JJ traded

jpx7 said:
I'm willing, for now, not to view this trade as in-continuum with those "last few trades" but purely in the context of the new regime; so, for now, I'm going to refrain from smelling any "desperation to cut payroll" and see what Anthopolous et al do with the cash and 40-man slot.

Non-tendering Adams, for now, won't effect that view, either—the latter move seeming a pretty obvious step for a team that doesn't need what Adams brings to the table, and from the standpoint of a market (as you yourself have effectively argued) that is unlikely to bear much fruit even if Adams were tendered-to-be-traded.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what revenue projections were before building the new park, but I drove my daughter by The Battery last Saturday afternoon and the place was packed with people. I had to stop for a couple of minutes to let a herd of people go by like I was at a cattle crossing. That has to pay significantly better than the previous park.
 
Those could also be fat cutting moves. Saving payroll is always in fashion and ridding the roster of overpaid/underperforming players for the new wave of youngsters is pretty much good business correct?

I just don’t think it’s groundbreaking that the Atl FO will be frugal with unnecessary roster options. That’s pretty much a given in any year.
 
striker42 said:
This is where I disagree. I don't disagree that it's money we can't use, I disagree with the sentiment that it's not something of value just because we can't use it. If you own a classic muscle car in pristine condition but have no idea how to drive a stick, the car isn't worthless just because you can't use it.
Click to expand...

While it doesn't make it worthless, if the person you're trying to sell it to knows it's useless to you, you may not get as strong an offer.
 
Tapate50 said:
Those could also be fat cutting moves. Saving payroll is always in fashion and ridding the roster of overpaid/underperforming players for the new wave of youngsters is pretty much good business correct?

I just don’t think it’s groundbreaking that the Atl FO will be frugal with unnecessary roster options. That’s pretty much a given in any year.
Click to expand...

Nah.... It has to mean the sky is falling. Don't you read this board? :tchop:
 
bravesfanMatt said:
The theory completely ignores other teams demand for what you hold.
Click to expand...

There is also the option of using the money to sign international prospects. The top guys in the market are signed, but there are always some others out there you can sign in the latter stages of a signing period. We did that a few years ago.
 
Super said:
While it doesn't make it worthless, if the person you're trying to sell it to knows it's useless to you, you may not get as strong an offer.
Click to expand...

This is more true when you only have one interested buyer. If you have no use for something and only one person to sell it to, it hurts your leverage. There are 28 other teams in MLB the Braves could have traded this money to.

Look back to the frenzy over Chris Sale. The White Sox had no real use for him but that didn't diminish his price. There were enough buyers that the White Sox could play them off each other.
 
striker42 said:
This is more true when you only have one interested buyer. If you have no use for something and only one person to sell it to, it hurts your leverage. There are 28 other teams in MLB the Braves could have traded this money to.

Look back to the frenzy over Chris Sale. The White Sox had no real use for him but that didn't diminish his price. There were enough buyers that the White Sox could play them off each other.
Click to expand...

But every team knows you can't use it.
I don't think Sale is a good comparison at all, even for the specific reason you mentioned. If Sale wasn't able to pitch for a full year before the trade, the comparison would be better.
 
Super said:
But every team knows you can't use it.
I don't think Sale is a good comparison at all, even for the specific reason you mentioned. If Sale wasn't able to pitch for a full year before the trade, the comparison would be better.
Click to expand...

We have the choice of using the international funds to sign more prospects. Its not as if we have to find a taker for that. We did not have to trade it to the Angels.
 
Super said:
But every team knows you can't use it.
I don't think Sale is a good comparison at all, even for the specific reason you mentioned. If Sale wasn't able to pitch for a full year before the trade, the comparison would be better.
Click to expand...

A better example would be Japanese teams posting players under the old system. You know the player is coming to the US but teams still fought it out for these players. Just because you have no realistic threat of keeping an asset doesn't make it worthless.
 
Wasn’t Super the one arguing endlessly that Garcia had increased his trade value after one good start, citing supply and demand...over and over and over?

I think it’s pretty clear he’s the last person to listen to about market factors haha.
 
Jaw said:
I have no idea what revenue projections were before building the new park, but I drove my daughter by The Battery last Saturday afternoon and the place was packed with people. I had to stop for a couple of minutes to let a herd of people go by like I was at a cattle crossing. That has to pay significantly better than the previous park.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's a cash cow. My nephews came in town and it's the first place they wanted to go last week. I'm very interested in seeing what 4th quarter revenue is. Of course we could still have some "creative accounting" for another year, but being a public company it's going to be no secret we have money.
 
Chico said:
Yeah it's a cash cow. My nephews came in town and it's the first place they wanted to go last week. I'm very interested in seeing what 4th quarter revenue is. Of course we could still have some "creative accounting" for another year, but being a public company it's going to be no secret we have money.
Click to expand...

I’ve asked this a few times now...

Last I heard, the Braves rent out space and do not receive a cut of the revenue generated at these places. Is that not true?
 
Enscheff said:
I’ve asked this a few times now...

Last I heard, the Braves rent out space and do not receive a cut of the revenue generated at these places. Is that not true?
Click to expand...

Everything I've read has said they do get a cut of revenue. The Bars are Braves themed. I cannot see how they wouldn't be getting a cut.

The restaurants like Antico may be a little different, but why would you have a restaurant you don't get a cut off of at your place where you could be selling overpriced nachos and ballpark food 40 feet away.
 
Enscheff said:
I’ve asked this a few times now...

Last I heard, the Braves rent out space and do not receive a cut of the revenue generated at these places. Is that not true?
Click to expand...

I can't confirm this but I would guess that the Braves function just like any other landlord and probably only receive rent from tenants. I difference in the Braves and most landlords I believe is they get all the revenue from a development that someone else funded a large part of. So they get all the money with only a portion of the cost.
 
striker42 said:
A better example would be Japanese teams posting players under the old system. You know the player is coming to the US but teams still fought it out for these players. Just because you have no realistic threat of keeping an asset doesn't make it worthless.
Click to expand...

at no point did i say or suggest the money was worthless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top