What could Braun bring from the Dodgers?

[Outlander]

I don't claim to be an expert in service time rules, so if someone corrects me then they are probably correct and I am wrong.

 

You are correct from what I have read.. Before they optioned him it was well talked about in the Dodgers forums/blogs sphere that they could gain an extra year...for themselves or an eventual trade. I think he can opt out for arbitration at any point, but that does matter in all honesty. Actually I would love for him to be traded here and do that since it means he is hitting well enough to get a raise.

Baseball reference has him listed at 2.119 to start the year so don't see any way another year was gained since he played well over 53 games in the majors this year.

[JosephC]

The .119 that baseball reference lists would probably refer to 119 days of service time. That is pretty standard nomenclature. So they had Puig with 2 full seasons + 119 days. The 119 days is roughly 2/3rds of the approximate 180 days that make up a season. He'll end up accumulating roughly 150 days this year (5 out of 6 months), so that would be 119 + 150 = 269 / 180 = 1.49 seasons when added to the previous 2 seasons bring him to ~3.5 years of service which will probably be listed at sites like Baseball Reference as 3.089 (3 years + 89 days...89 days being roughly 1/2 a season).

 

All approximations but it sure appears that Puig is under team control for 3 seasons (next two are contract years, third year is an arbitration year).

[logan82]

Puig can opt out of his contract after 3 years of service time and go into arbitration.

[And That]

Players can accumulate a maximum of 172 days of service time per year, despite the fact that the regular season is regularly right about 183 days. So if Puig's service time entering the season was 2.119 and he accumulated 150 days of service time in 2016, he would have 3.097 of service time going into the 2017 season.

[Outlander]

Correct, but there is no gaining of a year of service time by putting him I'm the minors as previously stated. He was already well over the three years point. For example the Brewers gained another year by sending Peralta to the minors.

[LouisEly]

Louis even you know that is a ridiculous comparison. You mentioned why, but sort of brushed it off as no big deal. Ortiz is a DH and an extreme outlier. Such examples just hurt the point you are trying to make. No one is saying Braun will 100% decline. However I'm not going to bet he won't.

You're right, it is a ridiculous comparison because Braun is a much better athlete and is in much better shape than Ortiz (Braun has almost as many SBs this year as Ortiz has in his entire career). Braun will age better than Ortiz, allowing him to be a position player much longer.

 

Braun's top comparisons through age 31 are Larry Walker and Lance Berkman, both of whom played almost exclusively in the NL and were productive into their mid-late 30's. Injuries caught up to Walker at age 37, but he still posted a 154(!) OPS+ at age 37 and a 130 OPS+ at age 38. (Yes, he played in Denver, but he had a road OPS+ of 109 at age 36 and his age 38 season was in STL). Injuries caught up to Berkman at age 36, but still posted a 164 OPS+ at age 35 for STL, a fairly pitcher-friendly park.

 

So how about we use Walker and Berkman as examples of why he may not regress?

[MrTPlush]

So how about we use Walker and Berkman as examples of why he may not regress?

 

Using any example is pretty foolish if you ask me. Everyone is unique and just because you are more athletic and not fat doesn't exactly promise you anything. Ryan Braun has two chronic injuries to worry about(thumb and back). That isn't exactly something you want with a 30+ year old. Look I am not saying he can't be a 140 OPS+ player for the next four years...he very well could do that and I wouldn't be surprised at all. Has a lot working against him though to make that a bit questionable.

 

Regardless I would probably still trade him even if I knew he would be that kind of player for the next four years. I would rather roll the dice on the prospects and whatever money we save. I don't think we compete in 2017, HUGE maybe in 2018, and I think best case we make some noise in 2019. That gives you two years with Braun...the two years on the end of the contract...ehh.

 

Risks either way you go. If this team puts it together fast and we are competing in 2018 or putting together a division winner in 2019/2020 it would sure be nice having a 140+ OPS bat like Braun in the line-up. However you are then depending on him hitting like that years down the road from now.

