Looming lockout, pitcher injuries, and deferrals: Answering your free-agency questions – The Athletic

Free agency has barely started, and already I’m anxious about this year’s contract projections. Jack Flaherty and Shane Bieber, two pitchers I projected to make around $20 million in multi-year deals, both exercised player options that will keep them off the open market. Extrapolating from those decisions could mean the market comes in lower than most people think, and certainly lower than the high projections I’ve made.

At the same time, in general, the first moves in free agency aren’t great indicators of the market as a whole. The deals signed in the first couple of weeks of November typically play out as more team friendly than those signed in the middle of the winter. We’ll see.

In the meantime, you had plenty of questions about my approach to the contract projections and how free agency might play out over the next couple of months. The questions have been lightly edited and condensed.

Frankly, these deals are all insane with the term. — Joseph L.

These all tilt towards the exorbitant as if existing in a vacuum. Feels like the effect of supply in the talent pool and austerity by ownership should shave about 20 percent from most projections here. —David R.

Yes, the first reaction to my projections this year was what I expected: surprise at how big the numbers were. Frankly, I’m surprised by them, too, but I went into the process this year planning to err on the high side. That’s an acknowledgement that I was low on a lot of the big deals last winter, like those for Juan Soto, Max Fried, Willy Adames and Blake Snell.

To Joseph’s question, we’ve seen teams re-embrace the long deal in free agency. Including extensions, there were seven deals of 10-plus years in the 2010s; we’ve had 18 of them this decade. That filters down to the four-year deals that become five, the five-year deals that become seven. (I ended up projecting a couple of four-year contracts, but it’s kind of funny how few players sign for that specific number: In the last three offseasons, just four players making $10 million or more per season have signed four-year deals.)

Willy Adames signed a seven-year, $182 million contract last offseason. Who will surprise this year? (Lachlan Cunningham / Getty Images)

To David’s question, I do largely calculate the projections in a vacuum, with modest exceptions. I tend to add a little bit on top to the best pitcher or best hitter in the market, and in the event five different Juan Sotos hit free agency in the same year, I’d temper the projection for all of them.

However, one thing that justified the higher projections in my mind is how high multiple organizations have been willing to go in recent years. It wasn’t just that the Mets signed Soto for $765 million; there were three other teams willing to go to $700 million for him. There were four teams in at $300 million for Yoshinobu Yamamoto. The Dodgers’ spending (and on-field success) has raised the bar for some other big-market teams, and they have to spend to keep up.

Of course, I could be wrong on all this. In which case, it’s back to the drawing board for next year. But one thing I really like about this exercise is that there is a kind of scoreboard at the end of the winter that tells you how you’re doing.

How do you think the potential post-2026 lockout will affect the free-agent market? I think teams might be hesitant to hand out any long-term deals without having any sense of where the sport might be headed in terms of salary cap/floor, leading to a depressed market that drags into January/February, only further fanning the flames of a lockout. —David P.

The short answer is that I don’t know. The 2020-2021 offseason was the last one a year ahead of a CBA negotiation, and that landscape was likely affected more by COVID than anything else. (There were more one-year contracts that winter than usual.) The 2015-16 offseason was also one year ahead of a labor negotiation, but there was far less strife at the time and almost no thought of a work stoppage. (There were more five-plus-year contracts that winter than usual.)

In making my projections, I operated as if it would be a normal offseason. I derived that stance from what happened in late November 2021, when, with a lockout days away, we saw Max Scherzer set a new record for average annual value and the Rangers dish out $500 million to Corey Seager and Marcus Semien. I had thought that players would settle for lesser deals just to be signed ahead of the lockout; that dynamic didn’t fully materialize then, and so I’m skeptical it would show up now.

It would not surprise me, however, if several teams cited the looming lockout as a reason to rein in expenses, and there could be a couple of recent big spenders who do less this year, which would bring some prices down. (The aforementioned Rangers appear to be one of them.) But I am cynical enough to think that most teams pointing to the lockout are teams that don’t spend much in free agency anyway.

