Official 2022 Offseason Moves Thread

LF is still a need. Most people think the Braves could use a LHH in that spot, but the reality is this hitter just needs to be competent vs RHP.

Here are the xwOBA values vs RHP for the LFers left on the market over the last 3 season.

Schwarber, Kyle .394
Conforto, Michael .376
Soler, Jorge .372
Castellanos, Nick .362
Bryant, Kris .333
Rosario, Eddie .330

Suzuki is projected for something like an .800-850 OPS.

To me, neither Bryant nor Rosario are very good options. Schwarber and Castellanos are both probably too expensive and too terrible in LF.

Soler is still the guy I want in LF, but Conforto or Suzuki would make sense at the right price.
 
Enscheff said:
LF is still a need. Most people think the Braves could use a LHH in that spot, but the reality is this hitter just needs to be competent vs RHP.

Here are the xwOBA values vs RHP for the LFers left on the market over the last 3 season.

Schwarber, Kyle .394
Conforto, Michael .376
Soler, Jorge .372
Castellanos, Nick .362
Bryant, Kris .333
Rosario, Eddie .330

Suzuki is projected for something like an .800-850 OPS.

To me, neither Bryant nor Rosario are very good options. Schwarber and Castellanos are both probably too expensive and too terrible in LF.

Soler is still the guy I want in LF, but Conforto or Suzuki would make sense at the right price.
Click to expand...

Is Schwarber at 3/60 too much? That’s what I believe his reported asking price is.
 
Are these 10 year deal good for the players or the teams?

Would teams prefer to sign a top talent only through their peak? 3/4 years?

So if a player opts out after 3/4 years… and also was had at a discount since most contracts are backloaded… it’s good for both.

Wouldn’t be good for the teams in scenarios like Acuna and Tatis, but def for anyone entering their prime like any of the SS free agents and Freddie.

lol this is why people live in their mom’s basement and regurgitate yahoo stats on message boards lololol
 
Southcack77 said:
At the three year mark you would cut ties regardless. Betting on his last five years being awesome is for suckers. It won't be worth it.

Maybe you could trade it, maybe you couldn't, but if you get three years and are done then the deal turned out just fine.
Click to expand...

100%
 
My assumption on these contracts is you have no choice but to offer the long guarantee to sign the player. If that's the case and you cash out the upside and leave the downside to the next sucker then did ok.

If that guy makes out well too, that's cool. It didn't make your investment any worse.

The guarantee itself is the big pill and avoiding it entirely might be the play, but having the extra control as opposed to player opting out is an illusory asset in my mind.

Not sure anyone has gotten a big return on a trade of long term deal into the decline. And who wants to roll the dice on that with the majority of players?

Also depending on the rules and the circumstances, you might be able to extend a Qualifying offer and get a pick.
 
Last edited:
Southcack77 said:
My assumption on these contracts is you have no choice but to offer the long guarantee to sign the player. If that's the case and you cash out the upside and leave the downside to the next sucker then did ok.

If that guy makes out well too, that's cool. It didn't make your investment any worse.

The guarantee itself is the big pill and avoiding it entirely might be the play, but having the extra control as opposed to player opting out is an illusory asset in my mind.

Not sure anyone has gotten a big return on a trade of long term deal into the decline. And who wants to roll the dice on that with the majority of players?

Also depending on the rules and the circumstances, you might be able to extend a Qualifying offer and get a pick.
Click to expand...

Clv literally just listed out contract details that demonstrate why an opt out is a plus for a player, which can be used to offset some of the downside risk for a team. Those values may not be exact, but they show perfectly the concept.

A lot of times an opt out is probably required to make an offer, and isn’t used to lessen the risk much at all. But even in that case it’s still a positive for the player…which is why it was a requirement.

Literally everyone in the industry understands that opt outs hold positive value for the player. I’m not sure why some fans have such a hard time grasping that fact. Things can end up working out many different ways, but at the time of signing, the opt out is a plus for the player.
 
Enscheff said:
Clv literally just listed out contract details that demonstrate why an opt out is a plus for a player, which can be used to offset some of the downside risk for a team. Those values may not be exact, but they show perfectly the concept.

A lot of times an opt out is probably required to make an offer, and isn’t used to lessen the risk much at all. But even in that case it’s still a positive for the player…which is why it was a requirement.

Literally everyone in the industry understands that opt outs hold positive value for the player. I’m not sure why some fans have such a hard time grasping that fact. Things can end up working out many different ways, but at the time of signing, the opt out is a plus for the player.
Click to expand...


A positive for the player isn't necessarily a negative for the team.

The team extends a guarantee for a longer period than it would probably prefer.

The player gets an option which probably affects the value of the compensation.

The player only opts out if he performs well. Which means the team either got its money's worth or is being relieved of a sub-performing asset.

It perhaps paid less for the term than it would have. It's relieved of the constraint of the remaining years. It can extend a QO possibly, it could bid on the remaining years, it could spend the money elsewhere.

