Sean Murphy looks set to be a 4 WAR player for Braves, however William Contreras looks to be a 3 WAR player and is as young as Murphy but not as good a catcher. Braves give 4 young pitcher, including #1/7/9 prospects -- all have good K rates but also a lot of walks.
Contreras has yet to turn 25 (though he will in two weeks) and won't reach free agency until 2028. Murphy is 28 and hits free agency in 2026. But it does make them better. You might even argue it was specifically designed to match the Mets and Phillies, in terms of only being focused on the next 2-3 years.
Keith Law has the Brewers being the winner of the deal. Not bad for Atlanta as Murphy is a little better than Contreras, but also older with fewer years of control. None of the prospects are that great. The Phillies just don't have the depth to make trades like this.
And Bassitt to Toronto for 3/63. He is better than Walker but more expensive and 3 years older. The AAV difference would extend the Phillies further into the luxury tax. I think I prefer Walker of the 2 deals.
Bassitt also had the QO so he was probably never on the table for the Phils. Agreed he's better now but might not remain so.
I like Correa but I’m sure glad the Phils didn’t get stuck in a deal like that. It’s just hard to see that his durability is going to improve with age.
Well, it's a lower AAV than Turner. Maybe more dead money later, but possibly more WAR earlier. Small differences, presumably, but the Phillies also gave up picks and $ to sign their guy.
Turner's deal probably set the mark for Correa. He's 16 or 17 months younger, so he could ask for two years longer.
Correa turned 28 on September 22 and will be will be playing in his age 28 season next year
He'll be getting an AAV of 26.92M per season until his age 40 season.
Turner turned 29 on June 30th and will be playing in his age 30 season next year.
He'll be getting an AAV of 27.27M per season until his age 40 season.
Turner relies more heavily on his speed than Correa (and will hopefully benefit more from larger bases), but Correa has struggled to stay on the field in recent years, since 2017 Turner has played in 749 games in the regular season, Correa has played in 636.
We're in basically the same boat as the Giants, they are simply paying for two earlier seasons than we are. I think if given the choice (and knowing its not my money) I would lean towards Correa at 350/13 over Turner 300/11. But its marginal.
I tend to agree. The AAV salaries are almost the same and the age mitigates some part of the extra 2 years.
There is also the reality though that Correa is better than Turner. Looking at your since 2017 comparison that has Turner playing in 749 games as opposed to 636, one could also count WAR and see Correa slightly ahead (27.7 vs 25.9 for Turner) in those fewer games. Do the extra injuries over those 6 years mean Turner will age better? Really hard to tell given the age.
Plus there is no lost draft pick and international allocations. That alone is probably worth $20-$30 million in contract value.
Given those points I would have preferred Correa also.
I am at least comfortable with the reporting that the Phillies did their homework on all four guys, and didn't merely go with the Dombrowski's gut (which could have been Bogaerts) or sign Turner solely because Harper wanted him (if anything it sounds like Long may have tipped the balance). Of course there was also that story about fans coming up to Middleton and telling him, "Sign Trea Turner" at an Eagles game. That kind of scene was never going to play out for Correa.
It's pretty fascinating that the Dodgers seemed to stay away not just because of the $ but because the fan base didn't want someone from that Astros team. We also saw both the Dodgers and the Phillies sour on Machado from that playoff incident.
good point on the QO. That definitely makes Correa more appealing. Theres also the question of whether he would have signed for the Phillies. I do think the cheating scandal, and the fanbases likely reaction to him as a result does make him less appealing.
In an alternate universe would signing Correa for 350/13 and Rodon for say 7/200 and still losing the picks/international money be preferable to Turner for 300/11 and Walker for 72/4?
The total money would be 550 vs 372 and the combined AAV would be 55.5 vs 45.27. Signing a 30 year old pitcher to a contract of that size/length is probably a bit scary. No doubt hed be a significant upgrade over Walker for the next 2-3 years but the downside is much greater.
Probably some truth to that, though it remains to be seen if that is locked in (and FWIW Turner's numbers - OBP and OPS - are slightly better as a #2 and #3 hitter even though he's been #1 about 2/3rds of his career). Also no real reason why Correa couldn't lead off (has a slightly higher career OBP than Turner, would fit the "give you best hitter the most ABs" approach. No stolen bases though).
Either way I'm not sure that's a good enough reason to prefer the older, more expensive, QO'ed player if all else was equal (and it may not even be equal if Correa is also slightly better). But that was obviously not the only reason the Phillies preferred Turner, and there was never much indication Correa was interested in the Phillies either.
To your point, Zombonir, the strength of the relationships Trea had with critical personnel and the fact that he was vocal and direct about wanting to be here sealed the deal and helped overcome the QO / draft capital considerations.
DD almost always gets his guy and the Phillies are a hot destination right now, so I sincerely doubt we would've walked away from the dance with none of the "Big 4" FA short stops - but when a top player wants to play for you and has as much going for him as Trea does, it's tough to look that gift horse in the mouth to try and thread a tighter needle.
It would be fun to look into an alternative universe to see how a Machado / Correa Phillies team would've performed, tho. Harper was the true pivot point for so many of these "this or that" roster decisions.
Swanson to the Cubs. 7/$177. That's going to create a hole in the Braves' lineup that won't be easy to fill.
I kind of doubt that. They are the Braves, after all. I think they made the Murphy deal knowing Swanson was already gone, and they've got SS options internally. Maybe some pitching, or an OF (they've got Ozuna and also plan to DH D'Arnaud). If they spend $ it might be to extent Murphy.
