There isn't an issue. He's just not a good player and it's who we spent BJ's salary on.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Winter Meetings Thread
- Thread starter rico43
- Start date
There isn't an issue. He's just not a good player and it's who we spent BJ's salary on.
There isn't an issue. He's just not a good player and it's who we spent BJ's salary on.
No. It isn't.
We signed Markakis 4 months before we got rid of BJ. We would have signed him regardless. BJ's savings were used elsewhere.
That's just a narrative to attempt to make adding BJ to the Kimbrel trade a bad decision.
This is where I think WAR went from being a progressive stat to a regressive one for the ones who take it too seriously. Frot offices use their own proprietary blend of stats and combine that with advice from trusted scouts. They don't go to fangraphs and make all of their decisions based off of WAR. You wouldn't even need a GM if that was the case as it would not require any work or thought process.
I thought it was funny when I read this:
Rizzo pointed out that it was "one of the few times the analytical information matched up with scouting eye," so perhaps that helps somewhat, given that 2015 was the season Eaton was dealing with injury and that "he comes from a high WAR as a corner outfielder, so we feel he's going to be a solid performer in center field."
I thought it was funny when I read this:
Rizzo pointed out that it was "one of the few times the analytical information matched up with scouting eye," so perhaps that helps somewhat, given that 2015 was the season Eaton was dealing with injury and that "he comes from a high WAR as a corner outfielder, so we feel he's going to be a solid performer in center field."
Yeah, I find it funny as well. It's like he's trying to spin the fact he's putting a corner outfielder in CF.
Southcack77
Well-known member
Technically the Dodgers are paying that money.
I was referring to Oliveira's contract actually.
Southcack77
Well-known member
Which is what a 1-2 WAR player is. And most peoples issues were never with his performance. It's why the Braves gave him 4 years and why they were after such a player at market value prices to begin with.
I guess I don't quite understand what the issue with giving a player a fair contract that he's absolutely earned.
If someone could quantify one way it has harmed Atlanta, I would like to hear it. They weren't contending. They didn't have prospects to play there. It's not a lot of money. He'll be 35 at the end not 40.
I'm sure they could shed the salary if it became an issue without too much problem.
I think people give him hell because he was the "marquee free agent signing" and he isn't a marquee player. But they didn't pay him like one. It's just kind of a non-event to me. He's not blocking anybody, signing someone else wouldn't really have fit the timeline particularly well. He's a perfectly respectable place holder who was acquired for his presence and probably also in the idea that he might be something that would fit on a team trying to rebuild and be respectable at the same time. Worked out (being respectable) in first half of 2015. Didn't work at all in 2016.