Johnny Cueto

clvclv said:
Even if that's the case, placing your budget in the player's hands (and the hands of his representatives) is absolute suicide for a mid-market team IMO. Most of you guys preach about how important it is NOT to have ANY bad contracts, and to an extent I agree. It simply doesn't make sense to put that kind of power in a player's hands.

With fully guaranteed contracts (unlike in the other sports), MLB front offices other than those in New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and possibly a few others simply have to be RIGHT more often - missing on a player and overpaying him by even $5 million per year can be crippling. This is entirely the reason I don't usually disagree when someone says we "shouldn't" play on a Price/Greinke/Cespedes/whomever.

But you can't have it both ways - many who make the argument that we should play on Heyward are the same ones who scream the loudest about how much we need offense, and more to the point, power on offense. I just don't understand how it makes sense to then want to turn around and devote the financial resources that it will require to sign him to a player who doesn't help in the power department. No one questions Heyward's value as you explain it - he's absolutely a great player - but even you admit the vast majority of his value is derived from his defense. That doesn't help an offense that many of you described as "putrid", "awful", "historically bad", etc..Was he a better offensive player this season? Sure. He STILL hit less than 15 HRs with an OPS below .800.

I have trouble understanding how adding a player like that helps "fix" the problems everyone says our offense has - especially for $25 million a year.
Click to expand...

Regarding Heyward. The Braves need good players. And I'm not one to say we need power to be a good offense. But power does indeed help. Gattis for example had huge power in 2015 but overall he was a bad offensive hitter. And the reverse is also true. Heyward didn't have good power numbers but overall he was a really good offensive player. He would most certainly help our offense and he would of been the 2nd best hitter on the team. With that being said our outfield defense was a huge problem as well and he would go a long way to fixing that area.

Again my issue is you need good players regardless of where they help out. If you run out a team of 700-750 OPS players with elite defense then you are still going to win a ton of games during the season assuming your pitching staff is not garbage. Just as you'd win with a team full of mashers that can play a lick of defense. The overall value of said player is what's important to me.

As far as bad contracts go and trying to avoid them. That's a possibility in every long term deal. And you're right, mid market teams can't miss on those or it's really going to set the team back. I think any long term deals for players over 30 should be something that doesn't happen. They almost all end poorly. The ideal situation is extending your own players into their early 30's or signing FA's who hit free agency at an early age. Other wise short term deals are in order.
 
thewupk said:
Regarding Heyward. The Braves need good players. And I'm not one to say we need power to be a good offense. But power does indeed help. Gattis for example had huge power in 2015 but overall he was a bad offensive hitter. And the reverse is also true. Heyward didn't have good power numbers but overall he was a really good offensive player. He would most certainly help our offense and he would of been the 2nd best hitter on the team. With that being said our outfield defense was a huge problem as well and he would go a long way to fixing that area.

Again my issue is you need good players regardless of where they help out. If you run out a team of 700-750 OPS players with elite defense then you are still going to win a ton of games during the season assuming your pitching staff is not garbage. Just as you'd win with a team full of mashers that can play a lick of defense. The overall value of said player is what's important to me.

As far as bad contracts go and trying to avoid them. That's a possibility in every long term deal. And you're right, mid market teams can't miss on those or it's really going to set the team back. I think any long term deals for players over 30 should be something that doesn't happen. They almost all end poorly. The ideal situation is extending your own players into their early 30's or signing FA's who hit free agency at an early age. Other wise short term deals are in order.
Click to expand...

And again I ask, why in the world would you commit 7-8 years and $25 million per to Jason Heyward???

Career .700-.800 OPS (or higher) OFs who will be available this winter who will require a much smaller commitment (in both years and dollars)...

Yoenis Cespedes, Alex Gordon, Denard Span, Dexter Fowler, Gerardo Parra, Rajai Davis, Austin Jackson, Ben Zobrist - at least a couple of whom would have to be considered "elite" defenders
 
clvclv said:
And again I ask, why in the world would you commit 7-8 years and $25 million per to Jason Heyward???

Career .700-.800 OPS (or higher) OFs who will be available this winter who will require a much smaller commitment (in both years and dollars)...

