MINORS FINAL FRIDAY 4/21 ... Rome wins in 18 innings!

Even if Soroka has a great start today I want to see how he fares the second and third time around the league. He had a big start at Rome last year too but hitters made adjustments against him and he had less success, then Soroka adjusted and had a great finish to the season. I believe the adjustment was moving to the other side of the rubber vs left handed hitters.
 
chipchildress said:
why? ultimately what's the difference to the Braves? $10M? if dansby turns out to be legit and gets that contract, he'll make up the difference in jersey sales in a week. or ticket sales, or whatever else. or not, it's not going to matter.

hell, there's actually a reasonable economic argument that says bringing him up now makes more sense. if they sign him a year or two earlier to an extension, they'd pay less than they would had they waited two years as contracts rise over time as they always do.
Click to expand...

There is so much wrong with almost every single sentence of this post it isn't even worth correcting.

Derp!!
 
chipchildress said:
in other words, it could actually save the braves millions in the long run.

the swanson service time complaint is nutso IMO.
Click to expand...

Not so nutso. Cubs did it with Kris Bryant. Other clubs take service time considerations into account quite often.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
So the Braves didn't take service time into consideration when they made that decision?
Click to expand...

They either didn't take it into consideration, or figured having Swanson on the roster for 200 PAs spanning 2 losing seasons was more valuable than controlling his age 29 season via arbitration.

I'm not sure which scenario makes them more stupid. I'm sure you homers can explain how it makes them smart though.
 
nsacpi said:
you don't have to take my word for it....our very own front office said so
Click to expand...

did they say, they are not worried about his service time or that they completely forgot to consider that when they called him up. two very different things. I can guarantee you that if the FO wants Swanson until he is X age, they will find a way to keep Swanson for X age. I think that is what they said
 
bravesfanMatt said:
did they say, they are not worried about his service time or that they completely forgot to consider that when they called him up. two very different things. I can guarantee you that if the FO wants Swanson until he is X age, they will find a way to keep Swanson for X age. I think that is what they said
Click to expand...

they said it is not a factor....not with any prospect
 
bravesfanMatt said:
did they say, they are not worried about his service time or that they completely forgot to consider that when they called him up. two very different things. I can guarantee you that if the FO wants Swanson until he is X age, they will find a way to keep Swanson for X age. I think that is what they said
Click to expand...

nsacpi is an order of magnitude smarter than you, just stop.
 
nsacpi said:
they said it is not a factor....not with any prospect
Click to expand...

So they know about it.. they know how it works and choose to not make it a point of conversation when deciding on call ups. So why does it have to be brought up here everyday knowing that the FO knows how service time works and choose to not use it as a basis for decisions.

of course you can disagree with them, but it seems like people argue as if the FO has no clue how it works. When in fact they do know and choose to not worry about it.
 
There's actually something to what chip said. The average MLB salary seems to be increasing about 5% per year right now. Dansby will be controlled for his age 23-28 seasons as of right now, then we will have to extend him or he will become a FA. Let's assume for this sake that he basically becomes what is hoped/expected, since if not who cares about this. So he's a very good SS, sometimes an All-Star type. The Braves decide to extend him for another 3 years before the end of his deal, taking him to age 31. That's a pretty reasonable approach and would allow us to maybe move on as he begins to decline. Let's say we pay him something like this for those years:

2017 - $540,000
2018 - $550,000
2019 - $560,000
2020 - $3,000,000 (arbitration)
2021 - $6,000,000 (arbitration)
2022 - $9,000,000 (arbitration)
2023 - $22,000,000 (extension)
2024 - $22,500,000 (extension)
2025 - $23,000,000 (extension)

So we pay a total of $87,150,000 for his age 23-31 years and get 9 hopefully prime or close to prime years out of him.