Might we see more one-year deals? Sure, but that’s been a trend regardless of labor issues of late: Ten teams signed nothing but one-year contracts last winter. The Pirates haven’t signed a multi-year free agent since 2017. The Guardians and Brewers haven’t handed out a three-year deal since 2017 and 2018, respectively.

One thing I should add: Among baseball reporters, I tend to be optimistic about the 2027 season. I would be very surprised if the result of those labor negotiations involves a salary cap.

What is the longest (in terms of years) contract that will be given to a starting pitcher this offseason? Will the start to the Corbin Burnes deal scare front offices off of anything over half a decade? — Julian B.

Tatsuya Imai has the best chance of securing a seven- or eight-year deal. He and Dustin May are the only two free-agent starters who will pitch next season under 30, and they’ll both be 28. I projected Framber Valdez to get seven years, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see him fall short of that.

There are two ways to think about the Burnes contract. On one hand, yep, the Diamondbacks committed $190 million to a guy who will largely miss the first (and likely best) two years of that contract. On the other hand, there’s still the chance of recouping some value in the last four years, so it’s not a waste.

I think back to the Rangers’ deal with Jacob deGrom, when many people thought a three-year deal was proper for deGrom. Had he signed for three years instead of five, he’d have provided Texas with one season of value and been hitting free agency again this year. Provided deGrom is still pretty good over the next two years, the five-year deal will turn out to be better. The same dynamic exists for Burnes in Arizona because the deal was longer.

What big-name FA do you think will linger out on the market the longest (similar to Pete Alonso and Alex Bregman last year)? —David C.

Alonso has a reasonable shot again. Yes, he’s coming off a better season than last year and doesn’t have the qualifying offer attached, but he’s a year older, looked worse defensively this past season and is in a first-base market that is deeper than it was last winter.

And then Luis Arraez is such a unique player that I can foresee a wide range of valuations for him, leading to a longer process this winter.

With the Cubs turning down Imanaga’s three-year option, what could he expect to get on the market? I am guessing a qualifying offer would dampen interest. Could the Cubs get him back for two years and $35 million? —Tom C.

I eventually projected Shota Imanaga at just the one-year, $22 million mark for the qualifying offer because accepting that makes some sense for him. He’s going to be 32, which means a team is unlikely to hand him more than a three-year deal, and I don’t see a team giving him a contract that long with a healthy AAV while also sacrificing a draft pick. The two-year, $35 million number you suggest is in the right ballpark, and at that point, Imanaga should probably just take the qualifying offer.

How likely is it that the Nationals make another Jayson Werth-style signing to show they are serious about competing — and add another veteran voice to their clubhouse? — Ariadnevan1

A lot less likely this year than last year, in my opinion. I actually thought Washington was a good landing spot for Alonso last year: The Nats had a glaring need for both a first baseman and a right-handed bat to anchor their lineup, the front office and ownership have a long working relationship with Scott Boras, and their payroll is so far below what it used to be that they could afford a potential overpay in the short term. Instead, they traded a useful reliever for a left-handed first baseman they released in Nathaniel Lowe and fired everybody. Shrug.

With a new front office in place and with MacKenzie Gore and C.J. Abrams another year closer to free agency, I expect the Nats to go the other way and lean into another rebuild. It’s brutal when an organization has to double down on rebuilding, but that’s the grace extended to a new regime.

Since the White Sox seem to be paralyzed by FOMO, this is completely theoretical, but I’d love to hear what you think: If Luis Robert Jr. were a free agent right now, what do you think his market would look like? Do you think he could get $22 million guaranteed? — Michael S.

The $22 million is what the White Sox just guaranteed Robert by picking up his 2026 option. Robert and Cedric Mullins are pretty close in terms of recent production, and I projected Mullins for one year and $11 million.