Yoenis Cespedes, Alex Gordon, Denard Span, Dexter Fowler, Gerardo Parra, Rajai Davis, Austin Jackson, Ben Zobrist - at least a couple of whom would have to be considered "elite" defenders
Click to expand...

First of all. Just using OPS as a raw stat is pretty pointless. First it's not park adjusted and secondly it's not as good as WOBA when judging offense.

Secondly, I would commit that to Heyward because he's a 6 WAR player and everyone else in your list is not. I'll pay for the compelte player.
 
thewupk said:
First of all. Just using OPS as a raw stat is pretty pointless. First it's not park adjusted and secondly it's not as good as WOBA when judging offense.

Secondly, I would commit that to Heyward because he's a 6 WAR player and everyone else in your list is not. I'll pay for the compelte player.
Click to expand...

Really not trying to pick an argument, but you were the one that stated "If you run out a team of 700-750 OPS players with elite defense then you are still going to win a ton of games during the season assuming your pitching staff is not garbage." So I listed several players who are available with the stat you used who are all recognized as good defenders (Fowler might be questionable in CF, but if you move him to a corner I'd think he'd be a plus defender - kinda like Maybin). All those players will require far less commitment in either years or dollars. Keeping in mind that one of the goals of a mid-market team should always be avoiding "bad" contracts (whether they're too long, too pricey, or tie up too much of your payroll), would it not make more sense to sign one of them and invest the extra dollars upgrading another area of the roster? We've been led to believe that they're not likely to blow the budget on one of the bigger names. Even if that is GM-Speak, would it not make more sense to offer Zobrist (career .786 OPS) 4 years and $56 million AND Wieters (career .743 OPS) 4 years and $48 million if you were going to spend $25-$30 million on offense instead of Heyward? In that scenario, you could move Markakis to LF and would've upgraded TWO hitters while improving your defense as well for much less than you'd pay Heyward over 8 years. Doing so would also buy you three years of development time to find out what you've actually got in Davidson, Peterson, Lien, Acuna, Isranel Wilson, Juan Yepez (assuming he could move to LF), Lucas Herbert, Jonathon Morales, and potentially Maitan.

You'd then have $37 million available to spend next winter with Bourn, Maybin, and Swisher off the books, and have a much better product on the field in 2016.

CF- Maybin/Bourn, RF- Zobrist, 1B- Freeman, C- Wieters, 3B- Olivera, LF- Markakis, 2B- Peterson/Castro, SS- Simmons

Bench: C- Bethancourt (RH), OF/1B- Swisher (S), 3B/LF- Garcia (RH), OF- Maybin/Bourn, 2B/3B/SS- Peterson/Castro
 
When we dip into the FA market, value and risk control are really the keys. If player A is going to come in at $5M/projected win and player B at $7M/projected win, I will take player A, regardless of which one is the pitcher or position, or which one has more of his value concentrated in defense (assuming proper accounting is made for the volatility of the annual defensive data). With respect to risk control, the main issues are length of contract (especially for pitchers) and whether you are putting all your eggs in one basket (the superstar).

When looking at Cueto versus Greinke, I really don't have any sort of sentimental attachment to either player and if I did I would try not to let it influence me. Greinke is clearly the better pitcher. But in terms of value and risk, I think it is fairly likely that Cueto will be the better choice. Of course, there is a range of possible outcomes for both players future performances. And there will be some combinations of outcomes under which Greinke will be the better signing. But when we are trying to make a decision ex ante, you have to look at the entire range of possibilities and weight them reasonably.
 
If you could get zobrist and weiters for 26 a year combined then yeah. But I think they get more then that. And zobrist is at the age where decline could happen at any time. And still Heyward by himself has a good chance to better than both of them.
 
thewupk said:
If you could get zobrist and weiters for 26 a year combined then yeah. But I think they get more then that. And zobrist is at the age where decline could happen at any time. And still Heyward by himself has a good chance to better than both of them.
Click to expand...

Problem with that, is that you still have a hole at catcher and 3b/2b (wherever Olivera doesn't play). We're already paying like 45-50 million a year combined to 4 OFers. You'd have to trade at least 2 of them without eating any money to justify signing another OFer.

I'm not advocating signing Zobrist and Wieters. But in regards to having Heyward over them (or similar players), I think that's poor team construction. I'd much rather spend 26 million on two 3.5 WAR players rather than one 6 WAR guy and have replacement level players at other positions.
 
