Short cut to competitive for money and risk

TheBravos said:
Paying Stanton 30+ million in his late 30's is madness. He can't even stay healthy now. Why don't you just go put that cash in a barrel and burn it. That's basically what you will be doing the last FOUR years (at least) of that contract.
Click to expand...

His injuries aren't of the use/overuse nor even lack of preparation. Fractured face, fractured hamate, stuff like that. Paul Molitor was glass in his 20s but as he moved into his 30s and 40s became an iron man.

Stanton could be an ongoing injury issue or he could have a long career. He's not particularly money motivated and wants to be in the HOF. He's so focused on fitness and nutrition that I think he's a pretty good bet to get through it and have a long career.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
His injuries aren't of the use/overuse nor even lack of preparation. Fractured face, fractured hamate, stuff like that. Paul Molitor was glass in his 20s but as he moved into his 30s and 40s became an iron man.

Stanton could be an ongoing injury issue or he could have a long career. He's not particularly money motivated and wants to be in the HOF. He's so focused on fitness and nutrition that I think he's a pretty good bet to get through it and have a long career.
Click to expand...

You would have to shed Nicks contract at least...a outfield of Inciarte, Stanton and Kemp/Acuna....well...not too shabby
 
TheBravos said:
How about we just sign good players to smart deals from here on out (like Inciarte), instead of taking on bad ones. We have enough farm depth coming up in the future...we should be able to only sign what we really need. No need to acquire bad contracts, because we shouldn't have very many holes to fill.
Click to expand...

That has been the Cardinals Way for a couple decades now. It has worked out pretty well for them.
 
Enscheff said:
That has been the Cardinals Way for a couple decades now. It has worked out pretty well for them.
Click to expand...

Yeah good comparison. We aren't the Yankees. "Maybe" the Stanton deal would work out, but if it went the other way (which is more likely), our team would be toast. It could literally cause another rebuild, because when our young guys that make it are ready to be signed, we would not have the money. They let Albert go for that reason.
 
TheBravos said:
Yeah good comparison. We aren't the Yankees. "Maybe" the Stanton deal would work out, but if it went the other way (which is more likely), our team would be toast. It could literally cause another rebuild, because when our young guys that make it are ready to be signed, we would not have the money. They let Albert go for that reason.
Click to expand...

We should do the same for Freeman when his contract is up.
 
There is a lot of money coming into baseball. Our horrible TV deal will one day be up. We only pay FF and JT any decent money. Inciarte is going to be a huge plus contract unless he's hurt.

We are not going to sign a huge free agent. We should be able to have a cheap and effective rotation and pen very soon with all of these arms. Spending money on an overpaid player (like we did with kemp) could be a way to get better w/o losing personnel assets.

Just like I'd take on Sandoval's contract if I could get a stud like Devers. I don't think the Sox would be that dumb but if they were desperate to clear money to take a run at Harper, Donaldson, Machado etc.... I think it's an avenue we need to consider.

I'd rather spend 30 million on Stanton than 33 million on Colon, Dickey and Neck. I know Stanton's money is guaranteed for a LOOOONG time but I don't trust Coppy to keep from signing the next Colon, Dickey and Neck to try and compete.
 
Russ2dollas said:
I'd rather play Stanton 30+ million into his late 30s than Kemp. Maybe you could stash him in LF to keep him healthy. Maybe you rest him more b/c you have an ok guy like Peterson to sub in. In 2022 we might have a DH.

If you could get what was listed in the first post (I don't think that is anywhere near good enough) then I do it in a heart beat. You might be able to sell Stanton to the Sox or Yanks as a 1B if things don't work out.
Click to expand...

That's not the choice though.

Kemp is an asset under contract and the braves have to pay him or trade him. Whether Atlanta should or should not have -- it's done.

