Last week, we covered the late flurry of action before the CBA expired on Dec. 1, which saw an almost unprecedented levels of spending in a short period of time. Now that there’s a lockout that should last most of the winter, we don’t have any imminent action. But come February, we very well might have a couple of more weeks for the rest of the offseason to play out. Here are some topics that execs and agents are monitoring until then:
There are still candidates for big paydays.
My biggest misses from my free agent predictions were at the top end of the market. Many expected a couple of mid-market teams to jump in the deep end of the pool — but not this deep, this early, or this often. What I missed was that at least a handful of owners from non-playoff clubs were more willing to spend and, for labor reasons, were incentivized to do it before Dec. 1 if they were going to do it sometime this winter.
While most of the top players have signed, there are still two prominent players left who will get nine figures for sure: Carlos Correa and Freddie Freeman. Correa always seemed likely to get the biggest deal of the winter, by far — until Corey Seager‘s deal came in almost $100 million north of many expectations (including mine). Correa is still expected to clear that $325 million hurdle, but not by a ton. Freeman’s floor seems to be Paul Goldschmidt‘s five-year, $130 million deal from 2020, and he should be able to clear that by a good bit. This Braves‘ regime has been steadfast in not handing out giant multiyear deals in free agency, but they did keep 2020 standout Marcell Ozuna for four years and $65 million. The assumption is that they’ll figure out a way to meet franchise icon Freeman’s price (especially after a World Series financial windfall).
Beyond those two, finding the big deals gets a bit tougher. Trevor Story, Kris Bryant, Nick Castellanos, Michael Conforto, Kyle Schwarber and Seiya Suzuki are the position player candidates to land north of $50 million, while Clayton Kershaw and Carlos Rodon are the only remaining pitchers at that level. Story has long been expected to get nine figures but his throwing issue may make a shorter deal of some sort a better option for him. As the motivated spenders start to dry up, at least one of these players will sign for less than you think — but this will be a very healthy market if it’s only one of them.
When baseball comes back, big markets will be ready to open their wallets.
Non-playoff clubs (Rangers, Mariners, Tigers, Mets, Jays, Cubs, Angels, Marlins) handed out the top nine and 12 of the top 13 guarantees. The big markets and playoff clubs won’t let that stand, with the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox and Giants having plenty of room to spend, even though the early winter conditions didn’t fit their approach.
All four clubs are regular contenders with big payrolls, even if none of them tend to give as many significant nine figure deals as their payrolls would suggest. Since they didn’t want to make that outlay, the Red Sox traded Mookie Betts — the same player on whom the Dodgers made a happy exception, after opting not to dole out that kind of money for many offseasons. The Yankees spent on Gerrit Cole to fix an issue they couldn’t fix internally and took on Giancarlo Stanton‘s massive deal (once it was paid down). The Red Sox paid lower nine figures in extensions on keeping their players (Chris Sale, Xander Bogaerts, J.D. Martinez), while this Giants regime hasn’t come close.
Said another way, the big market perennial contenders are contenders in large part because they don’t jump at the shiniest object in free agency, with the Yankees and Cole the only recent example against that. The players that represent the best nine-figure investments often don’t reach free agency, and these teams (among many others) look at players through this value-obsessed mindset. These clubs have big revenues and could always spend more (look at the Mets’ recent outburst and Dodgers’ 2021 payroll blowing past the CBT threshold). But they typically end up around the first CBT threshold, and that won’t be set until the CBA is agreed to. That aforementioned $50 million to $100 million or so group of players makes sense for these value-focused contenders.
Of course, there are always exceptions. The Yankees make a ton of sense with Correa, likely to earn the offseason’s biggest contract, due to his position and defensive prowess there, which Story can’t really offer with certainty right now (although he historically has). Beyond those two, there are no other quality free agent shortstops, so the Bombers would have to look on the trade market or do with a lesser defender. Some starting pitching depth seems likely to be on Brian Cashman’s list as well.
The Dodgers are so deep that they lost Seager and Max Scherzer and still have one of the best rosters in baseball. If the universal DH happens, that will test their lineup depth a bit, and there’s lots of versatility in that lineup, so Freeman — who has SoCal roots — would fit well. Although their rotation is lighter than usual right now, Kershaw returning would give them their usually insane amount of starting pitching depth.
Freeman would also fit in Boston, which could upgrade on Bobby Dalbec (who could slide into a corner utility role), and still use the DH spot in 2023 to break in top prospect Triston Casas after Martinez’s contract expires. But I’m not sure if it’s in keeping with the new direction of the Sox — who balked at giving $300+ million to Betts — to give half that to Freeman. More in that new style of thinking would be smaller deals with a couple of position players — Anthony Rizzo and Suzuki, for example — and maybe a couple more low-cost gambles.