Carp said:
I'd much rather spend 26 million on two 3.5 WAR players rather than one 6 WAR guy and have replacement level players at other positions.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. But I'd also rather spend 26M on one 6 WAR guy and a replacement level player than on two 2.5 WAR players.
 
nsacpi said:
I agree with that. But I'd also rather spend 26M on one 6 WAR guy and a replacement level player than on two 2.5 WAR players.
Click to expand...

I'd much rather have less black holes in the lineup than a 6 WAR guy who's a 2 WAR offensive player (if that).
 
Heyward was 21% better than average offensive player this year year

He ranked as the 16th best offensive player in the NL this year, and the 6th best player overall (when accounting for defense/baserunning)
 
Heyward imo would be the biggest shock of the offseason if we signed him. If the Braves really wanted him they would have offered him a big extension before they traded him. He didn't wanna be here imo and they didn't want him here. Speed is usually the first thing to go, and when it does his offense won't be able to carry him.
 
sturg33 said:
Heyward was 21% better than average offensive player this year year

He ranked as the 16th best offensive player in the NL this year, and the 6th best player overall (when accounting for defense/baserunning)
Click to expand...

The 16th best offensive player in the NL wants $25 million per, and that's not a huge overpay...hmmmmmmm.
 
Carp said:
Problem with that, is that you still have a hole at catcher and 3b/2b (wherever Olivera doesn't play). We're already paying like 45-50 million a year combined to 4 OFers. You'd have to trade at least 2 of them without eating any money to justify signing another OFer.

I'm not advocating signing Zobrist and Wieters. But in regards to having Heyward over them (or similar players), I think that's poor team construction. I'd much rather spend 26 million on two 3.5 WAR players rather than one 6 WAR guy and have replacement level players at other positions.
Click to expand...

If you could get them for the same price, sure. But that's rarely the case. The 6 WAR player is generally cheaper on a $/WAR standpoint.
 
clvclv said:
The 16th best offensive player in the NL wants $25 million per, and that's not a huge overpay...hmmmmmmm.
Click to expand...
Defense is an important part of the game and Heyward is an oustanding defensive player. He is also a well above average base runner. Teams value players based upon the total package. Apologies for stating the obvious.
 
clvclv said:
I'd much rather have less black holes in the lineup than a 6 WAR guy who's a 2 WAR offensive player (if that).
Click to expand...

I'd rather have the most overall talent on the field. For 88 million you could get 8 Nick Markakis type talent. That comes out to 12.8 WAR for your starting 8. Or you could spent 75 million on 3 Heyward type players and fill in the rest with replacement level players. That would net you around 18 WAR. Almost 5 more wins at less money. Yes those might be two extreme examples but you get better bang for your buck shopping in the top tier FA's. But they do come with their own issues.
 
clvclv said:
The 16th best offensive player in the NL wants $25 million per, and that's not a huge overpay...hmmmmmmm.
Click to expand...

If you only want to discuss the first part of the post, then sure - you have a point.

If you want to consider the rest of the story - he being the 6th best overall player - your point is quite odd
 
Hudson2 said:
So if it came down to Heyward or Zobrist and Weiters most of you are gonna take Heyward?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'd take Zobrist and Wieters....if both of them were 3 or so years younger.

Again, I am and have been one of Heywards biggest fans, that being said I would not pay him 25 million a year, unless it is a short term deal say 3-4 years, any more than that I think somebody is gonna be regretting it later especially for a mid market club like the Braves that just can't magically erase a contractual mistake like say the Yanks, Sox, or Dodgers.

Why? He's a great defensive player and has good speed, some of the first skills to erode and go. Second, your commiting a lot of dollars to whose offensive game is based on potential, that so far as gone untapped, and will be interesting to see if he truely does break out. Does he realize his potential of being preroid Bonds or continue to hit like Al Martin. If he does realize his potential, then yes, he will be worth the money. And third, with his size and frame and skillset, will he me able to hold up through the entirety of the contract. Unfair or not, and some things were flukey, but he did miss a fair share of time due to a variety of things during his tenure in Atlanta, one can only imagine it will continue to be a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top