Player

  

Age

  

fWAR1

  

fWAR3

  

fWAR5

  

28

1.3

6.8

12.3

31

1.3

5.3

15.0

The big difference is age, and if Robert had hit the open market, I think he would have signed a two-year deal in the $25 million range with an opt-out after the first year. Imagine something that paid him $12 million for 2026 with a $13 million player option for 2027 alongside a $4 million buyout. Basically, one for $16 million or two for $25 million.

However, even though it’s not quite efficient spending, I think the White Sox did the right thing in picking up Robert’s option. Given the scarcity of quality two-way center fielders in the game, even a modest improvement at the plate would make him a pretty valuable piece come July. That’s the type of risk the Sox should be taking at this point.

Can you peg this year’s free-agent contracts to Alex Rodriguez’s Texas one as base year CPI = 100 or something similar? And quantify what 2025’s premium on each contract amounts to for having no superstar UFA over the next few years, please. — Henry R.

Given that the worst grade I ever received was for Intro to Economics, I am going to opt for doing “something similar.” Rodriguez’s 10-year, $252 million deal with the Rangers in 2000-2001 would be worth about $466 million today. (According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, $1 in January 2001 is worth about $1.85 now.) In the quarter-century since, only Juan Soto has bested that on the open market, even accounting for inflation. (Mike Trout and Vladimir Guerrero Jr. have surpassed $500 million in their extensions.)

You are right that next year’s crop of free agents, especially from the position player side, appears exceptionally weak at the moment.

I’m a Guardians fan. Give me one (or more) reason why I should be excited about this offseason. — Michael J.

The Cavs?

No, Cleveland actually has a decent amount of money to spend this winter, and there should be a few guys they can target on one- or two-year deals to complement a roster with obvious holes. Two types of teams win 88 games: one with two-win players throughout the roster and no elite talent, and one with a few really good players and a few really glaring weaknesses. I tend to think the latter is easier to fix because the bar for improvement is so low, and that’s where the Guardians are. They can pretty easily better themselves in the outfield and maybe at short, depending on how they feel about the handful of middle-infield prospects that I feel like The Athletic’s Zack Meisel has been writing about for a decade.

On the Big Board, we listed the Guardians as fits for Zack Littell and Harrison Bader. Those wouldn’t be big moves, but they’d bring some back-end reliability to the rotation and a solid floor to center field.

Oh, and it helps that the other teams in the Central aren’t apt to spend much either. I’m intrigued to see how the Tigers, in particular, handle this winter.

How big a surprise is Bieber picking up his option to stay in Toronto? It seems he could have gotten way more money on the open market, either for a short- or a long-term deal. — Andrew H.

I found it very surprising (and so did our Mitch Bannon, who covers the Jays). Considering there was a $4 million buyout on the option, Bieber essentially elected a one-year, $12 million deal when he likely would have been able to secure a three-year deal with an opt-out. (I had projected him at three years and $63 million, and that’s not one of the deals I was worried about being too high.)

Do you think we’ll see any more big deferred contracts, similar to Shohei Ohtani’s? Do you think other teams besides the Dodgers will start to offer deferred contracts in the future? — Jared R.

Other teams besides the Dodgers do offer deferred contracts! The Nationals still owe Scherzer money through 2028. They won’t pay off Stephen Strasburg’s initial extension, signed in 2017, until 2030. The Rockies will be paying Nolan Arenado until 2041. The Mets don’t even start paying deGrom deferred money from his 2019 extension until 2035. Deferrals have been in the sport for a while.

Yes, the Dodgers have taken it to a different level. Ohtani, Mookie Betts, Blake Snell and Freddie Freeman have all deferred at least $50 million in their deals. Ohtani deferred $680 million. Organizations that expect to be making a lot of money over time, like the Dodgers right now, feel especially comfortable deferring money to a time when it will be less valued in their estimation. It can come back to bite you on occasion. The Mets were comfortable buying out Bobby Bonilla with an exorbitant deferral structure because of their confidence in their investments — you know, the ones with Bernie Madoff. It didn’t work out.