Had we held him back last year and to start this year, then signed him to the same 3-year extension, you're taking him into his age 32 season, which is likely to start being a bit of a drop-off. And you will pay more for it. Taking the 5% increase into account, you're looking at something like:

2017 - $540,000
2018 - $550,000
2019 - $560,000
2020 - $570,000
2021 - $3,150,000 (arbitration)
2022 - $6,300,000 (arbitration)
2023 - $9,450,000 (arbitration)
2024 - $23,100,000 (extension)
2025 - $23,625,000 (extension)
2026 - $24,150,000 (extension)

So you're paying a total of $91,995 for most of his age 23, then his age 24-32 seasons, so 10 total. So obviously you can argue that getting the age 32 season at a discount is worth it. But you're not getting it for free, you are paying an extra $4,500,000 or so for it. Almost certainly worth it unless he drops off, but it is a slight extra cost to consider.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
So they know about it.. they know how it works and choose to not make it a point of conversation when deciding on call ups. So why does it have to be brought up here everyday knowing that the FO knows how service time works and choose to not use it as a basis for decisions.

of course you can disagree with them, but it seems like people argue as if the FO has no clue how it works. When in fact they do know and choose to not worry about it.
Click to expand...

it is such an improbably stupid view to hold that I suspect they don't mean it...but then they did call up swanson.....so....maybe.....could be.....
 
nsacpi said:
they said it is not a factor....not with any prospect
Click to expand...

But it clearly is, otherwise Albies would be up. You can't tell everyone publicly that you are purposely keeping your minor league players down so that you don't have to pay them as much. The Cubs didn't admit that with Kris Bryant, in fact Epstein also said it wasn't a business decision to keep him down longer.

Don't be obtuse just to try to prove a point.
 
nsacpi said:
it is such an improbably stupid view to hold that I suspect they don't mean it...but then they did call up swanson.....so....maybe.....could be.....
Click to expand...

I am sure they don't mean it every time, I agree.. But I honestly think they needed to know what Swanson was. They knew if they had the corner stone SS, that they could extent him without trouble. If he continues to fail and they just have another run of the mill SS, then they will know this 1 year sooner. I think this decision was made because they had some doubts about Swanson.
 
smootness said:
There's actually something to what chip said. The average MLB salary seems to be increasing about 5% per year right now. Dansby will be controlled for his age 23-28 seasons as of right now, then we will have to extend him or he will become a FA. Let's assume for this sake that he basically becomes what is hoped/expected, since if not who cares about this. So he's a very good SS, sometimes an All-Star type. The Braves decide to extend him for another 3 years before the end of his deal, taking him to age 31. That's a pretty reasonable approach and would allow us to maybe move on as he begins to decline. Let's say we pay him something like this for those years:

2017 - $540,000
2018 - $550,000
2019 - $560,000
2020 - $3,000,000 (arbitration)
2021 - $6,000,000 (arbitration)
2022 - $9,000,000 (arbitration)
2023 - $22,000,000 (extension)
2024 - $22,500,000 (extension)
2025 - $23,000,000 (extension)

So we pay a total of $87,150,000 for his age 23-31 years and get 9 hopefully prime or close to prime years out of him.

Had we held him back last year and to start this year, then signed him to the same 3-year extension, you're taking him into his age 32 season, which is likely to start being a bit of a drop-off. And you will pay more for it. Taking the 5% increase into account, you're looking at something like:

2017 - $540,000
2018 - $550,000
2019 - $560,000
2020 - $570,000
2021 - $3,150,000 (arbitration)
2022 - $6,300,000 (arbitration)
2023 - $9,450,000 (arbitration)
2024 - $23,100,000 (extension)
2025 - $23,625,000 (extension)
2026 - $24,150,000 (extension)

So you're paying a total of $91,995 for most of his age 23, then his age 24-32 seasons, so 10 total. So obviously you can argue that getting the age 32 season at a discount is worth it. But you're not getting it for free, you are paying an extra $4,500,000 or so for it. Almost certainly worth it unless he drops off, but it is a slight extra cost to consider.
Click to expand...

This is all incorrect. In the 2nd scenario he would be a Super 2 and would still hit Arb in 2020, and go through Arb 4 times at lesser rates. I already did this analysis correctly. Go find that post.

2023 is the key season (bolded). Calling him up early changed that season from being an arbitration season to being a FA season. Best case scenario it costs the Braves $10M-$15M more for that season, as you almost pointed out. Worst case scenario the Braves lose his age 29 season completely.

What happens after that 2023 season is irrelevant because those FA seasons are going to cost whatever they are going to cost, and tossing out "3 year extension" is completely arbitrary. And I promise you, no agent is going to forget about the "5% increase" just because the extension was signed a year later.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
lol.. so if no agent is going to forget about the 5% increase.. then why do salaries increase 5% every year? I will wait..
Click to expand...

Jesus man...

Smoot applied an additional 5% increase to every dollar amount simply because the deal was signed a year later.

You know what, never mind. It's like teaching physics to business majors all over again haha! I have a mild case of PTSD from that ordeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top