Official Offseason Thread

Jon Heyman
‏
Verified account

@JonHeyman
2h2 hours ago
More
Twins like Nats are said to have been very aggressive in bid to land star 3B Josh Donaldson. Big question is whether incumbent Braves will match 4 years. Belief is their intention was to stop at 3, but things can change in free agency. Dodgers, Rangers seen unlikely to go 4.
 
bravesfanforlife88 said:
Jon Heyman
‏
Verified account

@JonHeyman
2h2 hours ago
More
Twins like Nats are said to have been very aggressive in bid to land star 3B Josh Donaldson. Big question is whether incumbent Braves will match 4 years. Belief is their intention was to stop at 3, but things can change in free agency. Dodgers, Rangers seen unlikely to go 4.
Click to expand...

Man... Heyman (clv #1 fan) is really doing some heavy hitting these days.
 
bravesfanforlife88 said:
Jon Heyman
‏
Verified account

@JonHeyman
2h2 hours ago
More
Twins like Nats are said to have been very aggressive in bid to land star 3B Josh Donaldson. Big question is whether incumbent Braves will match 4 years. Belief is their intention was to stop at 3, but things can change in free agency. Dodgers, Rangers seen unlikely to go 4.
Click to expand...

The Nats offer may be 4 years, but almost certainly with a lot of cash deferred since that's their way of lowering the true cost of these huge deals.
 
Enscheff said:
The Nats offer may be 4 years, but almost certainly with a lot of cash deferred since that's their way of lowering the true cost of these huge deals.
Click to expand...

Absolutely brilliant strategy. I'm surprised more teams aren't doing this and trusting their investment managers to get a return higher than the PV of the total deferred money.
 
[TW]1208095852549550080[/TW]

Evan is indeed at it again.

That said, the Rangers actually make sense here and they have a ton of money to spend.
 
thethe said:
Absolutely brilliant strategy. I'm surprised more teams aren't doing this and trusting their investment managers to get a return higher than the PV of the total deferred money.
Click to expand...

Deferring money on 7+ year deals seems like a great strategy for a GM, being that the likelihood of a GM lasting longer 7-8 seems fairly low anyways. However, this will end up costing the Nats quite a bit of financial flexibility in about 3 years when Soto and Robles are in their prime. Of course, the Nats may not be competitive by then anyways, so it may not matter.

Deferring 15 million or more on 3-4 year deal seems extremely dumb for any team to do and I hope the Nats do it if they do end up signing him.
 
Last edited:
UNCBlue012 said:
[TW]1208095852549550080[/TW]

Evan is indeed at it again.

That said, the Rangers actually make sense here and they have a ton of money to spend.
Click to expand...

Think about what this article just proposed. Following the logic sequence...

1. The Rangers offered Rendon 6/195 (32.5 AAV), and would have gone 7 years (7/230?).
2. Rendon ultimately signed for 7/245. Did Boras really not try to get the Rangers to top that offer? Doubtful.
3. Therefore, the Rangers absolute max offer for Rendon was something less than 7/245.
4. Arenado is owed 7/234 with an opt out that increases the overall value for the player.
5. But that's right around the dollar value they were willing to pay for Rendon, so they can afford it.
6. And they will be willing to give up a 3-4 player package headed by their best prospect(s).
7. For the right to pay Arenado the absolute max amount of cash they were willing to give Rendon.
8. Oh, and Arenado will agree to leave a losing team for another losing team because he idolized Beltre...huh?

So to get this straight, this author is suggesting the Rangers would be willing to give out the max dollars they were willing to spend at 3B, and in addition to that, also give up a prospect package that will nearly gut their mediocre farm system.

Does that logic sequence make sense to anyone? Why would the Rangers do that? Would they give that same package to the Angels for Rendon and $10M?
 
Last edited:
Carp said:
Deferring money on 7+ year deals seems like a great strategy for a GM, being that the likelihood of a GM lasting longer 7-8 seems fairly low anyways. However, this will end up costing the Nats quite a bit of financial flexibility in about 3 years when Soto and Robles are in their prime. Of course, the Nats may not be competitive by then anyways, so it may not matter.

Deferring 15 million or more on 3-4 year deal seems extremely dumb for any team to do and I hope the Nats do it if they do end up signing him.
Click to expand...