[reillymcshane]

Louis even you know that is a ridiculous comparison. You mentioned why, but sort of brushed it off as no big deal. Ortiz is a DH and an extreme outlier. Such examples just hurt the point you are trying to make. No one is saying Braun will 100% decline. However I'm not going to bet he won't.

You're right, it is a ridiculous comparison because Braun is a much better athlete and is in much better shape than Ortiz (Braun has almost as many SBs this year as Ortiz has in his entire career). Braun will age better than Ortiz, allowing him to be a position player much longer.

 

Braun's top comparisons through age 31 are Larry Walker and Lance Berkman, both of whom played almost exclusively in the NL and were productive into their mid-late 30's. Injuries caught up to Walker at age 37, but he still posted a 154(!) OPS+ at age 37 and a 130 OPS+ at age 38. (Yes, he played in Denver, but he had a road OPS+ of 109 at age 36 and his age 38 season was in STL). Injuries caught up to Berkman at age 36, but still posted a 164 OPS+ at age 35 for STL, a fairly pitcher-friendly park.

 

So how about we use Walker and Berkman as examples of why he may not regress?

How about not because it is ridiculous to draw conclusions like this.

 

Braun will age well because (insert name of player) aged well. That makes as much sense as 'Braun will age poorly because (insert player's name) aged poorly.'

[adambr2]

Louis even you know that is a ridiculous comparison. You mentioned why, but sort of brushed it off as no big deal. Ortiz is a DH and an extreme outlier. Such examples just hurt the point you are trying to make. No one is saying Braun will 100% decline. However I'm not going to bet he won't.

You're right, it is a ridiculous comparison because Braun is a much better athlete and is in much better shape than Ortiz (Braun has almost as many SBs this year as Ortiz has in his entire career). Braun will age better than Ortiz, allowing him to be a position player much longer.

 

Braun's top comparisons through age 31 are Larry Walker and Lance Berkman, both of whom played almost exclusively in the NL and were productive into their mid-late 30's. Injuries caught up to Walker at age 37, but he still posted a 154(!) OPS+ at age 37 and a 130 OPS+ at age 38. (Yes, he played in Denver, but he had a road OPS+ of 109 at age 36 and his age 38 season was in STL). Injuries caught up to Berkman at age 36, but still posted a 164 OPS+ at age 35 for STL, a fairly pitcher-friendly park.

 

So how about we use Walker and Berkman as examples of why he may not regress?

How about not because it is ridiculous to draw conclusions like this.

 

Braun will age well because (insert name of player) aged well. That makes as much sense as 'Braun will age poorly because (insert player's name) aged poorly.'

 

I agree completely. There are plenty of comparable on both sides as far as good hitters like Braun, some of which have played well into their late 30s, some of which have fallen off in their early or mid 30s. Like all of us, I have no crystal ball. I think it's possible that his body breaks down in the next few years, he once again becomes injured frequently, he turns into a .750 OPS hitter, and becomes an albatross in the field. I think it's also possible he continues to mash for 4 more years, stays healthy, and propels a team to the World Series. I really don't know. Most likely, somewhere in the middle. What I do know is that none of us knows for certain what kind of baseball player Ryan Braun will be in 4 years.

 

I'd trade him. To me, the team situation is right (rebuilding, good OF prospects in the system), and the player situation is right (selling high, has not yet acquired 10/5 rights). The time makes sense. I acknowledge that there is a risk in doing so, just as there is a different risk in unloading him now.

 

To me, it comes down to this. If you put Braun's trade value post suspension on a number line from 1-10, I'd say he's at about 8.5-9 after this season. He could get a little bit higher, the longer he keeps it up. But he could get a lot, lot lower.

[AdvantageSchneider]

For those expecting Braun to significantly decline in the next 2-3 years, David Ortiz says hello. Despite the shifts employed on him, Ortiz still leads the league in doubles at age 40. David Ortiz has also played in over 146 games in a season only once since his age 30 season - he needs a few days off every year as well. I don't think Boston regrets his contract one iota.

