What Would A "Fair" Freeman Extension Look Like?

C

clvclv

<B>"What is a clvclv"</B>
Mainly for the numbers gang, but anyone feel free to chime in.

What would the expected production decline for Freddie look like dollars-wise?

I still keep going back to the Goldschmidt extension as what I think they ought to offer him - tacking 3 years and $66 million onto his current deal would line up with the money (more or less), while also keeping the team to paying for his age 36 and 37 seasons (like the Cardinals will do with Goldschmidt).

We've all heard the "he's a 1B" objections (and I think most people understand that reasoning when it comes to offering him a 5+ year deal), but is it really unreasonable to expect Freeman to be a 3+ win player through age 35 (and why)?
 
I wouldn't be totally opposed to extending Freeman to his age 34 or mayyybbbeee 35 season for a reasonable number (~25 million). The problem is that its really not a great idea to invest large long term resources into a first baseman, especially an older first baseman. They don't age particularly well and there is usually an abundance of bat-first free agents who are capable of playing an adequate first base. Maybe that will give us some leverage and allow us to extend Freeman for a somewhat team-friendly deal, but this will be Freeman's last opportunity to get paid. There is a good chance that he walks and one of the less advanced teams ends up giving him a huge long term deal.

If that happens, use the 22 million coming off the books to address a more primary position and fill 1st base similarly to how the Rays have done it with Choi and Martinez. It really just boils down to whatever Freeman wants to do. He will almost certainly get more on the open market than he would through an extension with us, but maybe he really likes it here and is willing to punt a few million and a year or two to stay.
 
As much as I love Freeman (he’s my favorite current Brave), I really hope we let him walk at the end of his current deal. I don’t want to see this team paying 20+M per year to a declining 1B. I know I’m most likely going to be wrong, but I really hope he goes and signs with the Angels so he can move back home and finish his career as their DH.

Now, if Freeman will take an insanely team friendly deal of say 12M per year for 2-3 years, hell I’d resign him, but that’s not going to happen either.
 
Skeeter31 said:
As much as I love Freeman (he’s my favorite current Brave), I really hope we let him walk at the end of his current deal. I don’t want to see this team paying 20+M per year to a declining 1B. I know I’m most likely going to be wrong, but I really hope he goes and signs with the Angels so he can move back home and finish his career as their DH.

Now, if Freeman will take an insanely team friendly deal of say 12M per year for 2-3 years, hell I’d resign him, but that’s not going to happen either.
Click to expand...

12 million is unreasonably nitty on a Freeman contract. We could pay him close to what he's making now for a few years an still probably end up with some value out of him. Its just the idea of him getting a 4-5 year extension at 25-30 million that scares me. But knowing what I know about AA, I don't think a contract like that is going to happen.
 
BeanieAntics said:
I wouldn't be totally opposed to extending Freeman to his age 34 or mayyybbbeee 35 season for a reasonable number (~25 million). The problem is that its really not a great idea to invest large long term resources into a first baseman, especially an older first baseman. They don't age particularly well and there is usually an abundance of bat-first free agents who are capable of playing an adequate first base. Maybe that will give us some leverage and allow us to extend Freeman for a somewhat team-friendly deal, but this will be Freeman's last opportunity to get paid. There is a good chance that he walks and one of the less advanced teams ends up giving him a huge long term deal.

If that happens, use the 22 million coming off the books to address a more primary position and fill 1st base similarly to how the Rays have done it with Choi and Martinez. It really just boils down to whatever Freeman wants to do. He will almost certainly get more on the open market than he would through an extension with us, but maybe he really likes it here and is willing to punt a few million and a year or two to stay.
Click to expand...


That's kinda the question in a nutshell - and the big problem - isn't it? HOW MUCH less than market value could the Braves offer him that wouldn't be taken as an insult?

Freeman's one of the few players I think can be taken at his word when he talks about how much it would mean to him to stay. You're right in pointing out that this will be his last chance to get a significant deal, but would he really be offended if they offered him an extension that lines up with the deal Goldschmidt got?

Would it be the "perfect" expenditure of those resources? It wouldn't be ideal, agreed. The difference is, we should still be in our window and obviously have more available resources than the Rays (who have to pinch every single penny). Assuming we have several other deals coming off the books that SHOULD be inexpensively replaced from within (Pache replacing Ender, Waters replacing Ozuna/Markakis/Duval, Langeliers/Contreras replacing d'Arnaud/Flowers) plus Hamels, Melancon, and Greene coming off the books as well, is it really that unreasonable to spend some of that money on the luxury of having a homegrown hero like Freeman instead of someone like a Choi/Martinez platoon?

