CrimsonCowboy
Moderator
I wanted Kimbrel. But not for that much.
Good job AA.
Wasn't worth that tbh.
Cubs can take the risk of having only 7% of their payroll be a high paid closer. Whereas we can't take the risk of having close to 15-20% of our payroll be invested in an aging closer.
we will pay a contenders premium when we trade for a reliever...but I'd rather do that than take on the kind of contract the Cubs are giving to Kimbrel
Not my money, so I'd have given it to him. That's just me though.
We committed 23 mil when we didn’t need to on a guy who’s basically hitting .250 and on pace for about 70rbi. Guess not upgrading anywhere else is a ramification of that
We've probably got something similar tied up in O'Day and Viz/T-Sweezy. I know it's not exactly the same and just this year, but...
this point is silly 100% of the time. the money affects what the team can do later, whether its yours or not. there's a budget.
no, it's not your money. but if it hinders the team from improving in a more significant way later, then it's bad.
Those deals show why the Kimbrel deal would have been irresponsible.
And loser cucks like you are why nothing will ever be done about how pathetic and cheap the Braves leadership is.
Currently we have less than 40 million per year committed over the next 3 years. Assuming increasing payrolls (as we have been told we are to expect) I don't see how it affects us the greatly.
You'd have a better argument about him declining or the injury risk. But for 3 years (2.5 really) I'm comfortable with the risk.
your 2nd to last sentence and my point aren't mutually exclusive.
but saying "it isn't my money" makes no sense. it doesn't matter whose money it is. there's a finite amount, and if i want the team to be good for the long-haul (which i do), i don't advocate tying up a chunk of it in a RP who yes, outside one outlier 2017, has already declined from his peak and yes, by being being an older pitcher, is an injury risk.
And again, I'm comfortable with the amount. The "it's not money" line is because I don't have to worry about the risk. Regardless, as a fan, I'm comfortable with the risk he proposes to the team because of the need he fills, not only for this year, but in the future; and also because we have some financial flexibility thanks to all the young, cheap talent we have, that will still be cheap 2 years from now.
We need a closer. May be Luke Jackson can be that. I'd rather not hedge my bets on him though. We know that good closers cost a lot on the open market, or cost a lot in prospect capital. I'd rather keep the prospects. 3 years and 45 million guaranteed for a closer who is still one of the best closers in the game is seems extremely fair to me. Especially when Britton got 3/39. If Kimbrel isn't worth 3/45, I'm not sure what closer is. The Cubs honestly got a bargain compared to RP rates pre-2019.
We committed 23 mil when we didn’t need to on a guy who’s basically hitting .250 and on pace for about 70rbi. Guess not upgrading anywhere else is a ramification of that
the Braves need good relievers; i know you still buy into the "closers are different" fallacy tho.
they will be available for prospects and won't tie up a good chunk of money for 2.5 years. with how fungible and flaky RPs are, a team with the Braves' budget shouldn't be spending that amount on an aging reliever.
Britton is way overpaid. the Yankees have way more funds than the Braves do. even still, Kimbrel is getting $5M per year more. no thanks. there will be more efficient ways to sure up the bullpen.
you should worry about the risk if you want the team to be good long-term. there's obvious risk there, the Braves don't spend a ton of money, and $18M being tied up in a RP the next two years could severely limit their options.
The Braves need a closer. Playoff teams either have a reliable closer or will be trying to trade for one. I'd rather spend money and have one of the best. And I'd rather not pay the prospect cost of acquiring other top end relievers. 2.5 years is not a substantial risk.