 

.

 

When was it announced that the Brewers were moving back to the AL so that Braun could DH every game? Or did they make an announcement the NL is getting rid of the DH? I missed either or those. So Ortiz is irrelevant.

[brewerfan82]

Decided to do a very simple, small study to see what some similar players to Braun have done in their 30's.

 

Using Baseball-Reference.com I grabbed 10 players similar to Braun. Larry Walker, Lance Berkman, Matt Holiday, Carlos Lee, Raul Mondesi and Jeff Bagwell were on Braun's most similar through age 31 list. I don't think it changed the outcome much, but I left off players that played well before 2000 (Dick Allen, Wally Berger, Ted Kluszewski, and Hal Trosky) as even with standardized stats, I didn't think they'd be as comparable. I re-filled those spots with players listed similar to Walker (Guerrero and Edmonds) and Berkman (Giles and Alou). I think this was, albeit still a small sample size, a decently comparable list of players to Braun. Again, this didn't affect the outcome much, but since Mondesi was out of the game after his age 34 season, I filled his remaining OPS+ stats with 100's and WAR's with 0's, to quasi-represent his replacement player.

 

Logistics aside, here were the results:

 

 

It'd be cool to do this with a much larger sample size, but I thought it was interesting and seems to demonstrate pretty well why GM's aren't going to value Braun as if he'll continue to produce at his current level over the next 4 years. I also thought it was interesting to note that players' WAR's dropped more drastically than their OPS+'s, likely a result of degrading defense and less playing time due to injuries as they aged.

 

Anyways, there's a good chance he'll still be an above average player throughout his contract, however, if teams want to get him during his peak, all-star level years, they'll likely want him sooner than later and that's going to be reflected in the offers that opposing GM's are willing to agree upon as he ages further.

[AdvantageSchneider]

Since when have Carl Crawford, Ian Kinsler, Matt Kemp and similar ever been in the same category of Braun? Braun has produced elite numbers every season in his career minus the injury/suspension years. None of those others players come close to his offensive talent and longevity. Thats why Braun will never fall off a cliff offensively during his contract. The same people who see him declining in 2-3 years are the same people who evaluate solely through Fangraphs articles and box scores. The same people who we're begging he be traded as a salary dump because he had surgery in the off-season and other minor injuries preventing him from playing 155 games. I'll take Braun and 140 games over 95% of the MLB and 155-162 games

 

Kemp OPS+ is 125 for his career which is in the neighborhood of Braun's at 141. Prince finished at 136. I'm not making any promises he's going to go into decline in the next 4 years. I'm just saying the history, especially the recent history seems to be that these players are not aging well. And Braun has a significant injury history.

[LouisEly]

How about not because it is ridiculous to draw conclusions like this.

 

Braun will age well because (insert name of player) aged well. That makes as much sense as 'Braun will age poorly because (insert player's name) aged poorly.'

 

It's not the best comparison to say that Player A will or will not do well into their late 30's because Player B or Player C did or did not do well. What is likely the best indicators are the individual injuries a player has as well as how well the individual trains to maintain athleticism, prevent injuries, and rehab from those injuries.

Fixed to remove condescension.

 

Let's all stop with calling people ridiculous, and post more polite rebuttals if you disagree.

[MrTPlush]

How about not because it is ridiculous to draw conclusions like this.

 

Braun will age well because (insert name of player) aged well. That makes as much sense as 'Braun will age poorly because (insert player's name) aged poorly.'

 

It's not the best comparison to say that Player A will or will not do well into their late 30's because Player B or Player C did or did not do well. What is likely the best indicators are the individual injuries a player has as well as how well the individual trains to maintain athleticism, prevent injuries, and rehab from those injuries.

Fixed to remove condescension.

 

Let's all stop with calling people ridiculous, and post more polite rebuttals if you disagree.

