zbhargrove
Well-known member
I'm still waiting to hear back about the Braves never extending Maddux, Glavine, or Smoltz... According to Ensheff we never extended any of those guys in their prime
Dansby Swanson Already Proving He Belongs
- Thread starter bobbycoxy
- Start date
I'm still waiting to hear back about the Braves never extending Maddux, Glavine, or Smoltz... According to Ensheff we never extended any of those guys in their prime
I didn't say they never extended them. I said they eventually left to play for a team willing to pay them more.
Did that not happen? Or did all those teams pay them less and they just wanted to leave the Braves?
Reading comprehension: it's not for everyone apparently.
Is anyone arguing that Swanson will give the Braves a huge discount because he's from Marietta? If so, that's not real smart.
But there is an advantage in having control of a player and exclusive negotiation rights. The player may be dead-set on getting to FA, but if not, the team who has him has a pretty good chance of extending him for below-market rates if they're keen to do it and they do it far enough ahead of time.
Glavine and Smoltz are both examples of this.
Look, genius - you're the one not getting it. They have said (for months now) that service-time has not and will not have any bearing on their decisions, and they've proven it with Heyward and now Swanson. "Maximizing the players' value" relative to the market or other teams hasn't and won't be a consideration for the management team that's in place whether you like it or not. When they think the player is ready to help the big league club, he'll be added to the roster. We all understand you're butt-hurt by that, but apparently the Braves (and a huge number of folks here) could care less whether that fits your model. The Braves, and a huge number of the clubs in baseball have absolutely no need to be run like the Rays, and it's pretty obvious that if MLB had it to do over again there wouldn't be a franchise in Tampa. There likely wouldn't be one in Miami or Oakland either, and they were so tired of the ownership leeching off them, they were within inches of doing away with the outfit in Pittsburgh. The people constantly whining about their team's players departing via free-agency don't really belong in the league - if you can't draw enough fans and afford to pay the going rate for players, become a farm team for someone. There are plenty of good players coming along in the future - if you can't afford to pay Swanson what he's "worth", he ought to go elsewhere (just like Heyward did).
Quit whining that we need to hold someone back for X number of days to gain an extra year of control over that player - either he's good enough to play or he isn't. Hiding behind these kind of loopholes will ultimately lead to that loophole being eliminated (in the new CBA more-than-likely), because the players and the union can now afford attorneys who are as good as the ones the owners retain. Everybody that hates Borass hates him for the same reason - they want to get his clients to play for less than they're worth because they can't afford to (or don't want to) pay that. If that's the case, go find another league or find some other business to get into. I personally would've loved to see Bryant and Borass follow through with their urge to sue the league over the service-time rules because they have the resources to get those rules overturned. EVERYBODY knew he was "ready", and everybody knew the Cubs were playing dirty by using the loophole. While he's certainly not going to be the same level of impact player Bryant is, the same can be said of Swanson. If the Braves can't afford him after he's paid his dues (6 years of working for an employer that chose him rather than the other way around), tough *hit. Drafting a player gives you the right to control his life for those six years - that's the "opportunity cost" to the player who's actually good enough to make it to the majors. This doesn't exist ANYWHERE else in our society - everyone else is allowed to shop themselves to the highest bidder for their services WITHOUT having to sign away 6 years of their future.
One thing I'd think everyone can agree on is that if you want quality you have to pay for it. There's nothing wrong with shopping at Wal Mart if that's all you can afford, but there's no reason that companies that offer better quality products should have to offer them at Wal Mart prices. If you can't afford Heyward, sign Markakis. If you can't afford Swanson in six years, go get someone else. The players shouldn't have to discount their services just because your fans aren't willing to pay an extra $5 to see them play instead of a "replacement player" who can't carry their jock.
Completely understandable and a valid "opinion" - which some folks around here can't wrap their heads around. They not only can see the future, they can see it six years down the road. Why they're wasting time posting on this message board rather than racking up in Vegas is what's mind-blowing since they KNOW what's going to happen.
Southcack77
Well-known member
A couple of thoughts:
The mid 90s Braves enjoyed a different paradigm in terms of payroll. They were one of the biggest pockets in baseball during their major contention period.
As noted above, Glavine was paid handsomely. Don't recall with Smoltz, but I think he was highly paid as well.
It's sort of an odd situation with Swanson. If he's one of the best players in baseball, he's unlikely to agree to a below market contract. If he isn't then he'd be more likely to sign, but it was also be less advantageous for the Braves to do it.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
So then bringing those guys didn't help your argument at all... Considering we are talking about him at his age 29 season. Your example involved the player in their late 30s or early 40s when they were not the stars they used to be. Of course the Braves wouldn't pay them more than other teams at that point when they weren't worth it anymore... Just like Heyward wasn't worth it. Arguing isn't your strong suit. And you're still very obviously mentally unstable.
You said: "I think that Swanson will do what 95% of all MLB FAs do: go where the most money is offered. Are we really going to rehash the tired and worn out "home town discount" argument? How many home town discounts have the Braves gotten since the one time Andruw signed behind his agent's back? Mac left. Glavine left. Maddux left. Smoltz left. Heyward would have left when the Braves didn't offer him $185M. And on and on."
