Powering Up

clvclv said:
If there had been any other way to do it at the time, I'm sure they'd have considered it. Much like the Bonifacio signing (and several early ones the previous winter), they seemed to move a little too fast there. You're right that another (and possibly better) opportunity to rid themselves of CJ MIGHT have presented itself had they been patient IMO. Of course those things are always easy to see after the fact - quite a few people were so happy that CJ was gone that they were thrilled with the deal (myself included). Several things have happened since then that have changed that. At least they cleared the money - which was the goal to begin with - even if they didn't completely maximize the return. They get a bit of a pass from me since they accomplished the "big picture" goal, but we'll all always wish they could've done a little bit better.
Click to expand...

I'm under no illusion that we were going to net a top 100 prospect for Chris Johnson. My only point is that I wish they had thought a bit more long term in what came back instead of getting two guys who were bound for the scrap heap (sooner rather than later as it turned out).
 
sturg33 said:
The trade didn't need to be made... The Braves could have very easily and simply accrued the money from the 2016 to budget and applied it to the 2017... this wasn't that complicated.
Click to expand...

There is zero reason to assume that leftover money in each years payroll rolls over to the following year.
 
Carp said:
There is zero reason to assume that leftover money in each years payroll rolls over to the following year.
Click to expand...

It's not "leftover money"... it's just accruing it to next year's payroll.

It's simple accounting.

My guess is that the Braves thought they could kill two birds with one stone... the money was a wash, and they thought they could get a more productive player(s) in Bourn/Swisher than Chris Johnson. It didn't work out... no big deal.

But they didn't need to make the trade to save money in 2017... that could've been done with a simple accrual to the payroll
 
Carp said:
There is zero reason to assume that leftover money in each years payroll rolls over to the following year.
Click to expand...

he expressed this view months ago with certainty that that's how things work despite having no evidence or reason to believe any franchise has ever operated like that. take it with a grain of salt and ignore.
 
sturg33 said:
It's not "leftover money"... it's just accruing it to next year's payroll.

It's simple accounting.

My guess is that the Braves thought they could kill two birds with one stone... the money was a wash, and they thought they could get a more productive player(s) in Bourn/Swisher than Chris Johnson. It didn't work out... no big deal.

But they didn't need to make the trade to save money in 2017... that could've been done with a simple accrual to the payroll
Click to expand...

I know exactly what it is. And there is zero reason to assume the Braves (or any franchise for that matter) would do that in this scenario. Payrolls don't generally work that way.
 
yeezus said:
he expressed this view months ago with certainty that that's how things work despite having no evidence or reason to believe any franchise has ever operated like that. take it with a grain of salt and ignore.
Click to expand...

If the Braves don't or can't operate this way, they should fire their accountants.

The company I'm in accrues millions of dollars in 2015 for expenses they know will occur in 2016.

This is as simplistic as it gets.

I am not sure why acknowledging this offends so many of you.

Again - it was a no risk proposition. They thought maybe Bourn or Swisher could be of more value than Chris Johnson... it didn't cost them an extra dime, so they thought it was worth the gamble.
 
sturg33 said:
If the Braves don't or can't operate this way, they should fire their accountants.

The company I'm in accrues millions of dollars in 2015 for expenses they know will occur in 2016.

This is as simplistic as it gets.

I am not sure why acknowledging this offends so many of you.

Again - it was a no risk proposition. They thought maybe Bourn or Swisher could be of more value than Chris Johnson... it didn't cost them an extra dime, so they thought it was worth the gamble.
Click to expand...

you have no reason to assume any franchise operates their payroll this way. do you have any evidence this is how any team has ever operated their payroll? you're making criticisms based on an assumption that likely isn't true.
 
sturg33 said:
If the Braves don't or can't operate this way, they should fire their accountants.

The company I'm in accrues millions of dollars in 2015 for expenses they know will occur in 2016.

This is as simplistic as it gets.

I am not sure why acknowledging this offends so many of you.

Again - it was a no risk proposition. They thought maybe Bourn or Swisher could be of more value than Chris Johnson... it didn't cost them an extra dime, so they thought it was worth the gamble.
Click to expand...

Is your company owned by a parent company that completely controls your payroll?
 
yeezus said:
you have no reason to assume any franchise operates their payroll this way. do you have any evidence this is how any team has ever operated their payroll? you're making criticisms based on an assumption that likely isn't true.
Click to expand...

I believe the Braves paid Mike Hampton this way during his tenure there.

We saved a ton of money upfront, but allocated an average annual salary over the course of his contract so we didn't get burdened with the big dollars towards the end of it.
 
sturg33 said:
I believe the Braves paid Mike Hampton this way during his tenure there.

We saved a ton of money upfront, but allocated an average annual salary over the course of his contract so we didn't get burdened with the big dollars towards the end of it.
Click to expand...

So, one "maybe" example from 20? years ago.

I just don't buy that this is how teams operate, and I've never heard of a team operating that way. If that's how it worked, sure, it seems pretty obvious...which adds to my thought that it doesn't work that way.
 
yeezus said:
So, one "maybe" example from 20? years ago.

I just don't buy that this is how teams operate, and I've never heard of a team operating that way. If that's how it worked, sure, it seems pretty obvious...which adds to my thought that it doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand why the concept upsets you so much. You get all riled up every time it is brought up.

I don't know if the Braves operate that way or not. But it is about as standard of a business practice as there is. It's not absurd of me or any rational human being to think that it is something that can be done in MLB.

I looked it up on my work cpu earlier and was able to find a blog that said that the Braves spread out the payments for Hampton's contract... I'll link it tomorrow if needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top