Official 2022 Offseason Moves Thread

[Dalyn]

Your mom’s house.

I didn't know we were siblings.

[thethe]

I didn't know we were siblings.

In laws probably.

Not naturally related

[JohnAdcox]

In laws probably.

Not naturally related

I can't believe that I am desperate enough for even a sniff of hot stove rumors to actually read this crap. ;-)

[zitothebrave]

So playing around with anagrams here, to just blatantly steal from Mike Adams and try and guess who our future first baseman will be.

Anthony Rizzo has 2 "Oh No Hazy Ritz" and "Izzat No Horny"

Matt Olson has the food friend "Total Noms" the who knows what it would mean "Mans Lotto" and the musical "Most Tonal"

Freeman with his too many vowels comes up with the most clear message "Reaffirmed Need" But I'm here for the "Effed Remainder"

[Heyward]

Cubs and Correa have mutual interest per reports. They dont wanna go 10 years but may go 10 years if there's an opt out after year 2 or 3.

[Enscheff]

A player opt out is a negative for a team, so why in the world would they give him 10 years and an opt out if they already don’t want to give him 10 years?

This “rumor” sounds like something someone misunderstood. More likely the Cubs could give a high AAV deal with an opt out. Or perhaps a 10 year deal that’s front loaded with an opt out after the first couple high AAV years.

[Southcack77]

If you sign a player to an eight year deal that extends into his decline, I think your ideal result is that he's awesome for three and opts out.

That's a hell of a lot better in my view than having him in a straight 8 year deal.

Your worst case isn't an opt out it's the player not opting out. But that's a certainty in a straight 8 year deals so what's the advantage of that really?

[Heyward]

I dont think 10 for Correa with no opt outs is even that bad. Not like he's 31-33 right now. He's only 27 and would take him to his age 37-38 season. Maybe the last year or two is bad, i'm interested to see if he gets the kinda deal he thinks he can get. Lindor money or more than that is what he wants. 10 with an opt out after year 2 or 3 means he can hit the market again at age 30.

[bravesfanforlife88]

I dont think 10 for Correa with no opt outs is even that bad. Not like he's 31-33 right now. He's only 27 and would take him to his age 37-38 season. Maybe the last year or two is bad, i'm interested to see if he gets the kinda deal he thinks he can get. Lindor money or more than that is what he wants. 10 with an opt out after year 2 or 3 means he can hit the market again at age 30.

The opt out after 2-3 years would make sense for him. He has produced in a very hitter friendly park in Houston, if he does it again (Wrigley is even more hitter friendly), he could take advantage of a longer track record, plus 2-3 years of salary inflation.

[Enscheff]

If you sign a player to an eight year deal that extends into his decline, I think your ideal result is that he's awesome for three and opts out.

That's a hell of a lot better in my view than having him in a straight 8 year deal.

Your worst case isn't an opt out it's the player not opting out. But that's a certainty in a straight 8 year deals so what's the advantage of that really?

No, it’s not. The ideal result would be he’s awesome for 3 years, and then you trade him away for his remaining surplus value because you didn’t give him an opt out. Another ideal outcome is the player is awesome for 8 years and helps the team win a lot of games. None of those ideal results are available to teams if they give a player an opt out, so they are severely limiting their upside while still bearing all the downside.

I’m not sure why fans have a hard time understanding that opt outs have positive value for players at the time the contract is signed. Always. Correa could take a ~5 year deal with an opt out after 2-3 years, or a team could lower the total value of a 10 year contract in order to give him an opt out.

[Southcack77]

No, it’s not. The ideal result would be he’s awesome for 3 years, and then you trade him away for his remaining surplus value because you didn’t give him an opt out. Another ideal outcome is the player is awesome for 8 years and helps the team win a lot of games. None of those ideal results are available to teams if they give a player an opt out, so they are severely limiting their upside while still bearing all the downside.

I’m not sure why fans have a hard time understanding that opt outs have positive value for players at the time the contract is signed. Always. Correa could take a ~5 year deal with an opt out after 2-3 years, or a team could lower the total value of a 10 year contract in order to give him an opt out.

At the three year mark you would cut ties regardless. Betting on his last five years being awesome is for suckers. It won't be worth it.

Maybe you could trade it, maybe you couldn't, but if you get three years and are done then the deal turned out just fine.

[Enscheff]

At the three year mark you would cut ties regardless. Betting on his last five years being awesome is for suckers. It won't be worth it.

Maybe you could trade it, maybe you couldn't, but if you get three years and are done then the deal turned out just fine.

This is the same incorrect logic folks always try to use when claiming opt outs are good for teams. And they are always wrong.

Opt outs are a positive for players, period. Adding an opt out makes the contract more valuable for the player, always. How things “turned out” is irrelevant to the value of the opt out at the time the contract was signed.

[Enscheff]

Stearns
3:27 Small, Turang and Mitchell for Olson. What do you think?
Mark P
3:27 The A's could get more from another team, or demand more from Milwaukee

That’s a proposal involving a 45+ and a couple 45s, so I agree with Mark.

A package from the Braves of Contreras, Waters and a good arm easily tops that package.

[clvclv]

This is the same incorrect logic folks always try to use when claiming opt outs are good for teams. And they are always wrong.