 

I see nothing with the second thing you crossed out. They do indeed make the same amount of sense.

[A Swing and A Drive]

Bottom line is that Braun will not likely be part of the Brewers by the time they are serious contenders again.

 

It makes little to no sense to keep him.

 

The trick will be to trade him at maximum value.

 

Although Braun and his current situation (contract, age, etc) doesn't have a lot of trade value, it is true that he does still have "positive" trade value.

 

The risk of him crossing the line into him and his contract having "negative" trade value is a fine one.

 

It would take just one injury or one even half season of a decline in production and his value would flip from positive to negative and the Brewers would be likely stuck with him until his contract runs out.

 

I feel Braun himself, realizes that it would be a good time to be traded to a contender that he can help.

 

It makes a ton of sense to trade him this offseason.

 

It has also been made clear that not many teams besides the Dodgers make a fit as an offseason trade partner.

 

The Brewers have to hope the Dodgers remain interested or it could be an opportunity lost, as far as using Braun as a trade chip to help the rebuild, instead of as a mentor.

[JohnBriggs12]

For those expecting Braun to significantly decline in the next 2-3 years, David Ortiz says hello. Despite the shifts employed on him, Ortiz still leads the league in doubles at age 40. David Ortiz has also played in over 146 games in a season only once since his age 30 season - he needs a few days off every year as well. I don't think Boston regrets his contract one iota.

 

Obviously the advantage Ortiz has is being a DH. That's not an option unless the Angels magically come up with something resembling prospects. I've said before that I can easily see the Red Sox and Yankees putting on the dog-and-pony show for Braun trying to get him to remove them from his no-trade list.

 

Braun's career road OPS is .899 and at home is .926 - he's not inflating his stats at home. Pure hitters - such as Ortiz and Braun - are pure hitters.

 

Ted Williams had OPS over 1.000 through age 39. Not comparing Braun to the Spendid Splinter, but Braun's certainly been an elite hitter and had he not had the PED stuff, he'd have HOF credentials. He's worth taking a risk that he'll be productive through age 36 or 37.

[brewerfan82]

For those expecting Braun to significantly decline in the next 2-3 years, David Ortiz says hello. Despite the shifts employed on him, Ortiz still leads the league in doubles at age 40. David Ortiz has also played in over 146 games in a season only once since his age 30 season - he needs a few days off every year as well. I don't think Boston regrets his contract one iota.

 

Obviously the advantage Ortiz has is being a DH. That's not an option unless the Angels magically come up with something resembling prospects. I've said before that I can easily see the Red Sox and Yankees putting on the dog-and-pony show for Braun trying to get him to remove them from his no-trade list.

 

Braun's career road OPS is .899 and at home is .926 - he's not inflating his stats at home. Pure hitters - such as Ortiz and Braun - are pure hitters.

 

Ted Williams had OPS over 1.000 through age 39. Not comparing Braun to the Spendid Splinter, but Braun's certainly been an elite hitter and had he not had the PED stuff, he'd have HOF credentials. He's worth taking a risk that he'll be productive through age 36 or 37.

"Taking a risk" is the key phrase here. I don't think people are worried that he won't be productive at all, just not at the level that warrants his contract. You admit there is risk involved and the small study I did above demonstrates that the risk increases with every year that he plays moving forward. His peers at his age averaged an 11% drop in OPS+ and a 35% drop in WAR from their age 32 season to their age 33 season. And even more startling, a 26% drop in OPS+ and a 72% drop in WAR from their age 32 season to their age 36 season.

 

The Brewers aren't going to be competitive the next two years. And even if the rebuild is successful and they're competing 3 or 4 years from now, his least risky years are going to be wasted on a rebuilding team while we're holding onto him in hopes that the rebuild is successful and he is still an all-star player for, at most, two of his riskiest years. On the other hand, if we're going to trade him, his value is only going to decline from here on out. Other GM's know players tend to decline as they age and that Ted Williams (or even Larry Walker) is an exception to that rule. They're trading for him for the next two years when he's much more likely to still be playing at a high level, not the last two years of his contract. That makes him much more valuable to another team than to the Brewers, but only if he's traded now. Waiting only risks losing any value he has completely.

