Official 2022 Offseason Moves Thread

[Super]

If he prefers to stay with the Braves over taking more money, he will stay with the Braves.

don’t you dare try and kill my anti-labor vibe.

[GovClintonTyree]

I completely agree with you. It is a hard decision and truly could play out either way. Luck in the events following Freddie signing or not- a free agent hitting or not, guys getting hurt or not, prospects panning out or not, Freddie staying healthy or not- will determine success or failure just as much as the contract itself, and those are all unknowns until they happen. This is why I would side with you and favor flexibility to deal with those unknowns, but you can make a reasonable argument to take the bird in hand now. One thing is for sure: we'll have a lot of revisionist history experts in 4-5 years claiming that they were right all along.

If we win it will be "I told you signing Freddie was brilliant! He is the anchor of this franchise." or "I never wanted to sign Freddie- the free agents we brought in with the money saved have been better than that old guy."

If we lose it will be "I told you signing Freddie would limit our flexibility and destroy our contention window." or "As I expected, the collapse began when we decided to let the face of the franchise go win a World Series with the Dodgers."

Maybe 35-35-30-30-20-20=>$170M would be less painful and fit with the need to reposition assets in years 5-6?

[McCann'sCans]

Maybe 35-35-30-30-20-20=>$170M would be less painful and fit with the need to reposition assets in years 5-6?

Definitely *less* painful in my view, but being locked in to years 5 and 6 would still be quite painful at $20m if he is toast.

[thethe]

Front loading contracts is not a smart financial move.

[DirkPiggler]

Front loading contracts is not a smart financial move.

Neither is paying 40 year olds for production they gave (and were not paid market value for) in their 20s and early 30s.

[thethe]

Neither is paying 40 year olds for production they gave (and were not paid market value for) in their 20s and early 30s.

I'm not in the we need to sign Freeman camp.

Just saying that front loading contracts is not smart business.

[DirkPiggler]

I'm not in the we need to sign Freeman camp.

Just saying that front loading contracts is not smart business.

Fine. Show your work. What is your justification for this statement? I've provided reasoning as to why I think in this specific instance it would be beneficial to the team.

[thethe]

Fine. Show your work. What is your justification for this statement? I've provided reasoning as to why I think in this specific instance it would be beneficial to the team.

Dollar is worth more today than it is in the future.

Braves are getting a new TV deal that will increase revenues.

The Battery will continue to develop and generate more revenues.

[Enscheff]

Frontloading doesn't do much good, tbh. You're stuck with a bad contract regardless. Backloadingthe contract makes a bit more sense, imo. And not simply because the value of money over time. Imo, you pay him less while he is still playing at an elite level, because you want to add as many good pieces to the team as you possibly can while Freeman is still playing great. That makes it more likely we can win another title in our window.

Realistically, our window is unlikely to remain open more than 4-5 years anyways, unless payroll goes up dramatically and stays there.

Front loading for the Braves only makes sense if, and only if:

1. The Braves are sitting on a lot of unexpected 2021 revenue, and
2. The corporation will just take that extra money as profit, or apply it to debt.

If both those statements are true, and the decision is to apply cash now to Freeman's contract vs letting Liberty Media take it as profit, then it might make sense to give Freeman a lump sum up front and let the time value of that cash help the team in that sense. Paying him $30M now means they don't have to pay him $35M 5 years from now.

If it's "spend it or lose it", then spend it on Freeman now so they don't have to spend as much later.

Of course, that may all be a bunch of stupid talk, and not at all how the Braves finances work, but it's a scenario where front loading makes sense.

[thethe]

Front loading for the Braves only makes sense if, and only if:

1. The Braves are sitting on a lot of unexpected 2021 revenue, and
2. The corporation will just take that extra money as profit, or apply it to debt.

If both those statements are true, and the decision is to apply cash now to Freeman's contract vs letting Liberty Media take it as profit, then it might make sense to give Freeman a lump sum up front and let the time value of that cash help the team in that sense.

If it's "spend it or lose it", then spend it on Freeman now so they don't have to spend as much later.

Of course, that may all be a bunch of stupid talk, but it's a scenario where front loading makes sense.

Even in this situation then you could still have escalating salaries and then just go balls out to repeat in 2022 (Freeman/Marte/Soler/Kimbrel/etc....)

[Enscheff]

Even in this situation then you could still have escalating salaries and then just go balls out to repeat in 2022 (Freeman/Marte/Soler/Kimbrel/etc....)

The point is to avoid a rebuild 5 years from now, which that doesn't address. Using money today to prevent a rebuild in 5 years does.

The Braves have literally just proven why "going for it" doesn't work. They bested teams who spent way more.

[thethe]

The point is to avoid a rebuild 5 years from now, which that doesn't address. Using money today to prevent a rebuild in 5 years does.

The Braves have literally just proven why "going for it" doesn't work. They bested teams who spent way more.

Aside from Freeman none of those guys would be around in five years and you'd still have the financial flexibility of increased revenue streams in the out years of Freemans deal.

[Enscheff]

Aside from Freeman none of those guys would be around in five years and you'd still have the financial flexibility of increased revenue streams in the out years of Freemans deal.

You just can't stop getting stuck on points that don't prove what you think they prove.

I say "use the extra cash now to increase flexibility later". You say "use the extra cash now to increase WS chances now". You then somehow try to justify the different opinion by pointing out revenue growth that will be the same in either scenario, and therefor isn't a point in favor of your opinion. This is basic logical thought.

We should all understand by now that the best way to win a WS is to get to the playoffs as often as possible. Trying to "go for it" in any particular year is a colossal waste of resources.

