Objectively ranking the top farm systems

clvclv said:
If you try to read between the lines of the Hart quote that we "probably still won't play at the top of the market", you kinda wonder if that actually is a bit of a smokescreen and whether Donaldson is a much more realistic target for a big expenditure than Machado. If you use Giancarlo Stanton's deal as a model for Machado, you're probably looking at something like 12 years and $350 million minimum. Of course there's a lot left to be decided before they ever reach the market (if they do), but at that point Machado will be 26+ years old. Assuming both remain healthy, wouldn't it be much more our M. O. to pay a 33 year old Donaldson through age 38 rather than Manny?

Offer the same AAV ($29,166,667) to Josh as you do Machado at that point - through the same late point in their careers - and Donaldson winds up costing you ~$146 million rather than $350 million.

You then make Riley a LF and Maitan a RF and start bludgeoning teams to death and don't have to worry so much about ALL the pitching shaking out.
Click to expand...

Not sure I want to pay Donaldson 30 million per for his rapid decline years.
 
clvclv said:
The point is that you'd be paying Machado the same for his.
Click to expand...

It's highly unlikely Machado's deal doesn't come with an opt-out, though the same risk would be there. But I would be pretty good money that Machado is a FA again around 30-31.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
Right, but you are also getting some of his prime years with that. That is not the case with Donaldson
Click to expand...

If you are going to sign a big ticket FA, Machado is the kind of guy you want. Young enough that you get his prime years and his near prime years. In shape enough that he at least doesn't appear to be a guy who will let himself go after getting a pay day.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
If you are going to sign a big ticket FA, Machado is the kind of guy you want. Young enough that you get his prime years and his near prime years. In shape enough that he at least doesn't appear to be a guy who will let himself go after getting a pay day.
Click to expand...

yeah, I won't argue that. I would be ok with Donaldson truthfully. I just wouldn't want to pay him 30 million per for age 33+. I have no interest in rewarding him for the good work he did with the As and Jays.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
Right, but you are also getting some of his prime years with that. That is not the case with Donaldson
Click to expand...

More about pointing out that the "big-ticket FA signing" could likely be budgeted for without taking on the risk involved with a 10 or 12 year deal.

The Marlins are already substantially behind on the Stanton deal, and there's very little chance he can possibly produce enough during what's left of his prime to make up for it - even if he somehow stays healthy (which he never has).

Freeman's contract was great, but you're going to have to take those decline years in any Machado deal. Everyone understands the risks (I'm sure), and I'd love to get Manny as much as everyone else would, but all it would take is one or two injured prime years to turn a Machado contract into a bust. That becomes a death knoll for mid-market clubs like us and Miami. At the $140-ish million range being kicked around, we've probably got enough talent in the system to pay a couple of present market-value (< $25 million) salaries for OUR stars like Freeman, but once you start climbing into superstar-level deals, things get AWFULLY tight.
 
Coach_Chris said:
Saw this today and wanted to share in this thread.

http://teamstre.am/2kQl1Av
Click to expand...

That is quite possibly the most randomly assigned point system I have ever seen. All Top 100 prospects valued the same? A single season of 2 win production makes a player 2.5x more valuaable than a top prospect? A guy who has posted a 5 WAR season is only 2x as valuable as a guy that posted a 2 WAR season?

Odd.
 
Enscheff said:
That is quite possibly the most randomly assigned point system I have ever seen. All Top 100 prospects valued the same? A single season of 2 win production makes a player 2.5x more valuaable than a top prospect? A guy who has posted a 5 WAR season is only 2x as valuable as a guy that posted a 2 WAR season?

Odd.
Click to expand...

#bleacherreport

Even a rookie statistician like me would try to find a way to use total value or surplus value.
 
What a great thread this has turned into.

