Braves get Murphy 3 way deal

The Murphy contract doesnt look bad but I am nervous because I am not sold on his bat. I would have liked to see him have a solid season with us first. I always worry about getting Melvin'd again with these low batting average hitters.
 
Murphy’s xwOBA is remarkably consistent over 1200 PAs and he’s 28. not sure why i’d expect some hard regression to come along soon.
 
Sure, but what about his xogOBA. I will always be concerned about players who top out at a .250 batting average without either walking a ton or hitting a ton of homers.
 
ah the classic “make up a stat instead of making an argument” move.

if you want to worry then fine, but “because he doesn’t hit for a high average” doesn’t make it reasonable as far as i’m aware.
 
Enscheff said:
I’m going to ignore the “$X coming off the books means they have $X to spend” nonsense, as if that money isn’t already taken up by raises in other contracts.

Olson is just as likely as every other bat-only player to turn into the next Ozuna. I’m unsure why folks think AA can just trade away bad contracts whenever he wants. It’s almost like some folks never learn, even when Ozuna and Rosario are literally sitting on the payroll as proof of how impossible bad contracts are to move.

We will see how the Olson contract ages. I’ll be posting a lot of quotes in a few years I think.
Click to expand...

1. Ozuna vs. Olson.
You are either over estimating Ozuna or underestimating Olson. Ozuna has always been a 2.0-2.5 a year WAR player when he gets 500 abs. There were two good seasons outside of this range. The Braves happened to pay him coming off one of those seasons (2020). Even then, his salary, isn't outlandish if he put up 2.5 WAR. Unfortunately he hasn't. In contrast, Olson's lowest WAR when getting 500+ abs was 3.4 (last season, when he changed leagues). Olson is also 4 years younger than Ozuna and thus, less likely to have the wheels completely fall off. And oh yeah, Olson doesn't have off-filed issues that make him untradeable (see Ozuna). So I will completely agree with you that any player on this roster could engage in domestic violence AND play terrible thereby making these extensions untradeable contracts. However, if they can refrain from being arrested multiple times, these contracts will always be tradeable.

2. "As if that money isn’t already taken up by raises in other contracts."
This assumes the Braves are not growing payroll and are looking at salaries based upon what is actually paid in each year (as opposed to the AAV of the actual contract). If we are worrying about the luxury tax as the basis for lack of flexibility, we should be looking at AAV and the only relevant raises not already baked in are Fried and Minter. Next year the Braves can free up: (1)Morton ($20m); Rosario ($9m); d'Arnaud ($8m); Yates ($4.75m); McHugh ($4m); and Jimenez ($3m). That's $48.75m in salary. Fried and Minter aren't getting that in raises. Even if we ignore AAV, current scheduled raises are: Olson ($1m); Riley ($6m); Murphy ($5m); and Matzek ($700k). That would still leave $36m in FLEXIBLE salary next year. Even if Fried is projected to make $20 million in 2024 and Minter becomes the closer and knocks it out of the park, the Braves are likely still looking at around $25 million in flexibility. How is that going to be taken up in raises? The following year Ozuna drops of the books at a savings of $18 million. The only NONSENSE is the suggestion there isn't flexibility in this roster.

Your "sky is falling"/Eeyore attitude over what you admit to be extremely cheap contracts for the Braves core players is completely lost on me. Who's the guy on here that says flags fly forever and he'd take one flag for multiple years of cellar dwelling? AA is going after multiple flags due to this unbelievable run of luck the Braves have had in developing home grown talent. AA hasn't given home grown talent outrageous contracts well into the years where their production can be expected to significantly decline (see Philadelphia a decade+ ago). In addition, AA has consistently emphasized the importance of the locker room in the success of a team. He's taken steps to keep that locker room dynamic a constant while adding pieces as needed. Do you expect Austin Riley to get arrested for domestic violence and forget how to hit after back to back 6+ WAR seasons? Are you seriously suggesting AA should have considered that a possibility?

3. I'm still chuckling over the comments from some that Riley, Fried and Wright were never going to amount to anything. Of course I see no need to call people out for being wrong. We are all wrong at some point, just as you are currently wrong about the flexibility of this roster.
 
cajunrevenge said:
The Murphy contract doesnt look bad but I am nervous because I am not sold on his bat. I would have liked to see him have a solid season with us first. I always worry about getting Melvin'd again with these low batting average hitters.
Click to expand...