Of course this all is probably a wasted discussion because the Braves internal accounting probably doesn't work in the way required for frontloading to make sense.

[clvclv]

Frontloading doesn't do much good, tbh. You're stuck with a bad contract regardless. Backloadingthe contract makes a bit more sense, imo. And not simply because the value of money over time. Imo, you pay him less while he is still playing at an elite level, because you want to add as many good pieces to the team as you possibly can while Freeman is still playing great. That makes it more likely we can win another title in our window.

Realistically, our window is unlikely to remain open more than 4-5 years anyways, unless payroll goes up dramatically and stays there.

I completely agree with you. It is a hard decision and truly could play out either way. Luck in the events following Freddie signing or not- a free agent hitting or not, guys getting hurt or not, prospects panning out or not, Freddie staying healthy or not- will determine success or failure just as much as the contract itself, and those are all unknowns until they happen. This is why I would side with you and favor flexibility to deal with those unknowns, but you can make a reasonable argument to take the bird in hand now. One thing is for sure: we'll have a lot of revisionist history experts in 4-5 years claiming that they were right all along.

If we win it will be "I told you signing Freddie was brilliant! He is the anchor of this franchise." or "I never wanted to sign Freddie- the free agents we brought in with the money saved have been better than that old guy."

If we lose it will be "I told you signing Freddie would limit our flexibility and destroy our contention window." or "As I expected, the collapse began when we decided to let the face of the franchise go win a World Series with the Dodgers."

As a blatant old-school and face of the franchise guy, these are the reasons I'm all for finding a way to make the money work and having Alex push his chips in now.

The Astros are coming off three World Series appearances in five years - with a couple of breaks, they could have been the next version of the Giants of the early 2010s. Even though they didn't quite pull it off I don't think their fans will regret it even though it will wind up costing them Correa here at the end. For whatever reason, their fans have always seemed to embrace Altuve more than him - and he's likely going to retire having been an Astro for his entire career.

The same situation now exists here - if Alex pushes his chips in and adds Reynolds and another SP like Castillo, the vast majority of the core will be in place for another 3-4 years and he'll still have pitching depth and several prospects with legitimate upside in place to step in when Dansby walks and he needs another OFer. Just as in Houston, there will be a group of fans that will say "I'd rather have had Acuna or Ozzie finish his career as a Brave". The difference is that the majority would prefer it's Freeman doing that since he's the one that the face of the franchise has more or less been passed to from Chipper - and Ronald and Ozzie will have a *elluva lot more value than he will in 4-5 years when you're starting a rebuild.

[thethe]

You just can't stop getting stuck on points that don't prove what you think they prove.

I say "use the extra cash now to increase flexibility later". You say "use the extra cash now to increase WS chances now". You then somehow try to justify the different opinion by pointing out revenue growth that will be the same in either scenario, and therefor isn't a point in favor of your opinion. This is basic logical thought.

We should all understand by now that the best way to win a WS is to get to the playoffs as often as possible. Trying to "go for it" in any particular year is a colossal waste of resources.

Of course this all is probably a wasted discussion because the Braves internal accounting probably doesn't work in the way required for frontloading to make sense.

So I guess we shouldn't try to sign the best players possible with a potential surplus? Just throw it all at Freeman so we can pay him less in his out years?

[DirkPiggler]

So I guess we shouldn't try to sign the best players possible with a potential surplus? Just throw it all at Freeman so we can pay him less in his out years?

Under the assumptions Enscheff and I have outlined, paying Freeman more in 2022 doesn't preclude the team from signing enough good players to make another postseason run.

[Russ2dollas]

So I guess we shouldn't try to sign the best players possible with a potential surplus? Just throw it all at Freeman so we can pay him less in his out years?

It makes sense to frontload the contract if Liberty gives us a hard cap. If they say we can only spend X million in a season, then it can make sense to pay FF 30 million now while you're paying Acuna 15 b/c in 6 years you want to pay Acuna 30 million.

X will likely change over time, but paying FF now so you can pay Riley, Acuna, Albies etc later makes sense to me.

[Russ2dollas]

I hope we do not spend prospect capital on a 1B. Lots of bats are available that can be impact bats.

I do wonder if he can get KMarte or Renyolds though.

[thethe]

It makes sense to frontload the contract if Liberty gives us a hard cap. If they say we can only spend X million in a season, then it can make sense to pay FF 30 million now while you're paying Acuna 15 b/c in 6 years you want to pay Acuna 30 million.

X will likely change over time, but paying FF now so you can pay Riley, Acuna, Albies etc later makes sense to me.

You'll still have the benefit of the Battery/New TV deal in the out years to manage a straighlined or escalating Freeman contract.

Right now we have the benefit of paying Acuna/Albies/Riley/Fried dirt. I liken this to the late 90s yankees when they had the core 4 cheap and were able to compliment the roster with their excess funds. We should be doing the absolute same thing now.

If in fact we do have this 1 year surplus then we could sign Freeman/Verlander/Marte/Soler/Kimbrel/etc....

Of course it doesn't guarantee a thing but I'll go to war with that squad.

[50PoundHead]

The point is to avoid a rebuild 5 years from now, which that doesn't address. Using money today to prevent a rebuild in 5 years does.

The Braves have literally just proven why "going for it" doesn't work. They bested teams who spent way more.

That's the point I was going to make. The other angle I think about is that even if money loses value over years due to inflation (always has/always will), matching money to expected production needs to be taken into account. Say you give Freeman $160-$180 MM over six years. If you front load that, he would be easier to unload if his production were to fall off in the last two years of his contract and/or you would have more money available to replace the expected erosion in Freeman's production.