I think Acuna would give us an Andruwesque discount.
Simmons did and look how we treated him.![]()
Bryant got a $6.7M signing bonus and hired Scott Boras as his agent. Let's stop with the silly notion that Bryant isn't going to sign an extension because the Cubs played his service clock.
Bryant is likely to test the FA market, but I don't think that has anything to do with the Cubs toying with his clock. I think it has everything to do with the fact that he could be in line for one of the biggest contracts in history if he goes the FA route. If Acuna is as good as everyone on this board thinks he will be, then he will be facing the same decision and will most likely go the FA route as well. Thats why getting that extra year could be so important in my estimation. Especially since our most likely competitive window doesn't start until 2019 at the very earliest.
Manny Machado is going to be a FA after next year, and the O's are not going to be able to resign him. They were not able to extend him despite "treating him fairly".
They called him up late in 2012 to get 200 PAs where he posted a .739 OPS and was worth 1.3 fWAR. Then in 2013 he posted ~0.5 fWAR in the 2 weeks to open the season.
They could have forgone that 1.8 fWAR in favor of keeping him down 2 weeks in 2013. In exchange, they would have gained another season of control over Machado's prime that could be worth 6+ fWAR.
I wonder what the O's should have done? I wonder if they think the 1.8 fWAR back in 2012/2013 was worth the 6+ WAR they are losing when Machado is gone in 2019? I wonder if they are happy with that 3x inefficiency? Hmm...maybe because they were competitive during that time frame.
The Braves will be making the same exchange with Acuna, but worse, much worse. They are going to exchange 6 months of 2023 Acuna (5+ WAR) for 2 weeks of 2017 Acuna (0.5 WAR). That is a 10x inefficiency during a non-competitive period...not the best way to run a mid-market franchise.
One thing I see missing from this discussion is the fact that the braves have shown the ability to get the young guys to sign extensions. Freddie, Kimberl, Simba, JT, Ender, Chris Johnson. With the exception of one player the extensions have been good signings and the money has been fair for both sides. There are clubs that better than others at getting players to sign extensions. I think the key to extending players is the deal has to be fair for both sides.
We never know the behind the scenes stuff in contact negotiations and how a team evaluates a player. Maybe there is something the O's know about Machdo or the Cubs know about Bryant that keeps them from giving these guys huge contracts. There were a lot of us braves fans upset that team didn't break the bank for JHey. In hindsight that was not a bad decision.
I know Machado has had some injuries but I don't see why the Cubs wouldn't throw the bank at Bryant and they probably will.
There were stories that the Cubs have been trying to open extension talks with Bryant, but his camp won't even entertain the idea.
The Cubs have halfway tried to made it up to Bryant by giving him big Pre-ARB raise but not really the same.
More than a little funny that the "don't promote them" crowd continue to ignore that point - "yeah I'm OK with you holding out on me when I deserve more money, I realize those are the rules...of course I won't hold that against you."
More than a little funny that the "don't promote them" crowd continue to ignore that point - "yeah I'm OK with you holding out on me when I deserve more money, I realize those are the rules...of course I won't hold that against you."
I think it is a factor, but probably a small factor in most cases, in determining a player's attitude toward being extended before hitting free agency. Btw there is value to the club even if a player does not extent early with them. For example, Tampa played the service time game with Wil Myers. They kept him in AAA for over 2 months in 2013 even though he had done very well in AAA in over 400 at bats in 2012. They ended up trading him, and his trade value was influenced by the decisions they made regarding service time management.
I don't understand why they are not relevant. They could be poor and dumb. Poverty does not necessitate being smart. It is actually possible to find examples of major league teams that have been both poor and dumb for long stretches of time.Yeah, but Tampa's not really relevant when it comes to those situations, are they??? Unless you're willing to sign a team-friendly deal that gives them at least a couple options on free-agent years, they play the service-time game with EVERY player - they have to.
I don't understand why they are not relevant. They could be poor and dumb. Poverty does not necessitate being smart. It is actually possible to find examples of major league teams that have been both poor and dumb for long stretches of time.
Unfortunately, Tampa only fits the "poor" part. They've now posted attendance numbers of:
30th per home date in 2012 - 19,255 (Braves #16 - 29,878)
30th per home date in 2013 - 18,645 (Braves #13 - 31,465)
30th per home date in 2014 - 17,857 (Braves #18 - 29,065)
30th per home date in 2015 - 15,403 (Braves #22 - 29,699)
30th per home date in 2016 - 15,878 (Braves #22 - 24,949)
30th per home date in 2017 - 15,597 (Braves #14 - 30,750)
Don't call them smart if it bothers you, but there's no way anyone can question whether they play service-time games out of necessity. Feel free to run that all the way out to get more exact numbers, but with an average of 10,000 to 15,000 tickets, plus beer, hot dogs, Cokes, etc, plus merchandise sales, plus parking, 81 times a year over the last 6 years (player control period) the Braves can pretty easily afford to pay for calling up a couple guys early.