Braves in talks with DBacks for Trevor Cahill

Julio3000 said:
I don't want to answer for anyone else, but to me, the difference is the caliber of player. I think the argument is not that Nick's deal will cripple the team—it won't—but that it was a poor use of resources for a team in the Braves' situation, i.e. mid-payroll, rebuilding. From that point of view, the contract is a FA overpay for a guy who is probably untradeable, is possibly injured, and might very well be a boat anchor by the end of the deal.

So you're arguing that it's a better relative value over time. Sure, but that's like saying that you got a really good deal on a car loan, and purchased a high-mileage vehicle with low resale value and questionable reliability.

disclaimer: I like Nick Markakis and hope that he rakes, plays GG defense, and polices the clubhouse as promised.
Click to expand...

Which I do think can be said of just about all free-agent contracts, regardless of the caliber of player. Just about every contract we've seen in recent years have typically been described as being 1-2 years too long, a million or two too high, etc.. That's what happens when bidding wars start, and the team that's willing to eat the most during those last years usually wind up getting the player. That's just the cost of doing business in the free-agent era.

I've always agreed with those who said it was an overpay, but they wanted the player (for whatever reason - there's no need to re-hash those arguments) and that's what it took to get him. Someone mentioned earlier that what we can only assume is that they expect him to be able to help the young players adjust and that that will offset a portion of the eventual declining performance by helping them outperform their contracts.

FWIW, they had Pendleton around for his "presence and leadership" when he put up an OPS+ of 91 in 1993 and 73 in 1994 and those teams didn't turn out too bad.
 
Unless the Braves offered Heyward 20-25 mil a year, then Heyward wasnt gonna consider re-signing.

They talked, made an offer and Heywards camp wanted too much than they were offering but sure they never talked to him.
 
Heyward said:
They talked, made an offer and Heywards camp wanted too much than they were offering but sure they never talked to him.
Click to expand...

That's not what both sides said. An offer was mentioned at the end of 2013 and Heyward's agent said he didn't want to talk about it until after the 2014 season. THAT discussion, according to both sides, never happened.
 
clvclv said:
Which I do think can be said of just about all free-agent contracts, regardless of the caliber of player. Just about every contract we've seen in recent years have typically been described as being 1-2 years too long, a million or two too high, etc.. That's what happens when bidding wars start, and the team that's willing to eat the most during those last years usually wind up getting the player. That's just the cost of doing business in the free-agent era.

I've always agreed with those who said it was an overpay, but they wanted the player (for whatever reason - there's no need to re-hash those arguments) and that's what it took to get him. Someone mentioned earlier that what we can only assume is that they expect him to be able to help the young players adjust and that that will offset a portion of the eventual declining performance by helping them outperform their contracts.

FWIW, they had Pendleton around for his "presence and leadership" when he put up an OPS+ of 91 in 1993 and 73 in 1994 and those teams didn't turn out too bad.
Click to expand...

I suppose the bottom line is that he was worth it to the Braves. I'm not trying to start a slapfight about Markakis. We wanted him—for prestige, fpr leadership, for great facial hair and dolmades, whatever—and we got him. I just don't think "$11M will look more reasonable in 3 years" is a very strong underpinning for defending the move, Markakis being who he is.

TP had given the Braves an MVP year early in that contract, so I'm not sure how much water that one holds. Still, if NM becomes the TP of a contending team in 2017-18, I will be thrilled.
 
zitothebrave said:
Last 4 years Heyward has a 17 fWAR and Markakis a 5.3. So um yeah I think there's a very very very very very very very very very very good chance Heyward has "twice the numbers" that Markakis has over the next 4 years. He'll probably have 3-4 if not perhaps an incalculable amount as Markakis could be a net negative player.
Click to expand...

Understood. I'm still going to pull for Markakis to succeed, as I'm sure you will, and I agree with the direction of this team, which I assume you question it a bit. Sucked losing my two favorite players, but when all is said and done, we will all look back and appreciate what Heyward did and could have been for us...while appreciating even more what Hart built for us as fans.
 
Dalyn said:
That's not what both sides said. An offer was mentioned at the end of 2013 and Heyward's agent said he didn't want to talk about it until after the 2014 season. THAT discussion, according to both sides, never happened.
Click to expand...

I think common sense prevailed. He wasn't going to sign a year away from the open mkt, after a down year. NO reason to...

His agent rolled the dice on a breakout year to gain leverage, and didn't get it.

Why do I feel like at some point we have all said this all before???

Besides just bc Heyward didn't have discussions doesn't mean his agent wasn't in contact
 
Tapate50 said:
Why do I feel like at some point we have all said this all before???
Click to expand...

Because we have. That's why I posted the "Let's not do that again" picture. :icon_biggrin: If some ARE going to discuss it, however, I think they should use the correct info. Myself? I'm ready to move on and hope this Mukaki Rebuild works really well for 2017.
 
Cahill is going to do well in Atlanta. Hopefully they can flip him for a top 50 prospect at the deadline.
 
If Cahill keeps his ERA around 3.50 or lower, we should be able to flip him for a pretty decent prospect. Gotta hope he's a first half kinda pitcher.
 
I doubt we get that type, maybe/hopefully a long-term bullpen piece.

Anything more is gravy.
 
I would think a pretty decent prospect(s) would certainly be possible attainable if Cahill was pitching well. He isn't necessarily a half yr rental, being that he has 2 option years.
 
thethe said:
They would have his option years wouldn't they?

And he we did get a top 50 talent prospect back for upton.
Click to expand...

Those option years aren't exactly cheap. He would have to become a 4 WAR pitcher to justify trading a top 50 prospect and pick up his option years.
 
chop2chip said:
Those option years aren't exactly cheap. He would have to become a 4 WAR pitcher to justify trading a top 50 prospect and pick up his option years.
Click to expand...

13 m for a good young number 3 is less than market. Of course he needs to bounce back first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top