|
Post by bentossaurus on Nov 16, 2014 21:01:11 GMT -5
I think this actually may mean something. Moncada's signing bonus will blow whatever bonus allowance the Cubs have, no matter what they trade for. This would be basically trading for 800k less of taxes to be owed to MLB. Relatively trivial for a team like the Cubs, unless they plan to stay within their allowance (and overage before penalties). The Cubs are limited to 250k bonuses for this signing period. They become a viable option if 1) he doesn't get cleared before June 2015 or 2) They convince him to wait until July 2 2015. The Braves are the ones receiving the 800k+ in allotment. But it means nothing for Moncada because he is certainly going over any team's pool. Incurring the 100% tax. 800k is pennies in a transaction like that. This is the crucial part I misread. I recant my previous post.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Nov 16, 2014 21:06:09 GMT -5
Cubbie story says cubs get the slot. Would allow them to get a couple extra 300k players.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 16, 2014 21:26:42 GMT -5
So, he turns down the $15M for one year, for 4 years at $13.5M. Eye opening for a catcher type. He,'ll probably like Wrigley too, though the numbers should return to his career norms.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 16, 2014 21:36:47 GMT -5
Here is the full breakdown of the trade from MLBTR to avoid any more confusion:
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Nov 16, 2014 22:16:51 GMT -5
So, he turns down the $15M for one year, for 4 years at $13.5M. Eye opening for a catcher type. He,'ll probably like Wrigley too, though the numbers should return to his career norms. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you meant to write 4 years at 16 M.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 16, 2014 23:34:38 GMT -5
So, he turns down the $15M for one year, for 4 years at $13.5M. Eye opening for a catcher type. He,'ll probably like Wrigley too, though the numbers should return to his career norms. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you meant to write 4 years at 16 M. You've got that right. I misread it as 54 instead of 64. Amazing amount for a catcher, no? Maybe this is a reflection of the valuation of pitch framing.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 17, 2014 11:46:30 GMT -5
Rosenthal and Gammons are both reporting that the Blue Jays might be in on Martin at that price as well. Looking deeper into it, it's not unreasonable. Brian McCann is getting $68M over the next four years, and I'd argue that Martin is the clear better player right now, though he's also a year older. What catchers out there are certainly better than Martin? Posey and Molina, sure. Maybe Weiters and Lucroy? Catchers who get on base are a tough find, and Martin's crummy 2010 season is further in the past.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Nov 17, 2014 12:02:19 GMT -5
Remember when the Yankees didn't want to go 3 years on Martin?
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Nov 17, 2014 12:04:43 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal ?@ken_Rosenthal Source: Martin deal with #BlueJays is five years, $82M.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Nov 17, 2014 12:09:21 GMT -5
Chris Cotillo ?@chriscotillo #STLCards acquire Jason Heyward and Jordan Walden from the #Braves for Shelby Miller and Tyrell Jenkins.
Wow.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,755
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Nov 17, 2014 12:13:01 GMT -5
Well that sucks
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 17, 2014 12:13:40 GMT -5
Remember when the Yankees didn't want to go 3 years on Martin? Remember when the Dodgers non-tendered him? Even without the benefit of hindsight both seemed pretty questionable.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Nov 17, 2014 12:13:42 GMT -5
Peter Gammons ?@pgammo Told Toronto got Martin for "McCann money" 5 year deal, per Jon Heyman. That makes a lot more sense to me - 4/$64 seemed a little light for an above-average hitting, excellent defensive catcher who's also a very good pitch framer. Also interesting to see the Blue Jays finally open their pocketbook - looks like they're finally realizing they'll have to spend some money if they want to win while Bautista/Encarnacion are still cheap and elite.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 17, 2014 12:14:43 GMT -5
Helluva deal for the Cardinals.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,414
|
Post by ianrs on Nov 17, 2014 12:15:48 GMT -5
Disappointed the Red Sox weren't more aggressive in matching that offer (for Heyward).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 17, 2014 12:18:30 GMT -5
Disappointed the Red Sox weren't more aggressive in matching that offer (for Heyward). Who is the Red Sox equivalent of Shelby Miller? If the Braves were focused on established, cost-controlled starting pitching then the Red Sox weren't going to be players.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 17, 2014 12:18:50 GMT -5
Disappointed the Red Sox weren't more aggressive in matching that offer (for Heyward). Yeah. Jesus. The Braves could definitely gotten more than that. And of course it had to be the Cardinals.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 17, 2014 12:21:13 GMT -5
Disappointed the Red Sox weren't more aggressive in matching that offer (for Heyward). Who is the Red Sox equivalent of Shelby Miller? If the Braves were focused on established, cost-controlled starting pitching then the Red Sox weren't going to be players. Joe Kelly, no?
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Nov 17, 2014 12:22:37 GMT -5
Who is the Red Sox equivalent of Shelby Miller? If the Braves were focused on established, cost-controlled starting pitching then the Red Sox weren't going to be players. Joe Kelly (and I do that comparison without looking heavily into stats). You might want to go back and do so
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Nov 17, 2014 12:22:52 GMT -5
Who is the Red Sox equivalent of Shelby Miller? If the Braves were focused on established, cost-controlled starting pitching then the Red Sox weren't going to be players. Joe Kelly (and I do that comparison without looking heavily into stats). Seriously, they're closer than you'd think. Nearly identical in FIP, K/9, and WHIP in 2014.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Nov 17, 2014 12:24:51 GMT -5
Disappointed the Red Sox weren't more aggressive in matching that offer (for Heyward). Who is the Red Sox equivalent of Shelby Miller? If the Braves were focused on established, cost-controlled starting pitching then the Red Sox weren't going to be players. I would guess RDL or Kelly would be the closest comps, but they are both lower value in terms of ceiling and team control. Braves also gave up a decent reliever and got back a low level pitching prospect (22 in A ball, eta 2017, 45 over grade per MLB.com) I wonder if J. Upton is still in play, and if he would require more or less to acquire. (Who do the Braves value more??)
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 17, 2014 12:25:51 GMT -5
Joe Kelly (and I do that comparison without looking heavily into stats). Seriously, they're closer than you'd think. Nearly identical in FIP, K/9, and WHIP in 2014. Yeah I revised that into Joe Kelly, no? Unless the Braves scouting valued Shelby Miller differently than most would I would think we could have offered Kelly and been competitive. Especially adding a more lucrative piece than Jenkins.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 17, 2014 12:26:05 GMT -5
Miller is two and a half years younger than Joe Kelly. Heck, he's four months younger than Matt Barnes. Also, 2013 counts. Miller met some resistance in his second pro season, but he's a 24-year old who is already an established starter, who has stayed healthy enough to throw 350 innings the last two years, and still has the stuff that made him the #16 prospect in baseball two years ago. His walk rate is significantly lower than Kelly's. They aren't close.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 17, 2014 12:27:12 GMT -5
Joe Kelly (and I do that comparison without looking heavily into stats). Seriously, they're closer than you'd think. Nearly identical in FIP, K/9, and WHIP in 2014. Except for that 2 1/2 year difference in age. Seriously, Shelby Miller is younger than Matt Barnes, Anthony Ranaudo, etc., and has 2.5 years experience already. Not really any comparable for the Sox if that's the kind of player ATL wanted.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Nov 17, 2014 12:27:13 GMT -5
If the Cardinals do not resign Heyward, is this still a good deal for them?
|
|