If player opts in, it's the same risk you were bargaining for all along.

Continuing to harp on it being good for the player is irrelevant. Sure. It's good for the player. But the player gave something up to get that option and it's really neither here nor there to the team if he opts out.
 
Last edited:
Enscheff said:
Clv literally just listed out contract details that demonstrate why an opt out is a plus for a player, which can be used to offset some of the downside risk for a team. Those values may not be exact, but they show perfectly the concept.

A lot of times an opt out is probably required to make an offer, and isn’t used to lessen the risk much at all. But even in that case it’s still a positive for the player…which is why it was a requirement.

Literally everyone in the industry understands that opt outs hold positive value for the player. I’m not sure why some fans have such a hard time grasping that fact. Things can end up working out many different ways, but at the time of signing, the opt out is a plus for the player.
Click to expand...

If the $180 million is a line in the sand for Freddie's reps (or him), I'd think Alex is in a position to nudge the first three years of the deal I proposed to $40 million per. He has openly stated that payroll will be going up, and he hasn't devoted a dime of that increase to "new dollars" as of today. Considering the fact that Atlanta is still a mid-market club there may need to be some deferred money factored into things, but that shouldn't be an issue if Freeman gets BOTH his 6 years and his $180 million. $115 million of Mookie's salary is deferred and the two sides wouldn't have to go nearly that far - if he'd accept $30 million in deferrals they could pay him ~ $1.25 million every July 1st like the Bonilla deal. $30 million at 8% interest over 25 years would cover that - and keep from destroying the team's ability to spend in the future. Of course if there's $30 million worth of postseason revenues that can be spent up-front, they could simply give him a $35 million signing bonus to begin with and never have to worry about that money affecting future payrolls.

The point is that the money to bring him back is there, and that's why no one seems overly concerned about him leaving - it seems to be more of a case of settling on numbers that will make Freddie, his reps, and the union happy without hamstringing the Braves' ability to remain competitive over the next 10 years. If he wouldn't accept deferrals and opt-outs that would limit the potential downside for the team - while allowing the team to keep the competitive window open for another three seasons - when he's getting his target parameters of 6 years/$180 million, it would be impossible for his camp to convince anyone he wasn't just after the money.
 
Last edited:
MLBTR just did a breakdown on Freeman’s suitors, and it just doesn’t seem like the Braves need to bid much higher than the 5/135 offer they already gave him. He has a QO attached, and that deal already beats Goldy’s extension. It seems like a very reasonable offer.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/12/if-not-the-braves-where-could-freddie-freeman-sign.html

Teams simply don’t give bat only players contracts into their late 30s anymore. I would be shocked if Freeman doesn’t end up with the Braves.
 
Enscheff said:
MLBTR just did a breakdown on Freeman’s suitors, and it just doesn’t seem like the Braves need to bid much higher than the 5/135 offer they already gave him. He has a QO attached, and that deal already beats Goldy’s extension. It seems like a very reasonable offer.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/12/if-not-the-braves-where-could-freddie-freeman-sign.html

Teams simply don’t give bat only players contracts into their late 30s anymore. I would be shocked if Freeman doesn’t end up with the Braves.
Click to expand...

Only takes 1 dumb team though. Anaheim and San Diego love to spend money, they are in need of an upgrade at 1b, and Freeman is from SoCal. Prime opportunity for them to make him a 200 million dollar man.
 
I am not advocating over paying FF. I hope we are stingy actually. But I never liked calling him a bat only guy. I know 1B are usually looked at as bat only so FF falls into that category, but man he seems to save a lot of errors and close plays with his stretching and digging ability. I wish that was measured more and accounted for. I know Swanson should pay a portion of his salary with the number of errors FF has saved him.
 
Southcack77 said:
A positive for the player isn't necessarily a negative for the team.

The team extends a guarantee for a longer period than it would probably prefer.

The player gets an option which probably affects the value of the compensation.

The player only opts out if he performs well. Which means the team either got its money's worth or is being relieved of a sub-performing asset.

It perhaps paid less for the term than it would have. It's relieved of the constraint of the remaining years. It can extend a QO possibly, it could bid on the remaining years, it could spend the money elsewhere.

If player opts in, it's the same risk you were bargaining for all along.

Continuing to harp on it being good for the player is irrelevant. Sure. It's good for the player. But the player gave something up to get that option and it's really neither here nor there to the team if he opts out.
Click to expand...

Your point is perfectly clear and has been the whole time.

Lolololol kids that got bullied in class just can’t admit defeat lolololol
 
Enscheff said:
MLBTR just did a breakdown on Freeman’s suitors, and it just doesn’t seem like the Braves need to bid much higher than the 5/135 offer they already gave him. He has a QO attached, and that deal already beats Goldy’s extension. It seems like a very reasonable offer.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/12/if-not-the-braves-where-could-freddie-freeman-sign.html

Teams simply don’t give bat only players contracts into their late 30s anymore. I would be shocked if Freeman doesn’t end up with the Braves.
Click to expand...