 

All that said, obviously if you can't get any legit prospects back for him, the Brewers don't have a financial reason they have to move him. But I highly doubt his value to other teams gets any higher than it is this offseason and I also don't believe the chance of the rebuild succeeding fast enough combined with the chance of Braun being highly productive long enough to contribute to the next competitive team is good enough to hold onto him for that reason. There will be a very small overlap, if any overlap at all, of those two factors which minimizes his potential value to us. Throw on top of that his ability to block *any* trade starting next year, and this offseason is the time to deal him.

[MrTPlush]

The risk of him crossing the line into him and his contract having "negative" trade value is a fine one.

 

At best he has neutral trade value where if you are lucky and the right situation came along you could dump him and his contract for a couple balls. The only way he has positive trade value is if we pick up money(which we would). However if we weren't willing to do that the suitors would not be plentiful and they would want him as a pure salary dump.

 

This is the highest his value will ever get. There is no going up at this point.

[Baldkin]

For those expecting Braun to significantly decline in the next 2-3 years, David Ortiz says hello. Despite the shifts employed on him, Ortiz still leads the league in doubles at age 40. David Ortiz has also played in over 146 games in a season only once since his age 30 season - he needs a few days off every year as well. I don't think Boston regrets his contract one iota.

 

Obviously the advantage Ortiz has is being a DH. That's not an option unless the Angels magically come up with something resembling prospects. I've said before that I can easily see the Red Sox and Yankees putting on the dog-and-pony show for Braun trying to get him to remove them from his no-trade list.

 

Braun's career road OPS is .899 and at home is .926 - he's not inflating his stats at home. Pure hitters - such as Ortiz and Braun - are pure hitters.

 

Ted Williams had OPS over 1.000 through age 39. Not comparing Braun to the Spendid Splinter, but Braun's certainly been an elite hitter and had he not had the PED stuff, he'd have HOF credentials. He's worth taking a risk that he'll be productive through age 36 or 37.

 

Dale Murphy was a 3 time MVP and put up a 157 OPS+ at age 31. He never broke 110 OPS+ again. He was all-but done by age 34.

[JosephC]

When players sign big free agent deals, generally it's assumed by the team signing the free agent that the player will not be a top producer through the entire contract. Did the Yankees think C.C. Sabathia was going to be an ace pitcher through the 2016 season? Did Detroit believe that Fielder would be a top producer in years 8 and 9 of that deal? Probably not. It seems like every time one of these deals are signed the average salary per season seems about right but the contract always seems like it should be one or two years shorter.

 

Braun type bats are worth over 20 million on the open market. Braun's remaining deal after 2016 guarantees him 80 million and the deal runs for 4 years. If the Brewer's take back McCarthy's contract, which to me truly seems like dead money to the Dodgers, it's 20 million dollars the Dodgers save and effectively brings the Braun commitment to 15 million per season. Even if Braun slips to a 2.0 WAR/season player, a 15 million dollar commitment is not a crazy number when in a market like LA. If the Brewers would take Kendrick's contract back and free the Dodgers of an additional 15 million in addition to McCarthy's 20 million, it bring the average annual value of Braun's deal down to a ridiculously cheap 11.25 million per season and Braun would not even need to maintain an average 1.5 WAR to make it worth it for the Dodgers. If Braun just repeats this year's performance next season his market value would be about 30 million and then the Dodger's have already returned about 2/3rds of the dollar value. If the Brewers take back Kendrick and McCarthy the Dodgers only really need Braun to be good through 2018 to make this deal worth it from the financial standpoint. And why would the Dodgers invest in 4 years and plan only getting two good seasons? The same reason the Tigers gave Fielder a 9 year deal when they probably could only reasonably expect to get 6 good seasons. Same for the Sabathia deal. Plan on getting good performance immediately and cross your fingers that the production still is reasonable towards the end of the deal.

