Braves get Murphy 3 way deal

Enscheff said:
$4M salary in 2023, but a $12.5M luxury tax hit. The Braves are now going to be paying the luxury tax, and are probably the only team in MLB history paying tax on salaries they aren’t actually paying that season. A very interesting way to chase “value”.

Murphy would have been a FA going into his age 31 season. Barring a significant injury he would have easily beaten the 3/45 guarantee the Braves just gave him for his early FA seasons.

The risk is that he falls off a cliff as a catcher once he hits his 30s, and the Braves are left with an expensive backup. Catchers have the worst aging curve of all position players, so the chances of that happening aren’t as far fetched as some other extensions AA has signed.
Click to expand...

Even if he completely collapses it would not be that big of a hit financially. It would sting, but should not keep us from contention barring other unfortunate events. Events that would be more impactful.
 
bravesnumberone said:
I believe it's the AAV that counts toward the tax. From what I've read they're projected to be at 238 and could go up to 253 before going into the next luxury tier. So that could be another $15M to play with.
Click to expand...

Got it. Hmm I wonder if we spend some more now. Although it’s a little late in the game and most big money guys are off the table, except Correa. But he’s not taking 15 million so he’s likely out.
 
I’m having a hard time understanding why the Braves would want to pay luxury tax penalties for salaries that aren’t contributing to the current season. There must be a reason they think it’s smart to hamstring roster flexibility in 2023 to lock in players 5+ years from now, but I can’t see why. Maybe the good folks at FG will have an explanation tomorrow.
 
tululush said:
This is likely true which also makes Enscheff’s comment above yours very interesting. Why now? Why not wait to extend Murphy next off-season?
Click to expand...

AA probably sees the prices rising every year. It's possible the market hasn't completely corrected itself this offseason.
 
Enscheff said:
I’m having a hard time understanding why the Braves would want to pay luxury tax penalties for salaries that aren’t contributing to the current season. There must be a reason they think it’s smart to hamstring roster flexibility in 2023 to lock in players 5+ years from now, but I can’t see why. Maybe the good folks at FG will have an explanation tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Maybe they still do not understand the luxury tax rules.
 
AA wants the roster on autopilot for a half decade. MLB hasn't seen anything like this since FA started. The Players Assn must absolutely hate the Braves.
 
weso1 said:
Maybe they still do not understand the luxury tax rules.
Click to expand...
How anyone thinks this is remotely a possibility is hilarious to me.

The Braves have an incredibly smart front office with lots of analytical people. If message board posters who chat about the Braves on their lunch break know how the luxury tax works, I don’t see how it’s impossible this regime doesn’t.
 
OcalaBrave said:
AA wants the roster on autopilot for a half decade. MLB hasn't seen anything like this since FA started. The Players Assn must absolutely hate the Braves.
Click to expand...

The players association wants guys to get paid.

Some of these guys like strider could fizzle out with injury. There's a risk and reward.
 
OcalaBrave said:
AA wants the roster on autopilot for a half decade. MLB hasn't seen anything like this since FA started. The Players Assn must absolutely hate the Braves.
Click to expand...

I can't say that I understand the desire.

I'd say Olson, Murphy and Harris are all pretty uncertain risks.

Harris is very understandable. The other two I'm uncertain about.
 
The Chosen One said:
The players association wants guys to get paid.

Some of these guys like strider could fizzle out with injury. There's a risk and reward.
Click to expand...

Braves are taking on almost all of the risk here, but in return likely get a discount on some FA years. Give and take. It’s amazing how many Mets fans don’t understand this.
 
weso1 said:
Even if he completely collapses it would not be that big of a hit financially. It would sting, but should not keep us from contention barring other unfortunate events. Events that would be more impactful.
Click to expand...

It keeps us from contention if these guys don't produce and we don't want to go over the luxury tax threshold. There's not a lot of wiggle room due to the commitments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top