Dansby Swanson Already Proving He Belongs

thewupk said:
Mac's a great example of what should happen with Swanson. Buy out a few FA years and let him get his big contract elsewhere. We got the best years of Mac and the Yankees essentially paid for it.
Click to expand...

Mac and almost all young impact players typically sign away FA years so they can still hit the market at age 30, so Swanson might extend through his age 29 season (1 FA year).

And what will be the cost for that age 29 season? Likely 2x the cost it would have been if he were controlled through arbitration.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Arizona was in much better shape to contend after 2015 than the Braves will be after 2016. They went out and signed a legitimate ace on the FA market and mortgaged their future in trade for Miller. Where are they now?

I was around for that worst to first team and this team isn't THAT team. And THAT team was extremely lucky in a lot of ways. Do you really think the Braves will sign a reclamation project who will go on to win the NL MVP this offseason?

It's two different teams, two different eras, two different situations. THAT team was at the end of a FIVE year rebuild. This team is just finishing it's 2nd.
Click to expand...

Never say never
 
chop2chip said:
I agree with this wholeheartedly, but I find the retrospective head shaking funny. It's a message board where we debate baseball. Who cares if ensheff gloats a bit when Kemp messes up in the field or when the posibraves post "but he's not ready". Its just good-natured ribbing.
Click to expand...

I don't, personally. I'd just like some variety/originality—or at least a cursory google-image search:

no-wait-im-not-ready-dog-hit-by-a-frisbee.jpg
 
Enscheff said:
Mac and almost all young impact players typically sign away FA years so they can still hit the market at age 30, so Swanson might extend through his age 29 season (1 FA year).

And what will be the cost for that age 29 season? Likely 2x the cost it would have been if he were controlled through arbitration.
Click to expand...

Those are possible outcomes. So it signing him into his early 30's.
 
sturg33 said:
Regardless of when we sign him, it will be more expensive than had we waited.
Click to expand...

You are right. But as was pointed out earlier do you really think the Braves go with an internal guy to start 2017 at short? Or do you think a 1 year stop gap is signed? How much would said stop gap cost? Do you think having Albies and Swanson hit FA at the same time is a good move? Or would you want to delay Albies until a month into 2018 assuming service time issues don't change? I doubt the extra 10 million or whatever it would be in that season is really going to be that big of a deal.
 
thewupk said:
Those are possible outcomes. So it signing him into his early 30's.
Click to expand...

Even if that happens his age 29 season will be much more expensive than it should have been. I have a hard time envisioning how they are going to make that money up with Swanson this season, or how they are going to afford to bring an equal player at the same price when he leaves.

The point is they managed his value sub-optimally. It is a fact that no amount of homerism or hypotheticals are going to change.
 
thewupk said:
You are right. But as was pointed out earlier do you really think the Braves go with an internal guy to start 2017 at short? Or do you think a 1 year stop gap is signed? How much would said stop gap cost? Do you think having Albies and Swanson hit FA at the same time is a good move? Or would you want to delay Albies until a month into 2018 assuming service time issues don't change? I doubt the extra 10 million or whatever it would be in that season is really going to be that big of a deal.
Click to expand...

That's if he signs away his age 29 season. Another hypothetical to defend a sub-optimal move.
 
thewupk said:
I think the assumption that he's automatically gone after 6 years is the sub-optimal thought process.
Click to expand...

Is it that hard for you to grasp that Swanson will either be gone for his age 29 season, or cost significantly more during his age 29 season? And that the only reason that is the case is because they decided they wanted ~200 MLB PAs for him during the lost 2016/2017 seasons?

How anyone can defend this is mind boggling.
 
Enscheff said:
Is it that hard for you to grasp that Swanson will either be gone for his age 29 season, or cost significantly more during his age 29 season? And that the only reason that is the case is because they decided they wanted ~200 MLB PAs for him during the lost 2016/2017 seasons?

How anyone can defend this is mind boggling.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a big deal. I doubt the Braves are going to be hard up for 10 million dollars in 2023 either. Because that money is going to be able to get a lot done 7 years from now.
 
Enscheff said:
Is it that hard for you to grasp that Swanson will either be gone for his age 29 season, or cost significantly more during his age 29 season? And that the only reason that is the case is because they decided they wanted ~200 MLB PAs for him during the lost 2016/2017 seasons?

How anyone can defend this is mind boggling.
Click to expand...

Your never going to understand anything the Braves are doing if you are conceding 2017.
 
We'll pay Swanson when the time comes. After all isn't that the purpose of Suntrust Park to be able to keep a team together for a long stretch??
 
Can we be on the level for a second?

Swanson is probably not going to be one of the best SS in the game and he almost certainly isn't going to be any kind of franchise player. So, arguing over his age 29 season control or talking about locking up his arbitration years is probably much ado about not a whole lot.

But I certainly am on the side of the argument that says there was no real reason to bring him up this year as he was scuffling in AA, has publicly been complaining about how "tired" he is, and the Braves suck this year and there is a decent chance they will suck next year. They could easily have saved the year of control and broken him in an low pressure environment next year.

He'd also have been a new thing to keep interest high in the first year of the stadium.

But lord have mercy does it matter this much?
 
Enscheff said:
I think that Swanson will do what 95% of all MLB FAs do: go where the most money is offered. Are we really going to rehash the tired and worn out "home town discount" argument? How many home town discounts have the Braves gotten since the one time Andruw signed behind his agent's back? Mac left. Glavine left. Maddux left. Smoltz left. Heyward would have left when the Braves didn't offer him $185M. And on and on.

Even if the Braves somehow sign him to a contract that includes his age 29 season, they will almost certainly be paying more for that season than they will have paid if it was his last arb year.

So the best case scenario is the right to pay Swanson ~2x the amount for his age 29 season than they would have by manipulating his service clock? How exactly is that a point in favor of calling him up early? You are defending a decision where the absolute best case scenario costs the Braves an additional $10M+ for Swanson's age 29 season?
Click to expand...

There are the Teheran and Simmons contracts. I think perhaps that is more what is being referred to than a home town discount, but otherwise you are correct I think.
 
All this debating has me confused. I was under the impression that under the current CBA, there is no difference in the number of years you control a player if he is on season opening roster than if you called him up August etc the prior year. Is that not true?

There was no way we were gonna keep Dansby down long enough to gain a year. However, with the injury, etc to Ozzie, maybe we can keep him in the minors until post June next year or whatever it takes to gain a year with him. Actually I doubt that happens either after Ozzie tears it up next Spring, etc.
 
Eyeman said:
All this debating has me confused. I was under the impression that under the current CBA, there is no difference in the number of years you control a player if he is on season opening roster than if you called him up August etc the prior year. Is that not true?

There was no way we were gonna keep Dansby down long enough to gain a year. However, with the injury, etc to Ozzie, maybe we can keep him in the minors until post June next year or whatever it takes to gain a year with him. Actually I doubt that happens either after Ozzie tears it up next Spring, etc.
Click to expand...

That is correct. Swanson would of needed to be kept down until mid April or so to gain an extra year.
 
Enscheff said:
Mac and almost all young impact players typically sign away FA years so they can still hit the market at age 30, so Swanson might extend through his age 29 season (1 FA year).

And what will be the cost for that age 29 season? Likely 2x the cost it would have been if he were controlled through arbitration.
Click to expand...

And that number will no doubt break the franchise and they'll have to fold.

Wait a second, does Kevin Maitan play SS? Or anyone else they might draft in the next 6 years?

Didn't someone mention something about moronic posts earlier???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top