Thank you for helping make ChopCountry great again, [MENTION=59]Enscheff[/MENTION]
 
Enscheff said:
Again, teams have consistently shown they can't win while committing 25% of the payroll to a single player. There is nothing special about the Braves and their ability to fill holes elsewhere on the roster cheaply. Every team that thought they could make it work was wrong, and the Braves will be wrong too if they attempt it.

Find one team that has succeeded over multiple seasons with a single player making 25% of the payroll, and then you at least have some data on your side. Until then, all you are spouting is unsubstantiated conjecture that carries zero weight in an intellectual discussion.

I'll even go first:

Rangers paid ARod $22M per year from 2001-2003. His salary represented 25%, 21%, and 21% of their payroll in those 3 years. In those 3 years, they won 73, 72, and 71 games despite ARod producing 8+ WAR in all 3 of those seasons. They traded him to NY, and the Rangers won 89 games in 2004.

Your turn.
Click to expand...

Just bc others have not done it does not make it impossible

Nobody is saying the braves should or will do that

I just said it's possible

The success would depend on a lot of factors including what the division does
 
Russ2dollas said:
Just bc others have not done it does not make it impossible

Nobody is saying the braves should or will do that

I just said it's possible

The success would depend on a lot of factors including what the division does
Click to expand...

I think the point is that why it may be possible (anything is in baseball due to tons of factors) it's not at all probable. Therefore the Braves shouldn't try and do anything that hasn't been done before. The only way the Braves should entertain the idea of signing Machado or anything else for 30 million for any significant amount of time is if the payroll jumps to around 130 million.
 
thewupk said:
I think the point is that why it may be possible (anything is in baseball due to tons of factors) it's not at all probable. Therefore the Braves shouldn't try and do anything that hasn't been done before. The only way the Braves should entertain the idea of signing Machado or anything else for 30 million for any significant amount of time is if the payroll jumps to around 130 million.
Click to expand...

I believe the payroll will be in the 140-150 million range relatively soon (within about 2 years). That may be unrealistic, but I think we'll see that. I still don't love the idea of paying one player that much with a payroll in that range, and I don't think we'd be the highest bidder, so I seriously doubt Machado is a real possibility for us. But as a fan, I can't say I wouldn't love it.
 
thewupk said:
I think the point is that why it may be possible (anything is in baseball due to tons of factors) it's not at all probable. Therefore the Braves shouldn't try and do anything that hasn't been done before. The only way the Braves should entertain the idea of signing Machado or anything else for 30 million for any significant amount of time is if the payroll jumps to around 130 million.
Click to expand...

And that could be the payroll. Or they could defer a bunch of money.

The braves should be very cheap at a lot of positions.

If this team can pay kemp plus markakis 30 plus million why can't they pay a stud 30 million and put Peterson in rf?

Who knows if they'd win. But the money makes sense
 
Russ2dollas said:
And that could be the payroll. Or they could defer a bunch of money.

The braves should be very cheap at a lot of positions.

If this team can pay kemp plus markakis 30 plus million why can't they pay a stud 30 million and put Peterson in rf?

Who knows if they'd win. But the money makes sense
Click to expand...

If that is the payroll or higher then great. But I will believe that when I see it. The payroll has been stagnant for almost 2 decades now.

The point is about the Braves paying someone that much on the current payroll level and being good. The Braves are currently paying Kemp and Markakis 30 million plus and are not very good.
 
thewupk said:
If that is the payroll or higher then great. But I will believe that when I see it. The payroll has been stagnant for almost 2 decades now.

The point is about the Braves paying someone that much on the current payroll level and being good. The Braves are currently paying Kemp and Markakis 30 million plus and are not very good.
Click to expand...

My original premise was always that payroll would go up over the next few years into the ~$150M range, which would not make the Braves the top payroll in baseball by any means but in the neighborhood of top 10.

Right now, they are bottom half of the league.

If the Braves move into a new stadium AND get an improved TV deal (still not great) and the payroll doesn't move into the top half of baseball, then their should be an investigation.

Obviously, if the payroll is $100M or less you can't afford a guy like Machado at any time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top