Two Scenarios

nsacpi

nsacpi

Expects Yuge Games
Scenario 1 Heyward at 8 mil in 2015 and 25 mil in 2016-2018. Total projected WAR of 18 (4.5 per year) for $83 mil.

Scenario 2 Markakis at 44 mil over 2015 to 2018. Total WAR of 5. Miller and Jenkins generate 9 WAR with a total salary of 20 mil from 2015 to 2018. Total WAR from Markakis and Miller 14 at a cost of 64 mil.

Projections for salaries and wins in each scenario are my own. Other people will come up with different projections.

Anyhow on to the last step. Scenario 1 generates 4 more wins but at an additional cost of 19 mil.

The question then becomes whether in today's market you think those 19 mil extra will allow you to buy those 4 wins. I will note that most contracts being signed this season suggest an average market price per win around 9M or so. That would leave us 2 wins better in the first scenario.

This little exercise suggests that it is a closer call than I would have expected. Though I think things tip a little further in favor of scenario 1 when you consider that Jordan Walden was also shipped out. At least for a four year horizon, I like Scenario 1 better. But there is a complicating factor having to do with Jason presumably being signed for longer than 3 or 4 years at 25M/year. If it is a really long deal it takes us into his declining years.
 
It's pure conjecture on my part but I think Heyward will be going for more than a 3 year deal. If he has a great year in 2015, he'll get the longer contract. If he continues at his same level or trends downward would you want him for another 3 years at 25mil/year?

Which leaves me with Scenario 2.
 
BedellBrave said:
It's pure conjecture on my part but I think Heyward will be going for more than a 3 year deal. If he has a great year in 2015, he'll get the longer contract. If he continues at his same level or trends downward would you want him for another 3 years at 25mil/year?

Which leaves me with Scenario 2.
Click to expand...

If he has a great year in 2015 he will get more than 25M and it will be a very long contract. But I am addressing the situation as it presented itself this post-season. From what I gather Heyward's agent was asking for something along the lines of 25M/year for ten years. If he was asking for that presumably a negotiation would have led to something either shorter or a lower AAV or maybe a little of both.
 
BedellBrave said:
But 3 years? Just doesn't seem like a realistic scenario upon which to make the comparison.
Click to expand...

I chose the 2015-2018 period so I could cut off the analysis at the year Markakis' contract expired and Miller hits free agency. No because that is what I think would be the length of Heyward's contract.

Realistically I think we could have signed Heyward for 25M/year for 8 years, which would have taken him to his age 32 season. Probably for a bit less, but we'll never know. So if you want to extend the analysis for the 2019 to 2024 period, you need to ask whether Heyward would have been productive enough during those five years to justify the freight. Imo looking at it over the longer period further strengthens the case for scenario 1. Under scenario 2 the money coming off the books after 2018 would presumably have to be spent at a time when the cost of a win is even higher.
 
I just think to get him for those 3 years by which you make the comparison would require the additional years which makes the comparison artificial. If that makes sense - and it's late and my brain doesn't work that well to begin with so it probably doesn't make sense. :)
 
I'm glad I did this exercise. It clarified a few things for me. If you look at just the 2015-2018 period, you have a case but not an overwhelming one for scenario 1. The case becomes quite a bit stronger if you extend it out to the latter years of an imagined contract for Jason.

The other thing it clarified is if you take ramadon's information about Jason's salary demands (the number $200 million sticks out in my mind), then even with that (whether it be 25M/year for 8 or 20M/year for 10, or even 25M/year for 10) the case for going for scenario 1 is a strong one.

It goes without saying there are many uncertainties. Would Jason have settled for a little less. Say 22-23M. What kind of career will he have over the next ten years. There is uncertainty from Markakis, Miller and Jenkins. But less given it is spread out over three players (the principle of diversification at work).

Finally, there is variance in the year to year expenditure pattern that comes into play. For 2015, we have more flexibility with scenario 1 than scenario 2 interestingly enough. But scenario 1 gives us less flexibility thereafter. This is potentially a non-trivial issue depending on what the budget for 2016 and 2017 turn out to be.

