per year when they didn't have to?
 
I dont see how anyone can call the Kemp move bad. If we had some better options coming up in free agency I might agree. He has been okay with the bat and if he can do this out of shape I can only imagine he would be a beast if he was in shape. Even if he is bad in the field we could limit the damage using Ender or Mallex as a defensive replacement late in games or when we have a big lead. Maybe we see the DH in the NL with this next CBA.
 
gilesfan said:
LOL, you are just trying to justify a bad move. Can you agree they are paying Kemp 18 mil per year when they didn't have to?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's necessarily a good move to pay him 8.5 mil.

I think its an atrocious move that we had to eat 30 million to make HO go away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top