Yelich

[Southcack77]

The thing is everybody worries about the back end of Stanton's contract. But, if you could get him AND Yelich without having to give up premium prospects like Albies then chances are, even if you get stung a bit by the back in of Stanton's contract, it would still be worth it because of the value of the guys you're not trading away today.

Stanton is already 27 and he's been often injured and at times he's struggled to simply be good. You want to make a massive bet on his declining years simply to avoid trading away prospects that may or may not ever been above average major leaguers? That doesn't make any sense at all. They only way you take on a 30 million dollar a year contract is if you are extremely confident that player is going to be outstanding. You don't eat 10 years of a bad contract to reduce acquisition costs. That's nuts.

Particularly when the return is just someone like Yelich on a pretty decent deal.

 

[Russ2dollas]

Stanton is already 27 and he's been often injured and at times he's struggled to simply be good. You want to make a massive bet on his declining years simply to avoid trading away prospects that may or may not ever been above average major leaguers? That doesn't make any sense at all. They only way you take on a 30 million dollar a year contract is if you are extremely confident that player is going to be outstanding. You don't eat 10 years of a bad contract to reduce acquisition costs. That's nuts.

Particularly when the return is just someone like Yelich on a pretty decent deal.

They do it in other sports. Why is it nuts?

The Padres took Upton's money and then flipped Kimbrel for much more than they spent.

IF you spend 30 million on one guy and 20 million on another 2, then you are going to need a bunch of guys in their initial team control years to contribute.

 

[smootness]

If it takes one elite prospect from the (Allard, Soroka, Maitan, Albies, Acuna) group and 2 from the (Newcomb, Touki, Anderson, Wentz, Riley, TD, Gohara types) group --- do you guys bite?

Depends on which ones. Soroka, Touki, and TD? In a heartbeat. Maitan, Anderson, and Gohara? No way.

 

[nsacpi]

I would guess the Marlins would give up Stanton and Yelich for a top 20 prospect. or 2 top 50 prospects.

 

[Enscheff]

Agree. I said that in Harry's other Marlins blockbuster thread.

It would be ok if Stanton was good but overpaid. Kinda like Kemp, but hopefully better. The issue the Braves have had is that 3 WAR players like BJ go to negative WAR players instantly. If Stanton is a 4+ WAR player at the beginning of th deal and at the end of his deal is a 3 war player for a couple of years and ends as a 2 war player then you likely have won the gamble.......Sorry for that terrible sentence construction.

Teams always, always, always overpay at the end of a huge contract. That is by design. They are paying later for the wins a star player provides NOW. Therefore, it only makes sense to acquire such players if the team is ready to benefit from those wins NOW.

 

[smootness]

They do it in other sports. Why is it nuts?

The Padres took Upton's money and then flipped Kimbrel for much more than they spent.

IF you spend 30 million on one guy and 20 million on another 2, then you are going to need a bunch of guys in their initial team control years to contribute.

There's a pretty huge difference. In basketball, teams acquire expiring contracts. Even BJ had, what, 3 years left on his deal?

Stanton has 11 1/2 years left on his deal.

 

[Enscheff]

The Stanton deal is insanely bad. He is guaranteed huge money through age 38 AND has an opt out at age 30. There is essentially zero chance that contract is anything other than a bad deal for the team.

 

[Southcack77]

They do it in other sports. Why is it nuts?

The Padres took Upton's money and then flipped Kimbrel for much more than they spent.

IF you spend 30 million on one guy and 20 million on another 2, then you are going to need a bunch of guys in their initial team control years to contribute.

You basically are asking the Braves to gamble on their ability to deal with 25-30 million dollars/yr in sunk costs just so they can acquire Yelich "cheaply"

I would never do that.

If Stanton were making 30 million through 2020 and the Marlins attached him to the deal, I'd think about it. At least then you would have some hope he'd live up to most of the contract and would have a reasonably close exit. 2028? Uh uh.

 

[Southcack77]

The Stanton deal is insanely bad. He is guaranteed huge money through age 38 AND has an opt out at age 30. There is essentially zero chance that contract is anything other than a bad deal for the team.

