AV_12
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2012
- Messages
- 49,711
- Likes
- 17,767
I bet it was similar on the money per year, but didn't want to give him that 6th year.Really curious what our offer was to Freddie.
Tough for me to blame either side. Freddie is just trying to get the best deal he can and Covid made revenue impossible to predict back in 2020 when the timing for an extension would have made the most sense. Then the lockout stopped everything and gave Freddie time to picture himself playing elsewhere.I bet it was similar on the money per year, but didn't want to give him that 6th year.
If the money per year was similar and they met an impasse on that 6th year, then I question how much either side actually wanted the other. If the Braves really wanted him and just wanted to get it done, they bite the bullet and just agree to the 6th year, understanding that is what it would take to get him. If Freddie really wanted to come back, he takes the understandable hometown discount and agrees to 5 years. Assuming that there was plenty of mutual interest, that last year in the contract shouldn't be a big deal.
Personally, and this is probably hindsight talking (because I really thought he was going to re-sign), I wonder if the ship sailed on him when they failed to get a new deal done before last season. Freddie has been very public that he doesn't like to talk about contract stuff during seasons, and I wonder if being the face of the franchise and coming off an MVP season he thought the Braves would just give him what he wanted, no real questions asked. That evidently didn't happen, then they didn't talk about it during the season, then you have an interrupted/abbreviated hot stove due to the lockout. It ended up being a good recipe for him not to re-sign.
When you are facing the best pitchers in the playoffs in high leverage situations, nobody is better than Freddie. He's one of the three best pure hitters in the league (Soto, Trout, Freddie?). But if AA felt like he couldn't wait anymore, so be it. Tough calls got to be made. I just don't think Olson is on the same tier as Freddie.
If he isn’t on the same tier he is pretty damn close…When you are facing the best pitchers in the playoffs in high leverage situations, nobody is better than Freddie. He's one of the three best pure hitters in the league (Soto, Trout, Freddie?). But if AA felt like he couldn't wait anymore, so be it. Tough calls got to be made. I just don't think Olson is on the same tier as Freddie.
He's younger. I think saying he's on the same tier is fan optimism. Freddie is an elite hitter. Olson does not hit Hader in that situation in the playoffs last year. He would be more likely to strike out, as a lot of good hitters would. But Freddie is really good.He’s on the same tier and younger
I don’t want to discount your point as I think it’s very valid, especially in the context of postseason play.He's younger. I think saying he's on the same tier is fan optimism. Freddie is an elite hitter. Olson does not hit Hader in that situation in the playoffs last year. He would be more likely to strike out, as a lot of good hitters would. But Freddie is really good.
I'm happy we got Olson as we could have just lost Freddie and done nothing. I just don't want to disrespect the type of hitter Freddie is.
I think Alex chose Matt Olson over Freddie Freeman. The Liberty Media narrative needs to die. We had the money to sign him. Alex chose to allocate differently.
I think AA chose the path to trade for Olson once it became clear that Freddie wasn’t budging on the 6th year and the window for trading for Olson was closing.I doubt it. They've already stated that payroll is increasing.
“They” being Alex? Liberty media isn’t making baseball decisions in any capacity.I think AA chose the path to trade for Olson once it became clear that Freddie wasn’t budging on the 6th year and the window for trading for Olson was closing.
Liberty may be willing to spend more than before, and I don't think it was an issue of the actual dollars as much as I think it was an issue of where their dollars were going to be spent 6 years from now (as opposed to 5 years). It's my opinion that they believed $30 million in 2027 for a 38 year old 1B was a bad investment.