Braves sniffing around on Markakis; Official 4 years 44 million.

yeezus said:
We will be regretting this deal in two years, if not sooner.

We will Heyward's value on defense this year. Nick is good, Heyward is a whole lot better.

I must say I like the overall consistency of his bat. I wish we'd keep JUp now and mix these two types of hitters. Black and white cookie..look to the cookie Elaine.
Click to expand...

Don't forget said cookie ended Jerry's non-vomit streak. Same applies to this off season, makes you wanna puke.
 
Law, Neyers, Pos, Karabell, Bowden, etc, etc are all destroying the Braves for the signing.
 
zitothebrave said:
Because we signed a not great hitting corner OF who's not great fielding til his 34th birthday. Odds are everything is downhill from here.
Click to expand...

Honestly...is this contract untradeable right now? I think that is a good measure. BJ's contract (before the sucking) was untradeable before the ink dried.

I almost wish it's front loaded. If we are trading away JUp then we have money. Give Marky 20 million this year. Then Uggla is off the books and give him 14 million the next. Then maybe the last two years at 5 million won't be terrible.

I'm going to pray that a team like San Fran has a desperate need at the deadline for a RF and we can flip him for a B prospect. Even though I really think he's untradeable.
 
It's always a bit comical to read these things when everyone goes nuts, but I don't have time to read the last 20 pages right now.

The economics of baseball have changed (and the Markakis deal isn't a terrible one given where they're trending), but the Braves' place in that economic structure haven't - they're always going to have to draft and develop from within (with the international signings sprinkled in) to be competitive - Atlanta is a mid-market team with a ****ty TV deal.

FWIW, whether you like them or not JS, Hart, and Cox have a long history of being successful and they felt that Miller, Jenkins, and the money they'd save between Heyward and Markakis would go a long way towards building a much stronger franchise for the long haul. I happen to be one of those who agree with them. Seems like I'm always one of the ones that has to point out that trades aren't made in a vaccuum. This was one part of the plan to make the club eventually become the consistent threat it used to be. There's NO help on the horizon and the system's been gutted. If Upton and/or Gattis are dealt for almost MLB-ready pieces to build depth and we're not great for a couple years I'll be able to handle it.

These guys are trying to dig out from under two franchise-crippling contracts with very few attractive trade pieces if they want ANYONE to come to the new park when it opens. They could trade Teheran, Wood, or Simmons for better returns than they got for Heyward, but then they'd truly have to rebuild and that's not an option with a new stadium coming.

Everybody's screaming about the sky falling because we may take a step back in order to take two steps forward - that's what mid-market teams have to do, they don't have the resources to do it any other way.
 
steveAKAslick said:
Markakis is an average hitter with poor defense in his 30s. What are the odds he falls apart?

I like the fact that maybe they are going after guys that actually make consistent contact ala the Giants...I would trade all the power hitters in the world for eight guys that can consistenly get on base and play small ball...I'm not gonna crap on this signing yet, just gonna wait and see how it plays out...and Markakis has POOR defense?!?!?!
Click to expand...

Yes. He has zero range.
 
clvclv said:
It's always a bit comical to read these things when everyone goes nuts, but I don't have time to read the last 20 pages right now.

The economics of baseball have changed (and the Markakis deal isn't a terrible one given where they're trending), but the Braves' place in that economic structure haven't - they're always going to have to draft and develop from within (with the international signings sprinkled in) to be competitive - Atlanta is a mid-market team with a ****ty TV deal.

FWIW, whether you like them or not JS, Hart, and Cox have a long history of being successful and they felt that Miller, Jenkins, and the money they'd save between Heyward and Markakis would go a long way towards building a much stronger franchise for the long haul. I happen to be one of those who agree with them. Seems like I'm always one of the ones that has to point out that trades aren't made in a vaccuum. This was one part of the plan to make the club eventually become the consistent threat it used to be. There's NO help on the horizon and the system's been gutted. If Upton and/or Gattis are dealt for almost MLB-ready pieces to build depth and we're not great for a couple years I'll be able to handle it.

These guys are trying to dig out from under two franchise-crippling contracts with very few attractive trade pieces if they want ANYONE to come to the new park when it opens. They could trade Teheran, Wood, or Simmons for better returns than they got for Heyward, but then they'd truly have to rebuild and that's not an option with a new stadium coming.

Everybody's screaming about the sky falling because we may take a step back in order to take two steps forward - that's what mid-market teams have to do, they don't have the resources to do it any other way.
Click to expand...

So why create another? The odds of Markakis even being an average player in the final two years are slim.
 
I think the no help on the horizon line overstates things.

Peraza is a Top 50 prospect who will be major league ready within a year.

Sims is a Top 100 prospect. Between Sims, Hursh and Parsons, I think we'll see one reliable mid-rotation starter emerge by 2016.