Opt outs are a positive for players, period. Adding an opt out makes the contract more valuable for the player, always. How things “turned out” is irrelevant to the value of the opt out at the time the contract was signed.

Since players and agents are so high on opt-outs these days, I wonder if AA couldn't find a way to propose something that would protect the club (to some extent) from huge decline years from Freddie while making him even more of a "bad guy" if he takes the opt-out? Say something like 6 years/$165 million with three opt-outs coming after 2024. Have it break down as...

$5 million signing bonus

2022 - $35 million
2023 - $35 million
2024 - $35 million
2025 - $20 million team option or he can opt-out
2026 - $20 million team option or he can opt-out
2027 - $15 million team option or he can opt-out


That kind of structure would really put the "how much do you REALLY want to play your entire career as a Brave?" question squarely in his court like Chipper's deals did. He gets paid big for his MVP and World Series resume to chase another flag up front while the revenues are available and Acuna, Ozzie, Riley, and Fried are still "cheap" and in their primes. If he's still producing and they're still contenders when he's 35 (2025), they can exercise Ozuna's buyout and use that money to pay Fried or Riley. If he's still producing and they're still contenders when he's 36, he's still getting paid. If they want him back when he's 37, he'll still be paid as a 1.5 WAR player to DH - roughly the same as Ozuna now.

If he chooses to exercise ANY of the opt-outs it will be clear to everyone - fans included - that he is simply chasing the money because the Braves made him one of the highest-paid players in the game while it was reasonable to expect he'd be physically capable of putting up MVP-caliber numbers and carrying a team, and they were still willing to pay him for a couple seasons beyond that to compile more counting stats to add to his legacy as a Brave.

[clvclv]

Quiet MiLB signings that have flown under the radar...

Arms:
Rob Griswold - https://www.mlb.com/player/rob-grisw...nors&year=2021, https://www.baseball-reference.com/r...d=griswo000rob, https://www.liuathletics.com/sports/...-griswold/1176

Francisco Romero - https://www.mlb.com/player/francisco...nors&year=2021, https://www.yardbarker.com/general_s...16493_36738296


Position Players:
Yariel Gonzalez - https://www.mlb.com/player/yariel-go...nors&year=2021, https://www.fangraphs.com/players/ya...position=1B/3B, https://motorcitybengals.com/2021/06...riel-gonzalez/

Jordan Cowan - https://www.milb.com/player/jordan-cowan-643268, https://www.baseball-reference.com/r...d=cowan-000jor

[zitothebrave]

This is the same incorrect logic folks always try to use when claiming opt outs are good for teams. And they are always wrong.

Opt outs are a positive for players, period. Adding an opt out makes the contract more valuable for the player, always. How things “turned out” is irrelevant to the value of the opt out at the time the contract was signed.

I never understood the logic. Team options are good for teams. Opt outs are strictly good for players. Either you likely will get more money and you opt out or you think you'll make less money and don't opt out.

[Southcack77]

This is the same incorrect logic folks always try to use when claiming opt outs are good for teams. And they are always wrong.

Opt outs are a positive for players, period. Adding an opt out makes the contract more valuable for the player, always. How things “turned out” is irrelevant to the value of the opt out at the time the contract was signed.

Contracts don't have to be, and generally aren't, zero sum games.

The beauty of contract is that the parties have different motivations and goals and sometimes the interests of one party can be met in full while also meeting the goals of the second party in full.

If a player has an awesom three years and then opts out that's not a loss to the team that signs him.

Demanding blood from the counter party is a tactic favored mostly by people with personality disorders.

But that's enough of that. Merry Christmas!

[Enscheff]

$5 million signing bonus

2022 - $35 million
2023 - $35 million
2024 - $35 million
2025 - $20 million team option or he can opt-out
2026 - $20 million team option or he can opt-out
2027 - $15 million team option or he can opt-out

The numbers are pretty clearly guesses, but this demonstrates EXACTLY why an opt out is valuable to a player in all scenarios. The exact numbers may be off, but the idea is sound.

In your example, the team was able to lessen the maximum downside risk in exchange for giving up any chance of benefiting from Freeman aging well. They essentially take the absolute best and worst case scenarios off the table entirely.

If the ask from Freeman is 6/180, then if he takes something like 6/150 guaranteed with the chance to turn it into 3/100 plus the opportunity to opt out and top the remaining 3/50 (needing 3/80 to reach his ultimate goal of 180) that might be a good framework.

I could see something like this working out for AA and Freeman. The most likely scenario in that deal is a Freeman declines in his mid 30s and becomes essentially what Rizzo is now…and the Braves would be paying him roughly the type of money Rizzo is looking to get right now. The added value to the player provided by the opt out (there it is, as always) allows the Braves to mitigate the long term risk.

[50PoundHead]

I never understood the logic. Team options are good for teams. Opt outs are strictly good for players. Either you likely will get more money and you opt out or you think you'll make less money and don't opt out.

Case Study Numero Uno: Jason Heyward

[Enscheff]

We’ve seen enough contracts with opt outs run to completion now that someone should be able to put together a study on them. I’d be interested to see just how often players actually opt out, and how often the team was stuck with the tail end of a crappy deal.

Folks love explaining how the player will magically opt out and save the team a headache, but I’m confident that hasn’t been the case.