If Freddie's looking for a raise and a 5 year deal BEYOND the end of his current deal, I think most fans would understand if the Braves took the time to explain to them why they had to walk away. This just feels like the situation at the end of Chipper's career - if it's handled the right way (and respectfully without making him feel like he's simply being reduced to a number) that he might accept 3/$66-$75 million tacked on now. While that's far from top dollar, it would push him over the $200 million career earnings mark and would make him a free-agent while he'd still have enough left to become a mercenary-type year-to-year DH to make even more money if he wants to keep playing or chasing championships even if the Braves don't want him or can't use him in that role at that point.
 
I think you just let him go. I don’t like the idea of overpaying Freeman after underpaying Albies and Acuna. If Riley’s bat sticks he can move to first and we can spend our money on a better 3B. If not Freeman’s money could be used all around the roster.
 
The only position that ages worse than 1B is C. Freeman is likely to be a 2-3 win player by the time his contract runs out. Those types of hitters (or a close approximation) are available every single off-season for almost nothing.

There is very little reason to extend Freeman. One only has to look at the Goldy contract to find yet another example of why it's foolish to lock up 1B into their mid-30s.

I'm guessing AA is too smart for that.
 
Enscheff said:
The only position that ages worse than 1B is C. Freeman is likely to be a 2-3 win player by the time his contract runs out. Those types of hitters (or a close approximation) are available every single off-season for almost nothing.

There is very little reason to extend Freeman. One only has to look at the Goldy contract to find yet another example of why it's foolish to lock up 1B into their mid-30s.

I'm guessing AA is too smart for that.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that ownership and AA would slightly overpay for Freeman to keep him for a few years, but not til he retires.

I do think this is where the organization looks at Freeman from a marketing perspective and a fan perspective and feel it might be better to keep him and unload him when he truly declines, than risk fan backlash. Freddie is the most popular player on the team since Chipper retired.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but I think it's one of those decisions that gets made beyond the statline. He gave us a discount before when we were headed into a black hole. I'll be interested to see if McGirk plays the old school loyalty card, or they just dismiss it.
 
Extend his current deal to a 5 year $100M deal with a couple of team options on the end (15/15). In 2020-$22M, 21/22, 22/21, 23/18, 24/17 - Team options 25/15, 26/15

Assuming he doesn't fall off a cliff between now and the end of 21, he'll likely get more than that in FA. But, a contract like that would make him a Brave for life.

And...for those who recall my wish to trade Freddie, before you start, IMO it was the right thing to do at that time. Part of the reason for that belief was exactly this conversation, not being good enough to win a WS until Freddie's contract is up (or nearly so), then being faced with re-signing or extending him when he's beginning to age but the rest of the team is gelling and finally ready (potentially) to win. It's never been about Freddie's skills. He belongs in the Hall of the very good most likely.

The Braves chose to keep him. Accepting that, and accepting that unless Freddie falls off tremendously between now and the end of his current contract, he will be a candidate to be re-signed.
 
Enscheff said:
The only position that ages worse than 1B is C. Freeman is likely to be a 2-3 win player by the time his contract runs out. Those types of hitters (or a close approximation) are available every single off-season for almost nothing.

There is very little reason to extend Freeman. One only has to look at the Goldy contract to find yet another example of why it's foolish to lock up 1B into their mid-30s.

I'm guessing AA is too smart for that.
Click to expand...

Eh, I don't know about that. Especially for a player who is "likely" to produce 2-3 WAR as a 1b. Jose Abreu, a 33 year old 1b coming off a 2 WAR season, signed his QO for 17 million and then renegotiated for 3/50. Unless the market returns to what it was 2-3 years ago, I doubt we'll be able to find a FA 1b who is likely to produce 2-3 WAR and will sign for significantly less than 3/60.

Now sure, we could take a chance on someone for super cheap, like Eric Thames, and hope he works out. But that route carries risk as well, just not much of a financial one. The risk you take is that sort of player is more likely to regress into a replacement level player than put up 2-3 WAR, and you have to make an in-season trade to fix a gaping hole in your lineup.
 
Last edited:
Carp said:
Eh, I don't know about that. Especially for a player who is "likely" to produce 2-3 as a 1b. Jose Abreu, a 33 year old 1b coming off a 2 WAR season, signed his QO for 17 million and then renegotiated for 3/50. Unless the market returns to what it was 2-3 years ago, I doubt we'll be able to find a FA 1b who is likely to produce 2-3 WAR and will sign for significantly less than 3/60.

