They are both light on the power spectrum. Theat said Aoki is likley to hit for a little bit better of an average and thus have a slightly higher OBP. In the end both aren't going to be world beaters offensively but likely around average for their position. And both are meh defendres. Both are likely to give you the same production overall. Steamer has Aoki projected at 1.5 WAR and Nick at 1.1. One is paid more then twice than the other. That is a lot to pay for a clubhouse presence.
Official off-season trade rumor and suggestion thread
- Thread starter Enscheff
- Start date
They are both light on the power spectrum. Theat said Aoki is likley to hit for a little bit better of an average and thus have a slightly higher OBP. In the end both aren't going to be world beaters offensively but likely around average for their position. And both are meh defendres. Both are likely to give you the same production overall. Steamer has Aoki projected at 1.5 WAR and Nick at 1.1. One is paid more then twice than the other. That is a lot to pay for a clubhouse presence.
ramadon101
Danville Rookie
Ah but you see it's not what Nick's makeup does to make up games in the 2015 win/loss column that matters to the front office but rather his guidance and example to the younger players through what will likely be a bad season. It's about learning to perform through adversity so that our future corps have better mental chops come 2017z Again I know you won't give an iota of credence to this because it's, by nature, incapable of being quantified but the organization you chose to be a fan of does. And, oh by the way, in case you guys didn't notice, the Red Sox just established a whole division for this called Behavioral Health so it's not just the Braves who believe it makes a difference.
.200 ISO slug is the standard for good power. Now that might need to be lowered with current offense and power being in a 30 year low. But honestly I wouldn't consider any of Heywards seasons as him having good power except for that year he hit 27 homers.
So why sign him for 4 seasons? Do the Braves plan on needing Nicks makeup for 4 seasons because they plan on being bad that long? I never really had a problem with the money Nick is making. It's pretty much in line with the rest of the free agent hitters this year. It's the number of years that are disturbing.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
Neither one is a power hitter, but there is a substantial difference between 14 homers and 1 homer... especially when you add Markakis' gap power and doubles potential. As far as Aoki having a better average... I don't really see it... there is a very small gap between average in the past 2 years, and before those 2 years, Markakis was definitely a better average hitter. I don't really care for steamer projections... I hate when people use them to support their argument instead of past performance. Projections are rarely accurate.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Because that is what it took?
ramadon101
Danville Rookie
Market dictates terms. The Os already had the framework of a 4/40 deal in place -- from what I read (from recollection now) it was actually 3/30 with a fourth year vesting upon plate appearances. However the Blue Jays, Giants and another team were also involved - I remember a Hardball Times article talking about the potential for a 5 year deal.
I'm not saying I wouldn't have preferred a 2 year deal- that is obvious. However I think the Braves feel like they bought low on Nick and that with his surgery, his ISO power will improve a bit and perhaps with better defensive positioning he will be worth over 11m a year so he has surplus value. I doubt they trade him, however.
You mean past performance like Aoki having a career 106 WRC+ and Markakis having a 107 WRC+ since 2009? And you do know that projects are based on past performances. As far as power goes. Yes Aoki has virtually zero homerun power. However he had 22 doubles and 6 triples in 491 abs. That comes out to an extra base hit in 5.9% of his abs compared to Nicks 6.5%. Aoki does have more gap power and can turn some of those doubles into triples.
So overpay just for his makeup? Sounds like a reach even for this team.
Still sounds like like a big gamble but that shouldn't be a surprise since we are gambling on all these injured pitchers we got this year. This is like the BJ Upton deal in terms of the contract. We outbid other teams and gave an extra year. I get that the Braves want a good clubhouse guy. But it shouldn't take 4 years at a the market rate to get such a guy. If you plan on being subpar for a year or two and want that veteran guy on the team then so be it. But again it's the amount of years. Nick will still be on the team when they supposedly want to be good and I doubt Nick will be able to offer much production at that time.
ramadon101
Danville Rookie
Again- the market was clearly different for Markakis than it was for Aoki. I doubt any team offered Aoki 3 years- at least one did to Markakis and I suspect the Blue Jays and Giants were in that ballpark as well. Perhaps the Braves did "overpay" by adding on the fourth year but I also believe that it was a calculated risk in their minds to add a player with the makeup they wanted who could also approximate Heyward's offense the past few years (while also being media savvy which also shouldn't go unnoticed). Perhaps 2017 Nick is worth 11m in the then current baseball economic market- who knows.
I would also point out that Aoki is almost 2 years older than Markakis.. And their body types aren't exactly reflections of one another (production aside for a moment).
You are right that the markets weren't the same. Aoki signed later in the offseason which generally is better for the team and not the player. That said the Markakis deal is a bit of a head scratcher when you look at our offseason as a whole. Makeup aside, I just think it's the wrong move to a sign an average player who is in his 30's to a 4 year deal when you are trying to rebuild.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
Who gets traded next?
Tapate50
Well-known member
Where did I say that? The team wanted a guy with contact skills, that can play a capable RF, didn't cost a draft pick, and he was that guy.
And the team decided it needed him for 4 years?
Tapate50
Well-known member
Round n round.
Because that's what it took,
So I guess yeah.
Where do I feel like I have said this before?
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
Minor if he rebounds at the deadline seems logical to be next.
Maybe CJ or BJ as well.
So help me understand why they needed him for 4 years? Because that's what it took? At some point 'thats what it took' means it's just a bad decision. And this one is likely a bad decision given the circumstances of the rest of the offseason.
ramadon101
Danville Rookie
There's your logical fallacy right there. It's setting up a straw man. I am not saying any one should necessarily agree with it, but if the Braves FOR determined they wanted X, Y and Z in a player (say those factors being general durability season in/out, strong character and demonstrated leadership skills, and a bat that could approximate the offense we had from Heyward), and Markakis was the only player that fit the mold that was available without giving up a draft pick or prospects further deteriorating a farm system they are trying to rebuild, then perhaps "it's what it took" is just that. Saying it's a bad decision in a vacuum is your opinion, not stated fact. Again I'm not saying you have to agree with it- I don't like the 4th year either- but comparing it to BJ's contract is a stretch. I suspect Nick's contract won't be much of an albatross over the term- probably a slight overpay but one that they perhaps felt they had to make.
The only real comparrison to BJ's deal is that they went with the extra year that it seemed nobody else was going to do. Unless Nick just falls off a cliff which is possible but not likely. I understand that they want a character guy in the clubhouse. However since this is pretty much a fullscale rebuild for the future despite what John Hart is telling us then I don't see why they couldn't get a character guy that's not signed so long. I mean the Braves aren't going to compete this year so why do you need someone that could approximate Heywards offense? I think a better use of the 11 million a year for the next 4 would have been to unload with BJ to get him off the team quicker. Pay it off now and be completely be done with BJ when you enter the new stadium and can put that money to better use. Now your likely to be spending 26 million on two players that aren't good hitters when you are entering 2017.