My minor concern with Murphy is he hasn't played much in bigs for his age.

But I wouldn't comp him to Melvin, Melvin had other issues, his HR/FB rate was basically out of the norm when he would have good years, indicating he was power lucky. But he started swinging at more bad pitches as he went along in Tampa and his swinging strike% was climbing as he went along on Tampa

Murphy's swinging strike% is much more normal.
 
OcalaBrave said:
1. Blah blah blah, this bat only player is different than all other bat only player because I want him to be, blah blah blah.

2. If we are worrying about the luxury tax as the basis for lack of flexibility, we should be looking at AAV and the only relevant raises not already baked in are Fried and Minter. Next year the Braves can free up: (1)Morton ($20m); Rosario ($9m); d'Arnaud ($8m); Yates ($4.75m); McHugh ($4m); and Jimenez ($3m). That's $48.75m in salary. Fried and Minter aren't getting that in raises. Even if we ignore AAV, current scheduled raises are: Olson ($1m); Riley ($6m); Murphy ($5m); and Matzek ($700k). That would still leave $36m in FLEXIBLE salary next year. Even if Fried is projected to make $20 million in 2024 and Minter becomes the closer and knocks it out of the park, the Braves are likely still looking at around $25 million in flexibility.

Blah blah blah
Click to expand...

AA literally just stated they only concern themselves with actual yearly payroll. So let’s keep the discussion within the actual real life parameters, mmkay?

You babbled for about 3 paragraphs then went on to detail the Braves losing a SP, LF, DH, backup C, and several legit BP contributors…and then tried to claim $25M is plenty to fill all those holes.

Riiiiiiight.

The flexibility is lost not only in payroll space, but in the ability to dump guys who collapse unexpectedly. That is no longer an option, and no, AA will not be trading away any part of Olson’s deal when/if he’s a 1 win guy.

So give the straw man argument a rest already, there’s no reason to get defensive when folks question AA. I assume you’re smarter than that. I never claimed the sky was falling. I’m simply stating all these contracts come with very real risk…otherwise the players never would have signed them. If you want to be in a place that only pats each other on the back while staring at a list of Braves players and their years of control, head on over to somewhere like FB or some other mouth breather fansite.
 
Last edited:
Enscheff said:
AA literally just stated they only concern themselves with actual yearly payroll. So let’s keep the discussion within the actual real life parameters, mmkay?

You babbled for about 3 paragraphs then went on to detail the Braves losing a SP, LF, DH, backup C, and several legit BP contributors…and then tried to claim $25M is plenty to fill all those holes.

Riiiiiiight.

The flexibility is lost not only in payroll space, but in the ability to dump guys who collapse unexpectedly. That is no longer an option, and no, AA will not be trading away any part of Olson’s deal when/if he’s a 1 win guy.

So give the straw man argument a rest already, there’s no reason to get defensive when folks question AA. I assume you’re smarter than that. I never claimed the sky was falling. I’m simply stating all these contracts come with very real risk…otherwise the players never would have signed them. If you want to be in a place that only pats each other on the back while staring at a list of Braves players and their years of control, head on over to somewhere like FB or some other mouth breather fansite.
Click to expand...

As always, pretty much with you. It's not that the contracts are bad values for the team. The problem is that if any part of the core goes bad, it's extremely difficult to make adjustments because of the dollars you have committed (unless, of course, they want to blow through the luxury tax threshold). It's one thing to bet on a couple of players and go the long-term route with them, but doing it to almost the entire line-up wide is unprecedented (I think you mentioned the when the Indians did it in the 1990s although on a lesser scale and that did not end well for the club). There just isn't much wiggle room and I can't see how a lot of people are missing that.
 
50PoundHead said:
It's angles like this that people are missing. A lot of folks are getting sticky pants over the extensions to the core and it works (probably to varying degrees with each guy) as long as there isn't a major hiccup. Like you say, non-tendering is no longer an option with any of these guys. I guess we'll have to see how the risk/reward balances out.
Click to expand...

I can't think that any of these extended players ever had a prayer of being non-tendered .
 
thewupk said:
But in a lot of cases that's the next GM's problem if things go awry. From a pure financial standpoint (which is what the owners care about) it's better to pay the bigger money at the end.
Click to expand...