There are a host of other little wrinkles. For example, Jason could play center for a couple years, but Markakis can't. Given our current roster configuration this is the kind of subtle little thing that is not captured by just adding up dollars and WAR.
 
nsacpi said:
I'm glad I did this exercise. It clarified a few things for me. If you look at just the 2015-2018 period, you have a case but not an overwhelming one for scenario 1. The case becomes quite a bit stronger if you extend it out to the latter years of an imagined contract for Jason.

The other thing it clarified is if you take ramadon's information about Jason's salary demands (the number $200 million sticks out in my mind), then even with that (whether it be 25M/year for 8 or 20M/year for 10, or even 25M/year for 10) the case for going for scenario 1 is a strong one.

It goes without saying there are many uncertainties. Would Jason have settled for a little less. Say 22-23M. What kind of career will he have over the next ten years. There is uncertainty from Markakis, Miller and Jenkins. But less given it is spread out over three players (the principle of diversification at work).

Finally, there is variance in the year to year expenditure pattern that comes into play. For 2015, we have more flexibility with scenario 1 than scenario 2 interestingly enough. But scenario 1 gives us less flexibility thereafter. This is potentially a non-trivial issue depending on what the budget for 2016 and 2017 turn out to be.

There are a host of other little wrinkles. For example, Jason could play center for a couple years, but Markakis can't. Given our current roster configuration this is the kind of subtle little thing that is not captured by just adding up dollars and WAR.
Click to expand...

How?
 
BedellBrave said:
How?
Click to expand...

See post 5. Basically it has to do how strong Heyward's performance will continue to be in his late 20s and early 30s, and salary inflation. Let's assume he declines to 3 wins per year during this phase. So we are paying 8 M/win over that period. Well, today's market price for a win is already over that. If you after the 2018 season you have 25 M to play with (scenario 2) you're not likely to be able to use that to get 3 wins.
 
BedellBrave said:
But compared to whom then? What's the Scenario 2 for then? Couldn't we have younger players then that get those wins?
Click to expand...

We could have younger players under either scenario. In either one, for example Justin Upton could be traded for prospects. What differs in the longer term is the 25M that is tied up to Heyward under scenario 1 and the 25M that is freed up after 2018 in scenario 2. My point is when the time comes to "re-invest" that money after 2018 you aren't going to find a better investment that the 25M going to Heyward.
 
[MENTION=89]nsacpi[/MENTION] just skimming over this thread are you saying the best course of action would have been to sign Heyward to a 3 year / $75 million deal after this year (2015 season), and trade Justin for prospects?
 
blueagleace1 said:
[MENTION=89]nsacpi[/MENTION] just skimming over this thread are you saying the best course of action would have been to sign Heyward to a 3 year / $75 million deal after this year (2015 season), and trade Justin for prospects?
Click to expand...

No I'm saying even at 25M year for 8 years, that would have been a better course than acquiring Markakis, Miller, Jenkins plus an extra $5M/year of financial flexibility.
 
With the way inflation is going, by the time Heyward's deal ends a new MLB tv contract would come into play. The back years of Heyward's contract would be a discount if the TV deals get bigger and bigger each time.
 
I think you have to compare Markakis, Miller, Jenkins with Heyward and Walden. That is the true scenario that Hart has done, so far. Not to mention some of the lesser deals.
 
BJ#1FAN said:
With the way inflation is going, by the time Heyward's deal ends a new MLB tv contract would come into play. The back years of Heyward's contract would be a discount if the TV deals get bigger and bigger each time.
Click to expand...

That and you would lock in Heywards cost. By then what would the market value for an average player be? 20 million?
 
thewupk said:
That and you would lock in Heywards cost. By then what would the market value for an average player be? 20 million?
Click to expand...

Guess Hart and JS figured since the new stadium is in a predominant white suburban area, no need for a great black player for marketing. I mean, you don't get much more Braves Country than the name Shelby Miller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top