Tapate50
Well-known member
Easy to forget the rubes!
Official Offseason Thread
- Thread starter Hudson2
- Start date
Easy to forget the rubes!
They do - and apparently aren't convinced he's their answer. They're supposedly in deep on Akiyama and were rumored to be in the thick of things for Marte.
If they actually still have money available, I'm a bit surprised they haven't traded for JBJ - could probably have him for a song.
MadduxFanII
Swallowed by Mark Bowman
I would expect us to check in on basically every potentially available third baseman - it's a huge hole (assuming we don't re-sign Donaldson), and we're trying to win a World Series. So there's every reason for us to call about Bryant, Arenado, Seager, Turner (maybe), whoever. All it costs is a few hours of AA's time. But calling about Nolan Arenado is a much different thing than seriously exploring a trade for him.
PawPawMaxwell
Called Up to the Major Leagues
Athletic posting 2 hours ago. Bowden now predicting 4yrs/$128M for JD. Still has Braves in play/fit. Is Arenado still looking too expensive or Bryant unworthy?
4yrs/$112M
4yrs/$112M
Last edited:
Do the Braves want to be paying a 37 year old JD $25M-$30M?
This is the classic now vs future decision that plagues every contender. The Albies/Acuna contracts open up some margin for future error, but an aging JD would likely take up all that margin.
This is the classic now vs future decision that plagues every contender. The Albies/Acuna contracts open up some margin for future error, but an aging JD would likely take up all that margin.
Last edited:
BeanieAntics
Arbitration Eligible
This is why I've been saying that if its at all possible for us to give JD a frontloaded contract, we need to do it. Signing JD will likely be harmful 3-4 years down the road anyway, but I think we can mitigate that by either deferring some money and/or frontloading the contract so that his pay goes down more proportionally with his declining value.
I'd be willing to give Donaldson more overall money if it were structured favorably. Would something like this make sense?:
4 years 120 million with 20 million deferred to 2024-2027
Year 1: 33 million
Year 2: 28 million
Year 3: 24 million
Year 4: 15 million
Then pay him 5 million dollars per year for the following 4 years.
The one drawback to this plan would be the massive hit to the 2020 payroll, likely leaving us with very little financial flexibility for the calendar year. But if he would accept a structure like this, we could seriously mitigate the long term negative risk associated with a similar deal with that was structured evenly or backloaded without any deferrals. In my view, paying Donaldson a 30 million dollar AAV over 4 years is close to a deal breaker. So in order to get him he is either going to have to accept a lower AAV in the 25 million dollar range, or be willing to accept a more team friendly structure like this.
This is a pretty complicated situation. Because getting Donaldson back (and keeping our prospects) is currently my favored solution to the 3rd base issue. We have fallbacks, but the only desirable one that seems somewhat reasonable is a Bryant trade headlined by Riley. So Donaldson has a good bit of leverage. But it also seems like there are certain numbers that we just can't meet without getting creative.
Hudson2
Well-known member
The thought of paying JD 33 million and then 28 makes me wanna puke. If AA were willing to do that then it would of been done a long time ago imo. AA I don’t think wants to go to 4 years and probably won’t. Something is hanging all of this up and it’s probably Bryant. If Bryant were traded tomorrow then it takes one less suitor off the board for JD but also takes another option off the board for a contender needing a 3b.
BeanieAntics
Arbitration Eligible
If we have the room to absorb 33 million, I'm fine with it in year one if it means less in years 3 and 4. Donaldson was a 5 win player for us last year and is projected for 4.5 in 2020. 33 million is a perfectly reasonable price tag for that kind of production. If he can produce 3.5-4 wins in 2021, then paying him 28 million is fine as well. The problem is the risk associated with those final two years. Those years have a much wider range of outcomes than the previous two and paying him 25-30 million a year in those years is an obvious overpay because it doesn't properly bake the risk into that final number. That is the downside to signing older players to contracts like that, you take the extreme risk of long term problems for the sake of short term production.
But I think the structure I mentioned allows Donaldson to get big pay in the years with a narrower range of outcomes, and allows us to mitigate some of the potential downside associated with the years that have a wider range. I think this is a fair compromise for both sides.
BeanieAntics
Arbitration Eligible
There are only two circumstances where I'd be a hard pass on JD at 4 years:
1. If Bryant can be had for a package mostly centered on Riley or
2. If the contract has an AAV over 25 millions and is evenly distributed or backloaded.
In regards to #1, the more I think about it the less confident I get that a Riley-centered deal gets done and I'm not willing to trade Pache or Waters for Bryant.
I'm not willing to do more than 4/100 on JD unless the money is worked around to mitigate the long term risk. But if the frontloaded deal I laid out was possible, that fourth year becomes far less of a concern for me. 15 million dollars is valuating him as a ~1.8 win player, which I don't think is terribly unrealistic. If he failed to meet that mark, absorbing a 15 million dollar hit is much easier than absorbing a 25 or 30 million dollar hit.
At this point, I don't think we're going to get JD without going to 4 years. There are just too many teams that need a 3rd baseman and too few options available. So from my standpoint, the goal should be to figure out a way to minimize the harm that the fourth year could cause.
Hudson2
Well-known member
The main thing in all of this is payroll. None of us know what it is with all the bp spending. I really doubt we have 33 million left to spend and if we did I would rather save some of it for the deadline just in case. I really like JD but I could see that contract falling flat on its face even in year 1 at 34 years old. If we paid him that much and he had a 2018 season then we are sunk bc we wouldn’t have any wiggle room to make up for it. I’d almost rather trade for Bryant as long as it doesn’t cost one of Pache or Waters.
PawPawMaxwell
Called Up to the Major Leagues
The fact remains that Braves need a cleanup batter. Circumstances make 3d the easiest place to put that cleanup batter but its not the only place one would fit.
chop2chip
Well-known member
Exactly. This type of thinking only exists in a salary cap environment.
BeanieAntics
Arbitration Eligible
Elaborate a bit more on this. I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking why a team would front load a contract instead of just paying an even or backloaded deal, investing the saved money from 2020 into something, and using the yield to cover the extra costs in future years?
If that is what you're saying, that is something I would have to think about. But it hasn't stopped teams from frontloading contracts before. Its not as common as backloading a deal, but with the extreme concerns surrounding that 4th year for Donaldson, it seems to make some sense that you'd want to pay as little as possible in those years where his value is a little more ambiguous.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
I think he is saying why front load when you could offer 3 years 85 - 90 million. Less risk for the team and the player gets his guaranteed money and still has time to get a few more one year deals if performing.
Why pay all that money up front and then still take on that fourth year even if cheaper.
Not even then. 4/100 is a hit of 25 each year no matter when its actually paid.
There is literally no benefit to front loading a contract.
BeanieAntics
Arbitration Eligible
What was the rationale from teams who have done it in the past like the Cardinals or Yankees?