Shoot, the opt out is the best thing about his deal. At least there is a small chance you might get out of it.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

The thing is the FO is going to spend money to at least try to create the illusion that they are competing. If you look at this offseason, there is very little that you would want to throw really big money at and not a tremendous amount that fits the needs of the Braves. Essentially you have Moustakas at 3B where the Braves probably have to compete with the Yankees who also need 3B. You have LuCroy at catcher who is really 3 years too old for any kind of big contract at this point. Not much at all in the OF.

If you really want to change the core of the team without giving away significant talent that you just spent several painful years acquiring, then the Stanton deal is one way to do. But there is risk.

 

[Enscheff]

Shoot, the opt out is the best thing about his deal. At least there is a small chance you might get out of it.

An opt out is never good. If the player is projected to be worth more than his current contract and opts out, the team just lost an asset with excess value.

No player is going to opt out unless he has surplus value and can get more money on the open market. There are 2 scenarios, neither of which is good for the team:

1. the player is worth less than the remaining contract and the team is stuck with a negative asset, or
2. the player is worth more, opts out, and the team loses a positive asset.

The presence of that opt out guarantees the team will not benefit from any surplus value after the year of the opt out.

 

[sturg33]

Shoot, the opt out is the best thing about his deal. At least there is a small chance you might get out of it.

Agreed... I'm not sure why everyone hates opt outs (I believe I recall Braves FO saying they would NEVER give one)

If it's exercised, that means the player performed well and you get out of a potential bad long term deal

If it's not exercises, you're in the same spot you were

 

[Southcack77]

An opt out is never good. If the player is projected to be worth more than his current contract and opts out, the team just lost an asset with excess value.

No player is going to opt out unless he has surplus value and can get more money on the open market. There are 2 scenarios, neither of which is good for the team:

1. the player is worth less than the remaining contract and the team is stuck with a negative asset, or
2. the player is worth more, opts out, and the team loses a positive asset.

The presence of that opt out guarantees the team will not benefit from any surplus value after the year of the opt out.

If I'm the Braves and I trade for Stanton's terrible contract so that I can get Yelich without giving up prospects and then Stanton has a nice run and decides he can get someone to pay him more money though his age 38 season, I'm pleased as punch.

I acquired an asset without giving up much in prospects (I'm just going with the rather doubtful scenario presented), I get a couple of apparently very good seasons out of Stanton, and I'm relieved of a terrible albatross. That's a great outcome.

 

[TheBravos]

The thing is the FO is going to spend money to at least try to create the illusion that they are competing. If you look at this offseason, there is very little that you would want to throw really big money at and not a tremendous amount that fits the needs of the Braves. Essentially you have Moustakas at 3B where the Braves probably have to compete with the Yankees who also need 3B. You have LuCroy at catcher who is really 3 years too old for any kind of big contract at this point. Not much at all in the OF.

If you really want to change the core of the team without giving away significant talent that you just spent several painful years acquiring, then the Stanton deal is one way to do. But there is risk.

Yes. If I'm the new owner...getting rid of that deal is my #1 priority. I don't care if I need to start over, I get rid of that deal. We give them a solid young position player for each they loose....Rio, DPete , Flowers, add some other prospects in like say Wisler, Blair, Sims. If I am a owner, I do whatever it takes. We still keep our young core, and the contracts we assume are the only ones (besides Freeman) we have long term. These type deals come very rarely, but they do happen. If we do it smart, we gain core long term players without giving anyone up of importance. The only bad thing is Stanton, and he could help the offense for years before he becomes a liability.

 

[Enscheff]

The thing is the FO is going to spend money to at least try to create the illusion that they are competing. If you look at this offseason, there is very little that you would want to throw really big money at and not a tremendous amount that fits the needs of the Braves. Essentially you have Moustakas at 3B where the Braves probably have to compete with the Yankees who also need 3B. You have LuCroy at catcher who is really 3 years too old for any kind of big contract at this point. Not much at all in the OF.

If you really want to change the core of the team without giving away significant talent that you just spent several painful years acquiring, then the Stanton deal is one way to do. But there is risk.

