Looking Ahead - The 2020 Offseason Thread

Even if there’s no DH that lineup could be a thing.

I’d be absolutely shocked if AA gave Springer the huge deal he will require though. If he somehow Keuchels himself, maybe.
 
CJ9 said:
Dahl getting non-tendered is a surprise. I’ve always kind of liked him, just can’t stay healthy. Believe he’s also from Alabama so maybe he would want to come home if we have the money? Give him the Markakis role.
Click to expand...

That was interesting.
 
AA must have something in mind if he's non-tendering Duvall at a reasonable 4.7 mil number. Even if he wants to re-sign him. Guess we'll see soon enough.
 
Non-tender of Duvall suggests money is tight, but may still be a sign of intent to make a couple of signings.

Little surprised they'd guarantee Luke Jackson any money. Would cost about 400k to cut him in ST.
 
Dahl is really interesting. He could be a one year deal for low guaranteed money and be a ton of upside. If he shows last year was a fluke he could get a huge deal. Rockies were on the hook for less than 3 million.

I still think turner isn’t leaving the west coast. He will retire vs coming to east coast.
 
Enscheff said:
At this point literally every FA bat is in play I think.

Adding Brantley for LF, Cruz at DH, and Turner at 3b is even in the realm of possibility with a $150M payroll. I usually scoff at such ideas, but it’s at least slightly plausible this year.
Click to expand...

Beginning to wonder if AA's playing with that type of number - really hard to explain the Duvall non-tender and keeping Jackson around otherwise.

Considering the depth that he held onto, I wonder if a Bryant deal (rather than Turner signing) built around Newk, Touki, and/or another non-core piece (Wilson?) isn't realistic at this point. Those kinds of names would seem to be a pipe dream on the surface - outbidding everyone to add that many free-agent bats would seem to be close to impossible, but what about a trade for Bryant to DH using "non-essential" pieces, signing Rosario ($5 million) to play LF along with Bryant while using d'Arnaud as DH against LHPs, and adding Shaw ($5 million) to platoon with Riley?

That would still leave several million to bring Melancon/Greene/another veteran right-handed RP in with Webb sent to Gwinnett or Jackson cut loose while coming in under $150 million

That kind of depth would be a dream that would match up with the Dodgers IMO.
 
At this point I don’t think we can rule out any move, including Springer and Bryant.

However, I do think Duvall was cut to make room in LF, not because money is tight. If money was tight, clv is right, Luke and Camargo wouldn’t still be Braves. The only FAs worth making room for in LF are Ozuna, Brantley and Springer.

If the choice is a Bryant trade vs a Turner signing I think the clear preference is easily signing Turner. But I think AA is going to bring in a huge bat for LF and let Riley play 3b, perhaps with a caddy like Shaw.
 
Southcack77 said:
Non-tender of Duvall suggests money is tight, but may still be a sign of intent to make a couple of signings.

Little surprised they'd guarantee Luke Jackson any money. Would cost about 400k to cut him in ST.
Click to expand...

I really don’t think the takeaway from re-signing all the marginal guys, but non-tendering the one clearly useful guy—who’s nonetheless a platoon player at one of the easiest positions to upgrade—is that “money is tight”. Money might be tight—I don’t think it is, but it might be—but I do not think this move indicates anything either way.
 
Enscheff said:
At this point I don’t think we can rule out any move, including Springer and Bryant.

However, I do think Duvall was cut to make room in LF, not because money is tight. If money was tight, clv is right, Luke and Camargo wouldn’t still be Braves. The only FAs worth making room for in LF are Ozuna, Brantley and Springer.

If the choice is a Bryant trade vs a Turner signing I think the clear preference is easily signing Turner. But I think AA is going to bring in a huge bat for LF and let Riley play 3b, perhaps with a caddy like Shaw.
Click to expand...

Here's my counter to that though. If cutting Duvall wasn't about money, wouldn't it have made sense to just retain him as a bench bat, albeit an expensive one?
 
I was one who thought non-tendering Duvall was a possibility, but I also thought they would non-tender Camargo, Dayton, and Jackson. The team would have to find someone to replace Camargo (I was thinking someone like Brad Miller, but his market is likely to be hotter than what the Braves wanted to throw at that slot), but I think there are plenty of candidates to replace Dayton and Jackson. That said, you don't save all that much (maybe a million or so) by going to savings route on those three roster spots.