The braves do not have to take on 10 years of the oft injured and statistically erratic Stanton.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
His injuries aren't of the use/overuse nor even lack of preparation. Fractured face, fractured hamate, stuff like that. Paul Molitor was glass in his 20s but as he moved into his 30s and 40s became an iron man.

Stanton could be an ongoing injury issue or he could have a long career. He's not particularly money motivated and wants to be in the HOF. He's so focused on fitness and nutrition that I think he's a pretty good bet to get through it and have a long career.
Click to expand...

You just said a guy who signed a 325 million dollar contract for a small market team isn't particularly money motivated.

Evidence suggests otherwise, but if he's not financially motivated the Braves can always sign him to a lesser deal when Stanton opts out in 2020 to give a bargain deal to a contender.
 
Southcack77 said:
That's not the choice though.

Kemp is an asset under contract and the braves have to pay him or trade him. Whether Atlanta should or should not have -- it's done.

The braves do not have to take on 10 years of the oft injured and statistically erratic Stanton.
Click to expand...

Nobody said they had to.

it's a risk/reward like it is with all of these decisions.

I'd risk the money and injury on Stanton if I could have him for nothing and also get 3 years of a very solid catcher in Realmuto. A lot of you would not.

I'd rather take that risk than hope Lucroy + Scrap heap starter + etc works out. I know we don't have to but Coppy has shown he's going to spend the money on something. He is going to try to win now. They are not going to do a 5-7 year tear down. They are not going to just play a high upside young guy in RF and see what happens.
 
Russ2dollas said:
Nobody said they had to.

it's a risk/reward like it is with all of these decisions.

I'd risk the money and injury on Stanton if I could have him for nothing and also get 3 years of a very solid catcher in Realmuto. A lot of you would not.

I'd rather take that risk than hope Lucroy + Scrap heap starter + etc works out. I know we don't have to but Coppy has shown he's going to spend the money on something. He is going to try to win now. They are not going to do a 5-7 year tear down. They are not going to just play a high upside young guy in RF and see what happens.
Click to expand...

I definitely would not, yes.

I was just reacting to your statement that you would rather have late 30s Stanton on your team than mid 30s Kemp on bad contracts. That isn't really the choice. I'd rather have neither.

Stanton's deal is clearly going to be an albatross from some team down the road. It's obvious right now, just like so many other deals have been obvious.

Maybe things change such that in 2028, the Braves can absorb such an albatross, but there is nothing about the org now that suggests it would be able to.
 
Southcack77 said:
I definitely would not, yes.

I was just reacting to your statement that you would rather have late 30s Stanton on your team than mid 30s Kemp on bad contracts. That isn't really the choice. I'd rather have neither.

Stanton's deal is clearly going to be an albatross from some team down the road. It's obvious right now, just like so many other deals have been obvious.

Maybe things change such that in 2028, the Braves can absorb such an albatross, but there is nothing about the org now that suggests it would be able to.
Click to expand...

The thing with some of these deals for the Braves is that when they've had a bad deal it's awful.

It would be one thing to have a guy who is paid like a 5 win player worth 3 wins in the last year or two of his deal. It's another to have a long term Braves contract where we pay guys like 3 win players and they are worth negative WAR. You can handle the first but not the latter.

To make up an example let's say you have a guy paid like a 5 win player for 10 years. If they are a 6, 5, 5, 6, 6 win guy for the first 5 then it might be ok for them to be a 4, 4, 3, 3, 3 guy on the back side. It's not ideal, but you can work around that. Maybe the guy can move to a less strenuous position. Maybe you can DH, etc.

When Braves guys have been bad they've gone from positive WAR to negative WAR. I loved the Uggla extension....wow was I wrong. And it happened almost immediately.

I'm living in a world where I think Coppy is going to spend big money on some veterans b/c he wants to win early, is required to by others and/or he believes you need some veterans on the team. In that world I can think of a situation where taking on bad money would be a good gamble for the Braves. I don't really believe they are going to draft and trade their way there....but maybe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top