The Braves need to just chill this offseason. Maybe add someone like Lackey on a 1 year deal to fill out the rotation. Maybe add a RHed 4th OFer if they don't think Lane Adams is good enough.

An OF of Kemp, Inciarte, Markakis and a properly used RHed 4th OFer is respectable.

An IF of Freeman, SRod, Swanson and some combination of Garcia/Ruiz/Camargo while Albies finishes up in AAA is fine.

A bench of Ruiz/Garcia, Camargo, Matt Adams, Lane Adams (or some other RHed 4th OFer), and a catcher is a legit bench.

A rotation of Teheran, Folty, Lackey (or some other FA) and tossing guys like Sims, Newk and Wisler to the wolves to start the season while Allard and Soroka gain polish in AA/AAA is exactly what rebuilding teams need to be doing.

The Braves are NOT going to win next year. Any move that attempts to win next yer is a bad move.

In 2019, when the IF is setteld as Swanson, Freeman and Albies, and the rotation is set with Teheran, Folty, and the survivors from Sims/Newk/Wisler/Allard/Soroka, and the OF contains Inciarte and Acuna, THEN it makes sense to make additions. It will make sense to add a fairly significant piece at 3B or C or LF.

Until then, do what rebuilding teams do....wait.

 

[Southcack77]

Agreed... I'm not sure why everyone hates opt outs (I believe I recall Braves FO saying they would NEVER give one)

If it's exercised, that means the player performed well and you get out of a potential bad long term deal

If it's not exercises, you're in the same spot you were

I've often wondered about using opt outs as a way of giving a player more incentive to signing a short term overpay.

Let's say a player has an offer on the table for 5 years/100 million. 20 million per.

Let's say for whatever reason, young team of controlled stars perhaps, the Braves have flexibility to overpay for the front end. And they offer 30 million over the first two years, with 12 million in years 3-5 for total deal of 96 million, with an opt out after the first two. Rarely see those kinds of deals. I would think the advantage is all to the player in that scenario, but it also suits the need of the club in a specific circumstance.

You just don't see front loaded deals much though.

 

[Jay212033]

yea I agree with you, that package wouldn't be enough.

If I chose different players from within my rough tiers; maybe I get there with just 3 guys.

Like instead of Albies, Touki, Riley; how about Acuna, Anderson and Gohara? That's probably more realistic and you still might have to throw in something extra; but with the rapid-rise of Acuna maybe you wouldn't.

So that's the question, would you guys do Acuna, Anderson and Gohara for Yelich? I would.

No

 

[Jay212033]

I think Eaton is the right comp... and packages should start there.

I'd be willing to package Albies and Newcomb for Yelich.

This plus I'd even toss in Touki to sweeten the deal.

 

[Jay212033]

Could you guys imagine an OF of Yelich - LF/RF, Inciarte - CF, Acuna - RF/LF?!

I'd trade Albies, Newcomb, Sims and Toussaint for Yelich

 

[clvclv]

yea I agree with you, that package wouldn't be enough.

If I chose different players from within my rough tiers; maybe I get there with just 3 guys.

Like instead of Albies, Touki, Riley; how about Acuna, Anderson and Gohara? That's probably more realistic and you still might have to throw in something extra; but with the rapid-rise of Acuna maybe you wouldn't.

So that's the question, would you guys do Acuna, Anderson and Gohara for Yelich? I would.

I've always been one who says "nobody's off-limits", but given where we are in the rebuild the 6 I mentioned are as close as it gets for me. You're talking about 60% of our rotation within the next two years, a starting OF with an arguably higher ceiling than Yelich in Acuna, and our starting 2B next season - all making the minimum. I'd certainly be game if they wanted to talk about building a package around one of Gohara/Anderson, one of Demeritte/Riley, one of Touki/Fried/Wentz, plus one of Peterson/Ruiz.

You mention the danger of falling in love with certain prospects too much, and while I agree to an extent, it's just really hard for me to see anyone with a good enough contract for me to get on board with even continuing to talk if the discussions start to include Acuna or Maitan - their ceilings are just too high for me personally.