Braves Decline Dickey’s option exercise Flowers

[Carp]

I don't see how this move is indicative of payroll one bit. Dickey will be 43 in a few days and is contemplating retirement. And there's always a chance we can bring him back closer to ST if he decides he has the itch to keep pitching.

Payroll may indeed be less than last year (I'll wait to see it). But this move in and of itself means very little in reference to that.

 

[JxnMissFan]

Trust me, I know you'll need to have the moves explained to you. Your knowledge on player value is about equal to your knowledge on service time, yet you continue to argue about both.

Here's a quick primer to help you this offseason though:

If the Braves start converting prospects into "win now" assets, they are desperate to generate revenue and save their jobs.

If the Braves open with a $100M-$120M payroll, they are broke due to low revenue.

If the Braves make smart acquisitions that sacrifice pitching prospects and/or cash for position players with 3+ years of control, those are good moves.

If the Braves trade away surplus players like MAdams and "sell high" candidates like Camargo, Riley and SFreeman, those are good moves.

If the Braves find anyone to take any of Kemp's money, that's a good move. Including prospects in exchange for salary relief is not.

Hope that helps. Let me know if you need a refresher on service time as well. Or you can team up with your fellow brainiac clv and construct a laughably dumb MAdams for Odorizzi trade...or find a way to get Sale for Jenkins. Just be sure both of you are wearing your helmets before going outside.

You make some good points I agree with but could you please post your source of information for comments about how the team is failing financially.

 

[Carp]

In baseball, simply announcing you're retired does nothing. If we had exercised Dickey's option and he said "I'm retired", we wouldn't be able to count him off the books until he filed his papers with baseball.

If he never filed his retirement papers and then showed up for Spring Training, we'd be obligated to pay him regardless of what he said. If he never filed his papers and then was a no show at Spring Training, then the Braves would be excused from paying him.

My point was that if we exercised that option, that money is tied up until he files his retirement papers. It's just a smarter play to decline the option and keep that money free. If he wants to come back and we want him back we can always sign him to a one year deal.

This. So much this.

Any smart team declines this option without a firm commitment from Dickey that he plans on pitching in 2018. You don't tie up that money and a roster spot (also very important in this scenario) in a player that may decide in 2 months that he doesn't want to play anymore. At that point, similar replacements have likely already been signed and/or perhaps certain players lost on the 40 man who could have been saved elsewise.

 

[Enscheff]

You make some good points I agree with but could you please post your source of information for comments about how the team is failing financially.

I don't think they are failing. I think they missed revenue projections last year when they had a $120M-$125M payroll. Due to those missed projections, seats in the FO are hot, Coppy was scapegoated to buy Hart and Co another year, and the 2018 payroll will be less than $120M (I bet closer to $110M than $120M).

We will see where the 2018 payroll ends up. Teams meeting revenue projections in the 2nd year of a new stadium don't decrease payroll year to year, despite pozzy spin around here.

I do, however, agree that Dickey should have been dumped either way. The Braves either can't afford him, or want to upgrade his place in the rotation, so he needed to go.

 

[JxnMissFan]

I don't think they are failing. I think they missed revenue projections last year when they had a $120M-$125M payroll. Due to those missed projections, seats in the FO are hot, Coppy was scapegoated to buy Hart and Co another year, and the 2018 payroll will be less than $120M (I bet closer to $110M than $120M).

We will see where the 2018 payroll ends up. Teams meeting revenue projections in the 2nd year of a new stadium don't decrease payroll year to year, despite pozzy spin around here.

I do, however, agree that Dickey should have been dumped either way. The Braves either can't afford him, or want to upgrade his place in the rotation, so he needed to go.

So you don't have any information to back up your claim that revenue projections are wrong? Your claim is based solely on payroll? Is it possible that management may have allocated money to items other than salaries?

As they said on Seinfeld. It's not a lie if you believe it.

 

[dak]

Regarding the Dickey decision, I think it's difficult to say what this means right now. Could be a sign of a payroll crunch and they want to spend remaining money on higher priorities. Could be a sign they want Dickey's spot in the rotation to go to a veteran that projects higher in the rotation . . . controllable front-end starter acquired via trade, #3 type starter via free agency that will take a multi-year commitment. If forced to guess, I'd say they want Dickey's spot to go to a better veteran. If so, I prefer keeping Dickey versus that route.

 

[Enscheff]

So you don't have any information to back up your claim that revenue projections are wrong? Your claim is based solely on payroll? Is it possible that management may have allocated money to items other than salaries?

As they said on Seinfeld. It's not a lie if you believe it.

Lol are you seriously suggesting that a decrease in payroll is not due to missed revenue projections, rather they just decided to spend the money elsewhere? Where exactly would that money go? Snacks and sweatshirts for the minor leaguers?

I'm simply connecting the big flashing dots.

I swear, half of you need to see a quote that literally says "we didn't draw expected revenues so we have to reduce payroll" before you'll get it. Some of you still wouldn't get it after the quote came out haha.

 

[thewupk]

Lol are you seriously suggesting that a decrease in payroll is not due to missed revenue projections, rather they just decided to spend the money elsewhere? Where exactly would that money go? Snacks and sweatshirts for the minor leaguers?

I'm simply connecting the big flashing dots.

I swear, half of you need to see a quote that literally says "we didn't draw expected revenues so we have to reduce payroll" before you'll get it. Some of you still wouldn't get it after the quote came out haha.

The Braves attendance increase with the new stadium was only 23.9%

The average increase for the first year of teams in a new stadium since 2000 (now 15 teams) was 28.3%

The Braves rank 9th out of those 15 teams.

There is also this nuggest from an article earlier in the year

The two New York teams posted the largest attendance declines in new stadiums since 2000. The Yankees’ attendance dropped by 13 percent and the Mets’ by 22 percent in 2009, the first season in new stadiums for both teams. Both New York teams’ stadiums have smaller seating capacities than their predecessors, and the Mets’ attendance decline in 2009 also was due in part to a 92-loss season.

Not counting the Mets and Yankees, the other 12 teams to open new stadiums since 2000 averaged a first-year attendance increase of about 35 percent.

35%....to the Braves 23.9%

It all makes sense if you are paying attention.

 

[JxnMissFan]

Lol are you seriously suggesting that a decrease in payroll is not due to missed revenue projections, rather they just decided to spend the money elsewhere? Where exactly would that money go? Snacks and sweatshirts for the minor leaguers?

I'm simply connecting the big flashing dots.

I swear, half of you need to see a quote that literally says "we didn't draw expected revenues so we have to reduce payroll" before you'll get it. Some of you still wouldn't get it after the quote came out haha.

So you don't have anything to back your argument up other than connecting the dots?

 

[goldfly]

more roster decisions while not having a gm yet

awesome

 

[Enscheff]

more roster decisions while not having a gm yet

awesome

Honestly, declining Dickeys option and picking up Flowers option were moves that would have been made regardless of who ends up being in charge.

The Braves need to either upgrade Dickeys slot in the rotation, or just let one of the young guys take those innings.

 

[Enscheff]

So you don't have anything to back your argument up other than connecting the dots?

So when the Braves payroll is lower in 2018, where are you going to say the money went?