Now sure, we could take a chance on someone for super cheap, like Eric Thames, and hope he works out. But that route carries risk as well, just not much of financial one. The risk you take is that sort of player is more likely to regress into a replacement level player than put up 2-3 WAR, and you have to make an in-season trade to fix a gaping hole in your lineup.
Click to expand...

This is the main reason for extending him (as long as it doesn't take something ridiculous - or even market value) to do so IMO. We should still be squarely in our window, and finances shouldn't be an issue at all.

I think the Abreu situation is a good point. He really wanted to stay - and was willing to take less than top dollar to do so. As the unquestioned leader of a young team that's ready to win now, taking him away from the group of kids that have only known him as the voice of the team would have been playing with fire. Those guys don't just suddenly appear - remember the gap between the time Chipper retired and Freddie became that guy?

The decline is unavoidable, I don't think anyone's hiding from that. The point is that if you happen to slightly overpay for the production the heart of the team provides, that's not necessarily the worst thing - and the Braves should be in a position to afford that small luxury.
 
Carp said:
Eh, I don't know about that. Especially for a player who is "likely" to produce 2-3 WAR as a 1b. Jose Abreu, a 33 year old 1b coming off a 2 WAR season, signed his QO for 17 million and then renegotiated for 3/50. Unless the market returns to what it was 2-3 years ago, I doubt we'll be able to find a FA 1b who is likely to produce 2-3 WAR and will sign for significantly less than 3/60.

Now sure, we could take a chance on someone for super cheap, like Eric Thames, and hope he works out. But that route carries risk as well, just not much of a financial one. The risk you take is that sort of player is more likely to regress into a replacement level player than put up 2-3 WAR, and you have to make an in-season trade to fix a gaping hole in your lineup.
Click to expand...

Enscheff is right. You're thinking in terms of finding someone who has been strictly a 1st baseman their whole career. In reality, you can teach almost any MLB position player to play first base. If you're in a spot where you have to fill a hole at first, its probably a better idea to find good bats that platoon well together regardless of their position rather than giving 3/50 to a guy like Abreu.

Hypothetically, let's say that last year was Freeman's final contract year and we needed to find a replacement with the 22 million we had coming off the books. We could have targeted some cheap platoons to replace him fairly easily. Guys like Thames, Corey Dickerson, Kole Calhoun, Brock Holt, Eric Sogard, or someone like that if we wanted a lefty. If you want to platoon that guy, we could have gone after Todd Frazier, Hunter Pence, Jonathan Schoop, or Starlin Castro. Any combo of those players would come in well under 22 million and still be capable of easily putting up an .850+ OPS if platooned correctly. If you'd prefer to replace him with someone who would play everyday, both Edwin Encarnacion and Howie Kendrick were on the market for far less than Freeman is getting paid now. You could have found quality production with most of those guys, basically all of them are capable of playing or learning to play first base, and all of them would save you money that you could use elsewhere.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to extend Freeman. We should; he's a great player. But if his demands make us even slightly uncomfortable, I think that players like the ones above give us enough justification to let him walk.
 
BeanieAntics said:
Enscheff is right. You're thinking in terms of finding someone who has been strictly a 1st baseman their whole career. In reality, you can teach almost any MLB position player to play first base. If you're in a spot where you have to fill a hole at first, its probably a better idea to find good bats that platoon well together regardless of their position rather than giving 3/50 to a guy like Abreu.

Hypothetically, let's say that last year was Freeman's final contract year and we needed to find a replacement with the 22 million we had coming off the books. We could have targeted some cheap platoons to replace him fairly easily. Guys like Thames, Corey Dickerson, Kole Calhoun, Brock Holt, Eric Sogard, or someone like that if we wanted a lefty. If you want to platoon that guy, we could have gone after Todd Frazier, Hunter Pence, Jonathan Schoop, or Starlin Castro. Any combo of those players would come in well under 22 million and still be capable of easily putting up an .850+ OPS if platooned correctly. If you'd prefer to replace him with someone who would play everyday, both Edwin Encarnacion and Howie Kendrick were on the market for far less than Freeman is getting paid now. You could have found quality production with most of those guys, basically all of them are capable of playing or learning to play first base, and all of them would save you money that you could use elsewhere.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to extend Freeman. We should; he's a great player. But if his demands make us even slightly uncomfortable, I think that players like the ones above give us enough justification to let him walk.
Click to expand...