The Giants make sense with Bryant, as their weakest spots in the lineup are the outfield and (depending on what you think about Evan Longoria) third base, but their payroll is expected to balloon in 2022 — maybe to CBT threshold levels. That could mean more than $75 million left to address those spots and maybe add another pitcher or two. Sources believe the Giants aren’t looking to go after nine-figure targets, so any of the aforementioned group of mid-tier free agents that goes for a one- or two-year deal on a contender might have the Giants at the top of their list. As an added enticement, San Francisco has a great track record of improving veterans, both hitters and pitchers, on the way to a big payday.
Who else is going for it?
Other than the top dogs, there are also several perennial top-half-of-the-market types — like the Nationals, Braves, Phillies, Angels — who still have plenty of room to spend. Most assume that there isn’t much more in the budget for the newer spenders who went big in free agency’s first half, but it’s hard to tell — it isn’t yet clear how far the Mets, Rangers, Mariners and Tigers are willing to go on their payroll.
1:23
Jeff Passan reports on the Rangers committing $500M to sign Corey Seager and Marcus Semien to big contracts.
The Rangers are the toughest to figure out from this group because they just spent $500 million on two free agents — and they’re still a bottom-third club in the league. Do they keep spending until they’re around .500 on paper and try their luck in a possibly expanded playoff field? Or are they just trying to be respectable this year? If they decide to compete, the good news is that they’re now in that meaty middle of similar teams. Grabbing, for example, Kershaw, Yusei Kikuchi and Conforto on the open market would cost another $45 to 50 million on the 2022 payroll and would make them an average team. That payroll would’ve been roughly 10th in baseball in 2021, in the area where the Rangers had been in the past. And with a couple more additions, this spending spree would make a lot more sense.
And who isn’t?
As the offseason began, rumors were swirling that the A’s were considering moving stars Matt Chapman and Matt Olson, both of whom have two years of control remaining. If those players move, Oakland’s other core players would also presumably be available, including starting pitchers Sean Manaea (one year of control), Chris Bassitt (one) and Frankie Montas (two). Some whispered that catcher Sean Murphy (four years of control left) could also be had for the right offer.
Now, obviously, Oakland hasn’t made any moves — yet. But trade talks across the league were happening in the background of the free agency feeding frenzy, spurred both by the A’s internal financial concerns and the madness of the AL West happening around them.
Without signing a single free agent, the A’s 2022 payroll is already projected close to their 2021 payroll due to arbitration raises of all the young players from their core. They could run it back and maybe add a minor free agent or two, but they’d go into 2023 with players in their walk years, with rapidly declining trade value — and still with an owner that won’t spend in free agency. Doing a teardown a year early allows them to restock the system and return to this competitive level in a few years — if it’s done right.
Meanwhile, the rest of the AL West has reloaded big-time, with the aforementioned Rangers, defending AL champ Astros, the Mariners, who almost made the playoffs, and an Angels club that has already improved and might add another nine-figure player this winter. This is probably not the best two-year window to try to compete in this division without some payroll to make it more realistic — and A’s ownership isn’t offering that to management.
In similar spots in the past, the A’s have tried both pushing their chips in and going for a rebuild, so it’s far from a sure thing. But if they decide to tear it down, there’s a chance that — even after the premier free agents are signed — there could be multiple star-level players up for grabs this winter.
Will there be anything left for the rebuilders?
The luxury tax threshold isn’t the only thing that could affect the ways teams spend in the second half of the winter. It seems unlikely that we’d have a true salary cap or floor, but competitive balance, revenue sharing and the domestic/international drafts are some of the biggest topics in CBA negotiations. These could greatly affect rebuilding clubs that are maybe a year or two away from being dangerous, like the Orioles, Pirates, Colorado Rockies, Diamondbacks and Cubs.
Will there be full trading of both domestic and international draft picks? These would be the clubs most looking to take advantage. Is there any sort of spending floor, incentives to get to a certain payroll, or revenue-sharing-related-to-payroll mandate? These clubs will take contenders’ bad contracts in exchange for picks to get to that payroll level. Or maybe a draft lottery of sorts comes into play and losing isn’t as incentivized as it is now? That’s a complicated set of levers to successfully pull, so I wouldn’t project it to happen, but more teams actively trying to avoid last place via spending in free agency seems like a good thing for everyone. Even if nothing changes, these clubs often spend their leftover payroll space by targeting veteran relievers on shorter term deals — they can be potential trade chips to essentially buy prospects — so these clubs will be factors toward the end of the offseason process.