 

This is why I think the contracts eaten by the Brewers play such a big role in the return for Braun. I agree with those that think if the Brewers trade for Braun straight up, with no money or other contracts involved, that Milwaukee will be a pretty modest return. But if it gets to the point where the Brewers are taking 40% of Braun's contract back then the finances become so attractive, and the risk has become so diminished, that the Brewers should get a pretty solid return for Braun.

[CheezWizHed]

If you are going to compare Braun to other players, its probably best to compare to players that had similar back issues. That is the big risk, IMO. Take away his back problems and people would be falling over themselves to trade for Braun.

[reillymcshane]

If you are going to compare Braun to other players, its probably best to compare to players that had similar back issues. That is the big risk, IMO. Take away his back problems and people would be falling over themselves to trade for Braun.

The hand issue is not insignificant either. It seems okay now, but the treatment was new. Who knows there is an issue a year from now or three or never.

[reillymcshane]

Decided to do a very simple, small study to see what some similar players to Braun have done in their 30's.

 

Using Baseball-Reference.com I grabbed 10 players similar to Braun. Larry Walker, Lance Berkman, Matt Holiday, Carlos Lee, Raul Mondesi and Jeff Bagwell were on Braun's most similar through age 31 list. I don't think it changed the outcome much, but I left off players that played well before 2000 (Dick Allen, Wally Berger, Ted Kluszewski, and Hal Trosky) as even with standardized stats, I didn't think they'd be as comparable. I re-filled those spots with players listed similar to Walker (Guerrero and Edmonds) and Berkman (Giles and Alou). I think this was, albeit still a small sample size, a decently comparable list of players to Braun. Again, this didn't affect the outcome much, but since Mondesi was out of the game after his age 34 season, I filled his remaining OPS+ stats with 100's and WAR's with 0's, to quasi-represent his replacement player.

 

Logistics aside, here were the results:

 

 

It'd be cool to do this with a much larger sample size, but I thought it was interesting and seems to demonstrate pretty well why GM's aren't going to value Braun as if he'll continue to produce at his current level over the next 4 years. I also thought it was interesting to note that players' WAR's dropped more drastically than their OPS+'s, likely a result of degrading defense and less playing time due to injuries as they aged.

 

Anyways, there's a good chance he'll still be an above average player throughout his contract, however, if teams want to get him during his peak, all-star level years, they'll likely want him sooner than later and that's going to be reflected in the offers that opposing GM's are willing to agree upon as he ages further.

 

I appreciate the work to look at this from a more logical fashion. I think the simple conclusion is that players - as a whole - will decline as they age from 33-36 (the years of Braun's contract remaining). As a whole is so important. There will always be deviations from the mean. In fact, with only 10 subjects, nobody may end up being 'average'. Guys will be lower and higher - but in the end we can make an average.

 

A couple of things to consider regarding this view:

 

1) As noted, ten subjects is not a huge number (not small either). Ideally the numbers would be higher to help make a more sound conclusion. But I think there have been studies like this. Not specifically about Braun, but aging and performance in general - and they come to this general conclusion.

 

2) A lot of the guys on the list were around in the PED era of the 2000s. While PEDs don't necessarily improve a person's performance, they can really make a difference in keeping a player healthy (and getting them healthy when they are not).

 

None of the guys on this list are Canseco-type PED guys - but it doesn't mean they didn't use something.

 

Of course, it doesn't mean Braun won't use something to help him going forward.

 

3) As someone noted, these guys might be similar to Braun stat wise, but it's health factors that are probably relevant. Understanding how guys with specific health issues - like a back problem such as Braun's - are probably more relevant. The problem is a 'back' problem is so generic. There are a hundred different ways to have a back problem. It's not like TJ surgery. It's easy to track data on a specific surgery like that.