Which is the main point of the discussion IMO. If he's looking for 5 years and $100 million beyond the end of his current deal, you have no choice other than to walk away (and I think the fans would understand) - I just get the feeling that Freeman's going to be more reasonable than that.
 
BeanieAntics said:
Enscheff is right. You're thinking in terms of finding someone who has been strictly a 1st baseman their whole career. In reality, you can teach almost any MLB position player to play first base. If you're in a spot where you have to fill a hole at first, its probably a better idea to find good bats that platoon well together regardless of their position rather than giving 3/50 to a guy like Abreu.

Hypothetically, let's say that last year was Freeman's final contract year and we needed to find a replacement with the 22 million we had coming off the books. We could have targeted some cheap platoons to replace him fairly easily. Guys like Thames, Corey Dickerson, Kole Calhoun, Brock Holt, Eric Sogard, or someone like that if we wanted a lefty. If you want to platoon that guy, we could have gone after Todd Frazier, Hunter Pence, Jonathan Schoop, or Starlin Castro. Any combo of those players would come in well under 22 million and still be capable of easily putting up an .850+ OPS if platooned correctly. If you'd prefer to replace him with someone who would play everyday, both Edwin Encarnacion and Howie Kendrick were on the market for far less than Freeman is getting paid now. You could have found quality production with most of those guys, basically all of them are capable of playing or learning to play first base, and all of them would save you money that you could use elsewhere.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to extend Freeman. We should; he's a great player. But if his demands make us even slightly uncomfortable, I think that players like the ones above give us enough justification to let him walk.
Click to expand...

I think you're being super optimistic if you think most of those guys can:

A. Play a competent 1b defensively, and

B. Be expected to put up an OPS north of .850.
 
Carp said:
I think you're being super optimistic if you think most of those guys can:

A. Play a competent 1b defensively, and

B. Be expected to put up an OPS north of .850.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly confident in B. Many of the guys mentioned above have routinely put up OPS's >.850 against either lefties or righties. Getting a combo that could combine for .850+ production shouldn't be either difficult or expensive.

If B is true, I don't particularly care that much about A. By UZR, Freddie was the 2nd worst defensive first baseman in baseball last year in front of Josh Bell. His Def was a -16.2. Granted, that was unusual because he's usually solid over there. But even though he was really bad at 1st, nobody even really noticed or cared. The team was fine because he was money at the plate.

Going back to our hypothetical, let's say that we signed Corey Dickerson and Starlin Castro to serve as platoons at 1st base (in this scenario they'd likely have utility roles elsewhere as well) for the contracts that they signed this past offseason. Let's also say that they put up their 2019 OPS against RHP and LHP, respectively. That'd put Dickerson at an .866 OPS against RHP and Castro at an .881 OPS against LHP. They would both be signed for a total of two years at around 13.5 million per year. If they both had those kinds of numbers at that price, while also serving in a utility role when needed, I don't care how bad their defense is at first. As long as they aren't historically awful, I could deal with it.
 
If you could consistently just glue two ****ty players with platoon splits together to make one 3 WAR player, people would do that and those players would actually cost money.

It is possible, but I wouldn't describe that outcome as routine.
 
BeanieAntics said:
I'm fairly confident in B. Many of the guys mentioned above have routinely put up OPS's >.850 against either lefties or righties. Getting a combo that could combine for .850+ production shouldn't be either difficult or expensive.

If B is true, I don't particularly care that much about A. By UZR, Freddie was the 2nd worst defensive first baseman in baseball last year in front of Josh Bell. His Def was a -16.2. Granted, that was unusual because he's usually solid over there. But even though he was really bad at 1st, nobody even really noticed or cared. The team was fine because he was money at the plate.

Going back to our hypothetical, let's say that we signed Corey Dickerson and Starlin Castro to serve as platoons at 1st base (in this scenario they'd likely have utility roles elsewhere as well) for the contracts that they signed this past offseason. Let's also say that they put up their 2019 OPS against RHP and LHP, respectively. That'd put Dickerson at an .866 OPS against RHP and Castro at an .881 OPS against LHP. They would both be signed for a total of two years at around 13.5 million per year. If they both had those kinds of numbers at that price, while also serving in a utility role when needed, I don't care how bad their defense is at first. As long as they aren't historically awful, I could deal with it.
Click to expand...

The problem with imagining such scenarios (regardless of which players you choose OR which Freeman you get defensively) is that you're counting on something happening that we pretty much ALL agree will never happen - Snitker effectively handling a platoon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top