Official 2022 Offseason Moves Thread

50PoundHead said:
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.
Click to expand...

But, we can't trade him. He'll have 10/5 protection in (I think) less than 2 years when he reaches the 10 year mark. I think he has almost the full 10 now. The only chance is if the 10/5 protection is taken away in the next CBA, but we can't bet on that.
 
AA just doesn’t wanna go to 6 years I don’t think. If Freeman were 29 then it wouldn’t be a big deal. But paying him 30 million at 38 is rough.
 
Enscheff said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think conditions 1 & 2 exist.
 
JohnBoy said:
But, we can't trade him. He'll have 10/5 protection in (I think) less than 2 years when he reaches the 10 year mark. I think he has almost the full 10 now. The only chance is if the 10/5 protection is taken away in the next CBA, but we can't bet on that.
Click to expand...

True, but I've seen a lot of "going home" deals during my time. The bottom line is that any decision affecting him will cost less down the road.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
Just this once. It’s Freddie Freeman.
Click to expand...

AA has no doubt given us no reason to doubt him. So whatever he chooses to do I’m on board with bc I know he has a solid plan in place. We’ll see how it plays out but if we don’t have anything done before Thanksgiving then I get less confident he signs.
 
Last edited:
50PoundHead said:
Pirates did draft Henry Davis #1 overall last summer, so I don't know if they would be in the market for a C. A's might make more sense.

That said, after watching Vogt and Smith flail away at the plate and Contreras have no short measure of trouble behind the plate, I can see why they wanted to go into the season set at C.

I got the distinct iimpression that the pitchers simply did not like throwing to Contreras, so it wouldn't be surprising to see him on the way out of town.
Click to expand...

Alex tends to react strongly to the previous season's weakness. I guess he really didn't like not having any catchers.
 
clvclv said:
It would seem highly unlikely after watching him hoard prospects to this point, but with most of the big pieces in place (and assuming Freeman is part of that), I wonder if Alex might see this as an opportunity to unload the cupboard while setting the team up as one of the main contenders for an extended window - kinda like the Astros did. Freeman, Acuna, Albies, Riley, d'Arnaud, Pina, Fried, and Anderson would all be controlled through 2024.

Let's assume Pache/Wright/Contreras/Waters is enough to net you Reynolds. You then control him through 2024. Is there any chance he then pivots to Cincy and offers Langeliers/Muller/Ynoa or Davidson/another lower-value arm like Tarnok or Elder for Castillo? Haven't seen anyone mention a guess at Castillo's surplus value, so no idea if that would start to get in the ballpark, but if it would you'd control him through 2024 as well.

That would leave one OF spot to eventually be filled by Harris or Franklin, one rotation spot to be filled by one of Ynoa/Davidson/Strider/Vodnik/Shuster/Estes/Cusick - and possibly Soroka at some point, and you'd still have Shewmake and Grissom to potentially step in for Dansby in 2023 on the cheap and the ability to decline Smith's option to help pay for arbitration raises.
Click to expand...

If you were doing this, you'd still be a little light in pitching.

There is questionable value in being the favorite though.
 
Enscheff said:
As much as it sucks to already think about rebuilding, this is precisely the scenario that could play out.

The problem is giving Freeman such a deal increases the chances of a rebuild 4-5 years from now. It is a "win now" move, and fans seems to think they are great ideas when made, and then whine when the other shoe drops several years into the future.

Letting Freeman walk and maintaining that flexibility 4-5 years from now may avoid the need for a rebuild. Or...the team may have to rebuild anyways, so letting Freeman walk didn't help at all anyways.

This is a very tough decision, but I would lean towards maintaining flexibility.
Click to expand...

They'd have to walk a tightrope to still be contending in 4 or 5 years with or without Freddie. They need to draft and choose very well to pull it off as you can't really replace Freddie without spending that money. And it's probably going to be ugly on back end regardless of you sign if they're in the same category of hitter.

A 15 year contention window again would take quite a bit of luck.
 
Southcack77 said:
They'd have to walk a tightrope to still be contending in 4 or 5 years with or without Freddie. They need to draft and choose very well to pull it off as you can't really replace Freddie without spending that money. And it's probably going to be ugly on back end regardless of you sign if they're in the same category of hitter.

A 15 year contention window again would take quite a bit of luck.
Click to expand...

Olson is controllable for 2 more years so that would give you 2 years to find a longer term cheaper solution at 1b. TDA should be replaced by Langeliers next year and that will save money with another cheap option also.
 
DirkPiggler said:
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.
Click to expand...

There isn't really much evidence to say that Liberty siphons a bunch of cash out of the Braves. My impression is that the Braves are pretty much allowed to do their own thing with it their own revenue means. I think they're being held as an appreciating asset more than a cash engine for other businesses.

I would think the Braves probably get to keep their windfall and plan for increased payroll based on projected sales.

I have no idea how much money that is.
 
Braves probably have a 5-year window or so with this core give or take. I dont think 5 or 6 for Freddie is a big deal. You just hope Freddie doesnt age horribly and it's not a total albatross in the last 2 years if we have to go 6 to get it done.
 
Expanding the "to front load or not to front load" discussion to include the time value of money, the contract could be structured like this:

2022: $40,000,000
2023: $35,000,000
2024: $30,000,000
2025: $30,000,000
2026: $20,000,000
2027: $19,300,000

Total Contract: 6 years/ $174,300,000
Net Present Value: $138,683,696.

Versus a flat 6 year deal at $30,000,000 per year.

Present Value: $138,686,390.

Both scenarios are discounted at 8%. Total value is roughly the same on each deal. But the front loaded deal gives the team more flexibility in later years, and accounts for declining production as Freeman ages.
 
Last edited:
6/162 would be my top offer. That’s 27 per. I wouldn’t go to 30. I just don’t see us giving a big amount of money this year like some are suggesting in front loading bc it’s gonna hinder us from building 2/3 of an outfield and possibly a DH.
 
DirkPiggler said:
Expanding the "to front load or not to front load" discussion to include the time value of money, the contract could be structured like this:

2022: $40,000,000
2023: $35,000,000
2024: $30,000,000
2025: $30,000,000
2026: $20,000,000
2027: $19,300,000

Total Contract: 6 years/ $174,500,000
Net Present Value: $138,683,696.

Versus a flat 6 year deal at $30,000,000 per year.

Present Value: $138,686,390.

Both scenarios are discounted at 8%. Total value is roughly the same on each deal. But the front loaded deal gives the team more flexibility in later years, and accounts for declining production as Freeman ages.
Click to expand...

Plus, given the uncertainty surrounding inflation (not that it means a whole lot to guys making this kind of money), front-loading is good for the player as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top