It depends on what the accounting looks like and how the money is considered against the cap. I dont know the answer to that but cash outflow might not be the indicator that goes against the cap.
 
Also about Arenado like all Colorado players... gotta watch for those splits:

For his career:

Coors Field: .995 OPS
Away: .799 OPS

Coors Field: 130 wRC+
Away: 109 wRC+
 
Enscheff said:
Think about what this article just proposed. Following the logic sequence...

1. The Rangers offered Rendon 6/195 (32.5 AAV), and would have gone 7 years (7/230?).
2. Rendon ultimately signed for 7/245. Did Boras really not try to get the Rangers to top that offer? Doubtful.
3. Therefore, the Rangers absolute max offer for Rendon was something less than 7/245.
4. Arenado is owed 7/234 with an opt out that increases the overall value for the player.
5. But that's right around the dollar value they were willing to pay for Rendon, so they can afford it.
6. And they will be willing to give up a 3-4 player package headed by their best prospect(s).
7. For the right to pay Arenado the absolute max amount of cash they were willing to give Rendon.
8. Oh, and Arenado will agree to leave a losing team for another losing team because he idolized Beltre...huh?

So to get this straight, this author is suggesting the Rangers would be willing to give out the max dollars they were willing to spend at 3B, and in addition to that, also give up a prospect package that will nearly gut their mediocre farm system.

Does that logic sequence make sense to anyone? Why would the Rangers do that? Would they give that same package to the Angels for Rendon and $10M?
Click to expand...

I read that they were interested in an offer for Rendon and when they laid out their initial offer Boras said it was gonna take 7 years so don't call back at all unless its a 7 year offer. They did not call back.
 
thethe said:
It depends on what the accounting looks like and how the money is considered against the cap. I dont know the answer to that but cash outflow might not be the indicator that goes against the cap.
Click to expand...

Cash against the cap is the total guarantee averaged out over the years of control, regardless of when the cash is actually paid. Rendons cap hit is 35 per year for 7 years, no matter how it’s actually paid out.

The BoSox have already showed how to skirt the rules by simply removing an expensive player from the 40 man roster like they did with Rusney Castillo (sp?).
 
Tapate50 said:
I read that they were interested in an offer for Rendon and when they laid out their initial offer Boras said it was gonna take 7 years so don't call back at all unless its a 7 year offer. They did not call back.
Click to expand...

I read Boras didn’t call back for an updated offer.

Either way, the point still stands. Why would the Rangers give up significant prospect capital to pay Arenado more than they were willing to pay Rendon?
 
Some dude on Twitter said that Jim Bowden reported the Braves have added a 4th year to the offer on XM radio. Anyone else hear that on XM?
 
Enscheff said:
Cash against the cap is the total guarantee averaged out over the years of control, regardless of when the cash is actually paid. Rendons cap hit is 35 per year for 7 years, no matter how it’s actually paid out.

The BoSox have already showed how to skirt the rules by simply removing an expensive player from the 40 man roster like they did with Rusney Castillo (sp?).
Click to expand...

Is Castillo still stick in minors because of this?
 
zbhargrove said:
Some dude on Twitter said that Jim Bowden reported the Braves have added a 4th year to the offer on XM radio. Anyone else hear that on XM?
Click to expand...

I just saw David O'Brien retweet that....I didn't hear it and Bowden doesn't have a tweet saying anything about it...

I'd be surprised if we did offer the 4th year guaranteed unless its at a lower AAV....4 years / $85M (1st: $23m 2nd: $22m 3rd: $20m 4th: $20m)
 
Enscheff said:
Cash against the cap is the total guarantee averaged out over the years of control, regardless of when the cash is actually paid. Rendons cap hit is 35 per year for 7 years, no matter how it’s actually paid out.

The BoSox have already showed how to skirt the rules by simply removing an expensive player from the 40 man roster like they did with Rusney Castillo (sp?).
Click to expand...

This makes deferral an even more advantageous strategy.
 
zbhargrove said:
Some dude on Twitter said that Jim Bowden reported the Braves have added a 4th year to the offer on XM radio. Anyone else hear that on XM?
Click to expand...

I'd be a little surprised if went to 4 but it seems thats what it will take to get it done, so it seems.
 
Seems like Nats are offering 4 years but obviously it will be deferred money as per usual. Twins probably have the biggest offer on the table, if they're going 4 too. How close can AA close the gap if we're offering 4 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top