Bethancourt is a Top 100 prospect that will be cheap and cost controlled for a while.

Further away, we have Albies. I suspect he will be a Top 100 prospect by the end of next season.

I have a higher regard than most for Kubitza. I think there is about a 50% chance he will provide a cheap in-house solution for 3rd base.

There are some weaknesses in our farm system. Two in particular. One is the lack of starting pitching at the lower levels of the farm system. This showed up in a dramatic way in the condition of the pitching staff in Rome this past season. Given the attrition rates for pitching prospects, we had nowhere near the prospects we needed in high A and low A. Maybe some of that will be alleviated by the players we took in the last draft (Fulenchek, Povse, Sobotka, Diaz). But it probably won't be enough to get things back to where they nee to be. The other issue was the shortage of positional prospects in high A. Once Wren and Peraza got promoted, there was little left. So in a year or two there will be a situation where there is little help available in the upper levels for promotion to the bigs.
 
ZIPS projections for Markakis over the 4 year contract. I'm bullish that Markakis can outperform this.

B3-IPZgCMAAZQ7l.png
 
Russ2dollas said:
Honestly...is this contract untradeable right now? I think that is a good measure. BJ's contract (before the sucking) was untradeable before the ink dried.

I almost wish it's front loaded. If we are trading away JUp then we have money. Give Marky 20 million this year. Then Uggla is off the books and give him 14 million the next. Then maybe the last two years at 5 million won't be terrible.

I'm going to pray that a team like San Fran has a desperate need at the deadline for a RF and we can flip him for a B prospect. Even though I really think he's untradeable.
Click to expand...

Yes I think it's untradeable. It's not Bossman untradeable, hopefully he plays well for 2 years and we trade him off then.
 
dak said:
ZIPS projections for Markakis over the 4 year contract. I'm bullish that Markakis can outperform this.

B3-IPZgCMAAZQ7l.png
Click to expand...

Wow. That's a really negative projection. As in slightly negative total WAR over the next four years. I'm more optimistic on Markakis. But you can be more optimistic about him that ZIPS and still not like the direction Hart has chosen.
 
nsacpi said:
Wow. That's a really negative projection. As in slightly negative total WAR over the next four years. I'm more optimistic on Markakis. But you can be more optimistic about him that ZIPS and still not like the direction Hart has chosen.
Click to expand...

2.3 WAR over the course of the deal. I'm okay with the decline in the slash lines projected, but the aggressive decline in G and AB seems a bit much.

Completely agree that having a rosier view on Markakis than some does not equate to endorsing this move as our best option. I like what the FO is doing when it comes to trading Jason and Justin for younger / cheaper talent. I just wish our ability to find value in free agency was a bit better.
 
Mark Bradley: 'A Pricey Half-Measure'

http://markbradley.blog.ajc.com/201...sure/?ecmp=ajc_social_twitter_2014_braves_sfp

OK, I’m confused. Most everything the Atlanta Braves had done this offseason — trading Jason Heyward for two young pitchers, declining to make a bid for Jon Lester, non-tendering Kris Medlen and Brandon Beachy — suggested they were going the younger-and-cheaper rebuilding route even if they hadn’t yet admitted it.

Now this: They sign the 31-year-old Nick Markakis for $45 million over four years.

Not younger. Not cheaper. And I’m no longer sure what they’re doing.
 
Hawk said:
Mark Bradley: 'A Pricey Half-Measure'

http://markbradley.blog.ajc.com/201...sure/?ecmp=ajc_social_twitter_2014_braves_sfp

OK, I’m confused. Most everything the Atlanta Braves had done this offseason — trading Jason Heyward for two young pitchers, declining to make a bid for Jon Lester, non-tendering Kris Medlen and Brandon Beachy — suggested they were going the younger-and-cheaper rebuilding route even if they hadn’t yet admitted it.

Now this: They sign the 31-year-old Nick Markakis for $45 million over four years.

Not younger. Not cheaper. And I’m no longer sure what they’re doing.
Click to expand...

John Hart still has his fastball, baby.
 
Then Bradley and all of the other critics need to read this site. We have discussed it and broken it down from every conceivable angle. Several plausible explanations have been offered, and rejected by most. The most plausible take, after laboriously reading all 33 pages of this thread and all of the others is that he is expected to play a leadership role similar to what Terry Pendleton and Sid Bream did years ago. He is not a star, not meant to be, and not being paid like one, but will be able to teach young up and coming MLB Players how it is done. Some of them will become stars.

Contrary to popular opinion here, WAR is not the only measure of value. Marky will be a valuable addition to this team, and we will, hopefully learn to appreciate him for what he is instead of using advanced stats to find and magnify every potential weakness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top