Around MLB 2016 style

gilesfan said:
The chances of him being a 2 WAR player over the next 4-5 years are extremely low.
Click to expand...

What about the 3 years after that?
He's already off on terrible footing for his first year of the deal. Markakis has been a better bargain in BOTH years of his deal so far than Heyward has been in the first year of his. Yet the Heyward deal would've been unquestionably smart and the Markakis deal is a total disaster. Alrighty.
 
yeezus said:
What about the 3 years after that?

He's already off on terrible footing for his first year of the deal. Markakis has been a better bargain in BOTH years of his deal so far than Heyward has been in the first year of his. Yet the Heyward deal would've been unquestionably smart and the Markakis deal is a total disaster. Alrighty.
Click to expand...

Heyward should be about a 2-2.5 WAR guy per year over those 3 years.

Heyward was a 6 win player last year and 1.3 this year.

Markakis was 1.5 win player last year and 0.8 so far this year.
 
gilesfan said:
Heyward should be about a 2-2.5 WAR guy per year over those 3 years.

Heyward was a 6 win player last year and 1.3 this year.
Markakis was 1.5 win player last year and 0.8 so far this year.
Click to expand...

Heyward didn't sign his massive contract until this year. Markakis was better last year at $11M than Heyward has been this year at $20M+.

Also, bWAR has Markakis higher than Heyward for this season. I've been told bWAR is better, but I understand that changes with the argument. Regardless, so far, Markakis has been more worth his disastrous contract than Heyward has been worth his clearly smart contract.
 
yeezus said:
Heyward didn't sign his massive contract until this year. Markakis was better last year at $11M than Heyward has been this year at $20M+.

Also, bWAR has Markakis higher than Heyward. I've been told bWAR is better, but I understand that changes with the argument. Regardless, so far, Markakis has been more worth his disastrous contract than Heyward has been worth his clearly smart contract.
Click to expand...

bWAR is better for pitchers imo since they don't use FIP. For hitters it's the difference between UZR and DRS. Fangraphs uses UZR as their defensive component and Baseball Ref uses DRS.

With that being said I would make a bet that Heyward's $$/WAR is better for his time with the Cubs than Nick's is during his 4 year deal.

edit: Also Heyward isn't making 20+ this year. He's making 15.
 
Tapate50 said:
I thought we only owed that cat like 12 Mill? I get confused with the Negabraves spin trying to throw a wet blanket on my posibraves attitude.
Click to expand...

There are two ways to look at it. 18 million which is what the Braves are paying Kemp per year

8.5 or so million per year which is the added salary when factoring in HO's sunk cost.
 
Tapate50 said:
I thought we only owed that cat like 12 Mill? I get confused with the Negabraves spin trying to throw a wet blanket on my posibraves attitude.
Click to expand...

They are paying the majority of Kemps contract. Its just that some people want to view it as much smaller because they got rid of HOs contract. But, they are paying Kemp something like 18 or 18.5 mil per year for 3 years.
 
gilesfan said:
They are paying the majority of Kemps contract. Its just that some people want to view it as much smaller because they got rid of HOs contract. But, they are paying Kemp something like 18 or 18.5 mil per year for 3 years.
Click to expand...

I read that the SD payments from LAD are now coming to ATL. Is that not correct? You negabraves want to mix messages too much.
 
gilesfan said:
They are paying the majority of Kemps contract. Its just that some people want to view it as much smaller because they got rid of HOs contract.
Click to expand...

It should be viewed that way. HO was essentially cash considerations sent from San Diego to Atlanta. The Braves invested 8.5 mil per year in Kemp.
 
weso1 said:
It should be viewed that way. HO was essentially cash considerations sent from San Diego to Atlanta. The Braves invested 8.5 mil per year in Kemp.
Click to expand...

gilesfan knows this and he understands sunk costs, but he's willfully choosing to be obtuse.
 
chop2chip said:
gilesfan knows this and he understands sunk costs, but he's willfully choosing to be obtuse.
Click to expand...

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.
 
weso1 said:
It should be viewed that way. HO was essentially cash considerations sent from San Diego to Atlanta. The Braves invested 8.5 mil per year in Kemp.
Click to expand...

When you look at the Braves payroll, next to Matt Kemp, what does it say? They are investing what they invested in HO plus the additional money required to pay Kemp.
 
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...

That is an incredibly dumb analogy.
 
gilesfan said:
Another well thought out intelligent post from Carp.
Click to expand...

Lets see, comparing MLB players to TVs... You're right, totally awesome analogy!

Forget the fact that Kemp can actually have some value to the ML club (unlike HO), there's also the fact that they are out from under his contract sooner.
 
gilesfan said:
When you look at the Braves payroll, next to Matt Kemp, what does it say? They are investing what they invested in HO plus the additional money required to pay Kemp.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Carp said:
Lets see, comparing MLB players to TVs... You're right, totally awesome analogy!

Forget the fact that Kemp can actually have some value to the ML club (unlike HO), there's also the fact that they are out from under his contract sooner.
Click to expand...

Matt Kemp and Hector Oliveira have both had roughly the equivalent value this year as Joe Blow off the street.
 
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...

that is not how that works. you are assuming we are paying HO's contract based on your analogy.

it would be I have a TV that I still owe $50 for and you have a newer TV that you owe $75 for and you say, I will give you my tv for your tv, then I don't owe my $50 any more but I now owe $75 for the other TV. The question now comes to is the new TV that is $75 worth the extra $25 that you are now paying. But we were paying $50 regardless. So either we could have just keep our original tv and paid $50 or upgraded to a ?better? TV for 25 more.

So yes we owe 18+ million per for Kemp, but you still have to net the savings from HO contract. I know 18 million fits your argument better but it doesn't make it true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top