Duvall has been a lifesaver the past two years. The DH decision (or lack thereof) by MLB probably contributed to this decision and he may be back once that issue is cleared up. I don't think money issues come into plau directly, as I believe it's more about mixing-and-matching at the position and waiting on the DH decision than anything else. They probably don't want to pay Duvall $5 MM-plus, but he could be back for something marginally below that number depending on how everything else turns out.
 
Enscheff said:
At this point I don’t think we can rule out any move, including Springer and Bryant.

However, I do think Duvall was cut to make room in LF, not because money is tight. If money was tight, clv is right, Luke and Camargo wouldn’t still be Braves. The only FAs worth making room for in LF are Ozuna, Brantley and Springer.

If the choice is a Bryant trade vs a Turner signing I think the clear preference is easily signing Turner. But I think AA is going to bring in a huge bat for LF and let Riley play 3b, perhaps with a caddy like Shaw.
Click to expand...

Another interesting thought...

Maybe (just spitballing, of course), Liberty has approved $150 million or Top 10-ish payrolls AS LONG AS a certain portion or percentage of that payroll is limited to 1 or 2 year deals. AA's free to play at that level as long as he doesn't saddle the organization with any contracts he can't get out from under relatively easily. A Freeman extension would make a ton of sense if that were the case - structure it as a 2 year deal with 2 or 3 options or a 1 year deal with mutual options that automatically rolls over for several years (like the deal the Red Sox had with Ortiz) and you could have it resemble Goldschmidt's 5 year deal AAV-wise (as well as the number of years and total dollars) without tying AA's hands when it comes to adding other players to replace Morton/Smyly/Bryant or whomever is brought in to play LF or DH after 2021.

Don't necessarily think that's a kind of structure that would THRILL the players, but it could be a way for them to help maximize AAVs while extracting more than a straight one year commitment from teams they might prefer to play for. That kind of structure would act as a sort of opt-out for teams rather than players.

Offering Ozuna a similar rollover/mutual option deal would be easy to do then - if he REALLY wants to come back, offer him a 2 year deal with two one year options at whatever number it takes.
 
Last edited:
Who are the LFers fitting the bill who are rumored to be on the trade market, assuming there is no DH forthcoming. No really considering a FA signing at this time for LF.
 
jpx7 said:
I really don’t think the takeaway from re-signing all the marginal guys, but non-tendering the one clearly useful guy—who’s nonetheless a platoon player at one of the easiest positions to upgrade—is that “money is tight”. Money might be tight—I don’t think it is, but it might be—but I do not think this move indicates anything either way.
Click to expand...

I suppose that it could be a rock solid confidence that they can sign a full time LF at market rate. Or trade for a full time 3B.
 
clvclv said:
Another interesting thought...

Maybe (just spitballing, of course), Liberty has approved $150 million or Top 10-ish payrolls AS LONG AS a certain portion or percentage of that payroll is limited to 1 or 2 year deals. AA's free to play at that level as long as he doesn't saddle the organization with any contracts he can't get out from under relatively easily. A Freeman extension would make a ton of sense if that were the case - structure it as a 2 year deal with 2 or 3 options or a 1 year deal with mutual options that automatically rolls over for several years (like the deal the Red Sox had with Ortiz) and you could have it resemble Goldschmidt's 5 year deal AAV-wise (as well as the number of years and total dollars) without tying AA's hands when it comes to adding other players to replace Morton/Smyly/Bryant or whomever is brought in to play LF or DH after 2021.

Don't necessarily think that's a kind of structure that would THRILL the players, but it could be a way for them to help maximize AAVs while extracting more than a straight one year commitment from teams they might prefer to play for. That kind of structure would act as a sort of opt-out for teams rather than players.

Offering Ozuna a similar rollover/mutual option deal would be easy to do then - if he REALLY wants to come back, offer him a 2 year deal with two one year options at whatever number it takes.
Click to expand...


Liberty is in as good a position as anyone to hold the line on payroll.

Their interest in the Braves is asset appreciation rather than streams of income. They might well view holding the line as helpful in appreciating that asset. Or at least not particularly harmful.

In any event, the Braves are now leaner than they've been in a long, long while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top