Mac, Glavine, and Smoltz all stayed with the Braves. They did not bolt for FA as soon as possible. They all were extended. So bringing them up really doesn't mean much of anything. Only two players were done after 6 years (or would have been if not traded) that the Braves wanted to keep. Furcal and Heyward. That's not to say Swanson won't decide to leave after 6 years and not sign any kind of extension. However let's not act like that's what all good players with the Braves do. Far from it. Hell our franchise player decided to sign an extension with the team instead of going to FA. Good thing to because if he wasn't signed he is likely cashing in on an annual salary close to 30 million after the season he is having.
Also remember when McCann and Frenchy were both offered the same reasonable extensions. One accepted, the other didn't. I think its pretty clear who came out ahead.
not quite as dumb as the Juan Gonzalez decision but yeah....dumb
I didn't even have to read this once I saw you compare the Swanson situation to the Heyward situation. You making that comparison shows a complete and utter lack of understanding about the valuation of players. Heyward was tearing up the minors and the Braves were competitive, so his call up was defensible. Swanson's situation is almost exactly the opposite.
If you think those two scenarios are even remotely comparable there's really no point in discussing this further. So we can just leave it as you think it was wise to lessen Swanson's overall value as an asset to play on a 100 loss team, and I think it was a sub-optimal move and therefore stupid. Whether or not the Braves can or will sign him long term, starting his clock now lowers his value.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
I think this has devolved into WW I trench warfare at this point. Both sides are dug in and are tired of hearing justifications and qualifications from the other side. It won't be settled now no matter what until hindsight decides the matter.
I'm not backing away from my opinion because I think I am right. But I'm tired of the BS and am walking away from what has turned into a pointless slap fight.
It's not an opinion. Dansby Swanson is less valuable right now than if the Braves controlled him via arb through his age 29 season. That is an indisputable fact.
Whether or not the Braves can sign him long term, will sign him long term, or how well/poorly he performs right now are completely immaterial to the above stated fact. Anyone who continues to make points to the affect of any of those prior statements are not even presenting counterpoints that have anything to do with the discussion.
I am not saying Swanson sucks. I am not saying the Braves will not be able to keep him. I am not even particularly concerned with whether or not he is "ready".
I am concerned that the Braves chose to lessen Swanson's value by having him contribute to a lost season. The Braves made a sub-optimal move value-wise when they called up Heyward, but exchanging some of Heyward's value to help a competitive team make the playoffs was a defensible move. In Swanson's case it isn't defensible.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
We agree on everything on this topic. I can see it. You can see it. The ones on the other side aren't going to see it until/if the day arrives where the loss of value actually causes some tangible material pain that cannot be denied. And since that can only happen in time it's easy to declare with certainty today that it means nothing and not worry about having to pay for that mistaken certainty at some point in the future.
We pay for our certainty in advance because the proof is in the future. They pay for their certainty in the future only if there is a tangible factor that cannot be denied that proves them wrong and then only if someone is still around and interested enough to point it out.
We're all just lucky Familia didn't just take Swanson's head off.
This only happens if Swanson bolts after the 2022 season. And Swanson's value is really only decreased if the Braves don't extend him.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
At least you argue respectfully. Ensheff is batsh*t crazy
It's like trying to explain to a low information voter that doubling the minimum wage won't double the cost of their fast food burgers.
You can explain to them that the cost of labor is a fraction of the cost of a good. You can show them how doubling the middle wage will only increase the cost of a burger by about 4%.
Problem is that is they made it to voting age without these basic pieces of knowledge or the desire to acquire them, and their low intelligence and prejudices will literally prevent them from understanding. They are simply unable to assimilate new knowledge and use it to form logical and rational conclusions.
The same phenomenon is happening here with low information fans. They are incapable of separating Swanson's value from his ability. That's why we constantly see off topic arguments pointing out whenever he makes plays. They simply are too stupid to understand the discussion at hand.
And this is the entire point, no matter how hard anyone wants to fight it. It's perfectly reasonable to have a differing opinion, and everybody respects that so long as it's expressed as an opinion. None of us can know what will ultimately happen with Dansby's situation - there are multiple potential outcomes, and we can only guess at this point. Presenting it as if it's fact simply sets yourself up to be a moron (since that seems to be his preferred choice of terms). Swanson has already embarrassed those who screamed from their pedestals that he wasn't "ready" when he obviously was. Doubling down and stating that you "know" what's going to happen with him six years from now (when the organization still hasn't yet publicly stated that he'll even be the starting SS next April) is that much more ridiculous.
Why someone feels like they're less of a person by admitting that they THINK something is likely (an opinion) rather than going after people because they have a different opinion is the ridiculous part - particularly when they've already been wrong about the topic.
Isn't this the argument that numbers-people use to defend their stance that clutch-hitting doesn't exist? We can't quantify it on paper, so it must not exist? If that's the case, there's no reason to feel better about Freeman or Ortiz getting a chance to hit in close games in the 9th inning than having Pierzynski or Francoeur up there, right?