 

Again, the general rule is that players' performance (as a whole) will fade during this age frame (33-36). To try and determine who will age poorly and who will not is a whole different matter.

 

All very interesting. Thanks for taking the time.

[MrTPlush]

Two problems Joseph:

 

#1 You are right about FA deals, but the problem is all those big deals usually starts at 30/31 not 33. That is two highly valuable years a team is not getting with Braun.

 

#2 Sure $15mil isn't bad for a 2.0 WAR player if Braun becomes that. Problem is they aren't just paying him they are also giving up valuable prospects/players too. So If he become worth his price that isn't exactly a good thing if you are the Dodgers. You need him to outplay the contract to make giving up the prospects worth it.

[brewcrewdue80]

You do realize that Puig isn't the only piece of this trade right? Yasiel Puig isn't perfect, but neither is Ryan Braun. They both have big concerns that could really put a damper on their production. We don't even know what Puig is valued at in this phantom trade. He could be just a small piece of the puzzle for all we know.

 

You are pretty concerned about Puig becoming a free agent leaving us with just a comp pick, but why not so concerned about Braun? He is controlled a grand one extra year and if we don't compete in that year not trading Braun was a huge waste leaving us with nothing. Wouldn't it be lovely to waste $80mil and get nothing out of it except Braun around a few more years? Also why are you not concerned about Braun's age or his lengthy injury history?

 

Lastly of course we can pretend and think Lara/Gatewood/etc. have a ceiling that of Puig's, but what are their chances of hitting that ceiling? 1 in a million? Difference is Puig has shown his ceiling over two years when he was a 10 WAR player in that time span. Someone like Gilbert Lara has a grand 3 HRs in 475 at-bats.

 

One can not like Puig and not support a trade for him, fine. Don't look at it from only one angle though. There is a lot of reasons to trade for Puig and that is exactly why Stearns was considering it.

 

Puig=2years of team control. Braun=4years+1option year of team control. Yes I'd take Braun's 4/80 over Puig's 2/16.45 contract and control. There's the deferred payments and already the payment of Braun's signing bonus which for Milwaukee means less than 4/80 impact. The contract on Braun lessens after two seasons so if he production reduces even to an .800 OPS vs .900 he's not grossly making too much money for the production. 4years/80 for other teams, sure can be a risk, but in 2seasons 2/34million isn't as bad a risk should you convince Braun to accept a trade. Maybe we're not as close to contending(Mets-itis of TJs) and Braun in twilight of career seeks out a contender his last 2 seasons+ potential option season. So while he'll have 10-5 rights, he's open to a trade to a contender. Whatever happens, after 2018 Braun can still be traded.

 

If you're going to hold onto Braun for 2 more years, you might as well hold onto him for 4 and hope for the best. If he's still producing, by then we should be close to contention and want to keep him anyway. If he's not, he won't be worth nearly as much anyway.

 

By waiting 2 more years on Braun, you're risking injury, decline, and Braun gaining more leverage through 10/5 rights. Doesn't make much sense to me. I have a hard time seeing his value in the next 4 years being much if any higher than it is now, but I could see it getting a lot, lot lower.

 

I've yet 2 pages to read but to reply to this. And among far to many others. Injury risk, production risk, age risk. Got it. How did that work for a competing team? such as the Yankees this season? They traded away Carlos BEltran. and got 2015's #4 pick Dillon Tate+....Nick Green&Eric Swanson. Beltran, a 39 yr old, 15million salary, 2.4BWAR over his 3 seasons with the Yankees .797OPS.

Yes someone who last exceeded 4BWAR was as a 31yr old got that kind of return without money being exchanged.

Mr. Braun at 32 now is approaching 5BWAR this season. And he'll be making 15million when 36. Now forget David Ortiz and share the comparison of that right there. Dillon Tate, a SP I said was untouchable start of July, Was traded for an aging, not wholly productive Carlos Beltran AND 2 others.

 

Take that Braun Haters on the miniscule trade offers you think is Braun's value.