I think everyone would - even the writers and TV/radio guys who make their livings writing and talking about it.

That said, while talking about how it would be relatively easy for Alex to stretch and make those big speculated numbers fit, I think it's also probably fair to wonder if he didn't tell Freddie early on that he's certainly earned the right to go out there and get wined and dined - and the organization wouldn't hold doing that against him in any way. If maybe they made him a "here's a wrap this mess up quickly before the holidays offer" - something like 4 years/$120 million with reachable incentives that would turn it into the 5 years/$135 million we've seen reported in the event he didn't want to have to worry about anything during the lockout and said "if you get something that blows that away we understand if you take it, but hope you'll notify us first so we can prepare the PR department". More or less saying "there's probably a way we can stretch that further, but we really don't feel like we have to because we don't think there's a better offer out there".

If he was told that 5 years/$135 million was a "drop dead" number and one of the other rumored suitors significantly topped that before the lockout, he'd probably have signed already. As Matt said, it's pretty unfair to call him a bat-only player just yet - but that day is coming, and no one has yet found a legitimate way to project when that will be (with any level of certainty at least). Not only is it fair to feel like you'd be shocked to hear that anything approaching $200 million is out there for him, it's also understandable to wonder if the Braves were bidding against themselves if Alex nudged the offer to 5 guaranteed years at $30 million AAV. Marcus Semien is a full year younger and he got $25 million AAV, and Steamer projects the two to be roughly the same player in 2022 (4.6 fWAR for Semien, 4.4 for Freeman). If Freddie wants to be paid until the same age, 6 years/$150 million would probably be a reasonable ask - but given the fact that Semien can play up the middle for the first 3-4 years of his deal before becoming a corner (or bat-only) guy, Freddie's reps don't have a huge argument to make if Alex simply isn't willing to guarantee a 6th year (and arguably even a 5th).

Not only is it fair to speculate that there's definitely not a $200 million offer out there anywhere, it's probably reasonable to assume that there's probably not a team with a glaring enough need or opening for a 1B/DH type that he fits well enough with for them to even push to 6/180 - unless the Giants suddenly decide to change the way they appear to be going about things midstream. They wouldn't even go to 5/110 to keep Gausman, so it's kinda hard to think they're suddenly going to spend over $150 million. Bryant would seem to be a much better fit if they did since they could play him all over the place to allow Longoria and Belt to DH a lot in 2022 and have him replace Longoria at 3B after next season.
 
Pretty nice career for Seager. He could've squeezed out 2-3 more years. 35 bombs, 101 RBI and hangs 'em up. Of course, he was down to .212 in '21, owing to slower hands and probably the most pull-happy batted ball profile of any LHH other than BMac.
 
FG projections for Philadelphia is out... they don't expect a great team over the next generation, just a middling one.

Project them at .500 or a win or two better as of right now.
 
Carp said:
Only takes 1 dumb team though. Anaheim and San Diego love to spend money, they are in need of an upgrade at 1b, and Freeman is from SoCal. Prime opportunity for them to make him a 200 million dollar man.
Click to expand...

Anaheim has Jared Walsh, 27 yo, 4 yrs control, 3.1 oWAR, OPS+ of 128, .277/.340/.509, All Star, LHH. Costs bupkis.

If Walsh weren't there, I'd be very concerned. But he is. Even Moreno isn't that stupid.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
Anaheim has Jared Walsh, 27 yo, 4 yrs control, 3.1 oWAR, OPS+ of 128, .277/.340/.509, All Star, LHH. Costs bupkis.

If Walsh weren't there, I'd be very concerned. But he is. Even Moreno isn't that stupid.
Click to expand...

Walsh can also play right field, granted not very well, so if they decided to go for Freddie, he could move back to the outfield. Some of their top prospects are outfielders as well and they couple use Walsh, Adell, etc. to add pitching. it saying you are wrong, but Walsh does have some versatility.
 
jgriff3029 said:
Walsh can also play right field, granted not very well, so if they decided to go for Freddie, he could move back to the outfield. Some of their top prospects are outfielders as well and they couple use Walsh, Adell, etc. to add pitching. it saying you are wrong, but Walsh does have some versatility.
Click to expand...

The big problem with the Angels signing him is they just don't have the flexibility unless Moreno is going to allow them to start carrying a $230 million payroll. On the surface it's easy to say "that would only have to be this year since J-Up comes off their books after this season", but that doesn't go deep enough - Otani will be a free-agent after 2023. He's going to get a substantially higher AAV than Syndergaard's getting this year - and they'll still have to replace Syndergaard.

If they did though, it would be funny to see Minasian turn around and trade Walsh for Wright and another arm. Sandoval, Wright, Detmers, and Bachman would be four pretty nice young, controllable arms for them to have behind Shohei if Sandoval comes back strong.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top