What is being sacrificed is the perception of increasing title odds during the short term.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
Anyone who throws out an Econ 101 term as fact doesn’t understand finances. I mean what economist would recommend getting a depreciating asset for appreciating costs. However baseball finances are not that simple either. Like you said circumstances dictate different strategies. When a small salary triggers a higher tax then you probably should consider just increasing that salary to close the gap. Otherwise you are paying tax on money not spent. Basically wasted money. By front loading you close that gap and you make that depreciated asset more valuable later due to lower cost. This only makes sense of course if you have the budget to do this. I think the Braves are at their limit on their actual budget. Probably have some tucked for mid season upgrades.
Click to expand...

The tax is just on the overage. It doesn't make every contract more expensive.

It's is just another way that flexibility to fill holes is reduced.
 
Wait. Strawman? I thought we were discusing your contention there is a lack of roster flexibility. You started by saying all of the money coming off the books goes to raises. Now you want to shift to argue it is an insufficient amount to cover the roster turnover (flexibility)?

I read what AA said. I disagree with your interpretation. I understood AA to say they have a budget and as long as salary plus tax is covered by the budget they don't care about the tax. I do not understand AA to say he isn't looking at AAV when he figures how much he has to spend.

I'm not defensive about legitimate questioning of AA. I'm pointing out your questioning AA on the assumption there is a legitimate chance Riley/Olson end up untradeable 1 WAR players. Just out of curiosity, what chance do you place on that occurring? We must have a huge disagreement on that percentage.

I don't see the need to go anywhere else. I agree the point of this board is to be able to express and understand opposing view points. I think I understand yours to be there is a chance these extensions won't turn out great and that's on AA. If that's it, tell me what's AA supposed to do when he knows he can't match the market and keep his core?
 
AA is gambling on this core, because as mentioned before, when he came in the sanctions and penalties hurt us on both domestic and international drafts for a few years.

His strategy is to bank on the core holding steady until he can reload the farm.
 
And AA spent the last draft reloading the farm with high upside arms that aren't blocked by the extensions and can be moved to fill holes should an extension not work out.
 
OcalaBrave said:
And AA spent the last draft reloading the farm with high upside arms that aren't blocked by the extensions and can be moved to fill holes should an extension not work out.
Click to expand...

He's probably going to need some of those arms when members of our current staff move on and even with we do trade some young arms to fill unexpected holes, we're still likely to be on the hook for salaries on guys whose extensions didn't work out. To be clear, I'm not saying what's been done can't work, but a lot of folks seem to be dismissing any risk involved in the approach.
 
Southcack77 said:
Teams over and over sacrifice years of contention to increase their title chances by a few percentage points.

Maybe that isn't very smart.
Click to expand...

I’d rather spend money now when there is a high probability of being competitive versus preserving payroll space for a hypothetical future.

I can only think of a few examples where a team pulled in money (AA did it with the Matt Kemp trade with the Dodgers, extensions to entice a player to sign, etc.). I can’t think of any examples where a team in a contention window front loaded a contract in the middle of a contention window.
 
chop2chip said:
I’d rather spend money now when there is a high probability of being competitive versus preserving payroll space for a hypothetical future.

I can only think of a few examples where a team pulled in money (AA did it with the Matt Kemp trade with the Dodgers, extensions to entice a player to sign, etc.). I can’t think of any examples where a team in a contention window front loaded a contract in the middle of a contention window.
Click to expand...

It's easier to make it someone else's problem.

Also a contending team rarely has the flexibility to pull it off.

I also imagine it's hard psychologically for most players to earn less than the year before and I'd guess agents steer away from it.

Would it make sense for a big market team like Texas to eat big numbers in a year zero situation and then have more room as the roster filled out? Yeah, maybe?

Hard perhaps to sell, we're paying him a lot of money this year because we're conceding we won't win maybe.
 
chop2chip said:
I’d rather spend money now when there is a high probability of being competitive versus preserving payroll space for a hypothetical future.

I can only think of a few examples where a team pulled in money (AA did it with the Matt Kemp trade with the Dodgers, extensions to entice a player to sign, etc.). I can’t think of any examples where a team in a contention window front loaded a contract in the middle of a contention window.
Click to expand...

I would rather not stack bad deals in the future for a 3% better chance of winning it all. Spending that doesn't hamstring the future makes perfect sense.
 
The contracts are already doled out. It’s all about how much AA and team can build the farm up now.

I’d keep the “athletic pitcher with repeatable delivery” mindset and draft athletic C, SS, and CF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top