While I agree with you on your assessment that Ozuna shouldn't be able to tell the next set of cops that he plays for the Atlanta Braves, I disagree with your assessment of how to handle going about getting him off the roster.
A simple release does accomplish the goal in a nice and quick fashion, but I think you have downplayed the amount of weight $18M/year for the next two years on the payroll. Yes, you've noted that The Battery is a lucrative money-maker for the franchise and the Braves will likely have money to spend, but if they intend to improve they will need to get out from under that contract somehow.
You've alluded to the process by mentioning Muller, but I honestly don't feel he's the guy that'd get him off your roster. It'll either be William Contreras or Vaughn Grissom. Sounds like blasphemy (and admittedly, I haven't read your other writeups on catchers and infielders yet) but hang in there with me.
My reasoning on Grissom is simple. Down the stretch in the biggest games of the year, Snitker turned to Orlando Arcia to start at 2B. This isn't saying Grissom does not have a bright future, but it does say that Snitker likely didn't trust him defensively at 2B with the division on the line. With this in mind, I can't imagine a sudden shift in opinion over the winter where Grissom becomes a trusted replacement for Dansby Swanson at shortstop. Nor will Grissom supplant Ozzie Albies at the keystone. Sure, you could probably throw him out into left field or spend time DH'ing, but that's where his value as a hitter will go to die. Well...I lie. It won't die....but his value will definitely be blunted and he'll no longer be special as an offensive-minded middle infielder.
As far as Contreras goes, the thought process is similar. Travis d'Arnaud started all three games of the Mets series at the end of the year and the bulk of the playoffs if I'm not mistaken. Sure....d'Arnaud is an excellent framer and game-caller, but I think it also speaks volumes that Contreras was not used behind the dish often towards the end of the year, suggesting that he was simply being used because he was the hot bat at any given point and the alternatives were Rosario/Ozuna/Duvall for the DH spot and for the simple fact that d'Arnaud couldn't play 162 games behind the dish. As a mediocre pitch-framer, I feel Contreras doesn't really fit the mold of more recent catchers in Atlanta like the aforementioned d'Arnaud, Tyler Flowers, Kurt Suzuki. He could surely pick it up over time, but it would be a break from organization philosophy to dub him the catcher of the future. That said, if you're not going to use him behind the dish, his offense becomes a little less special when you DH him often. It's liken to how the Braves moved Evan Gattis out from behind the plate and into left field. What made him special as a catcher kind of just became another guy as a left fielder.
Of course, it's easy to suggest and not so easy to actually apply....but that's why you know me, right Thomas? =D I kid. Sort of. Honestly, I feel that if teams can move injured players with 1 year left on a deal, you can absolutely move someone who despite how poorly he really did hit still managed to pop 23 homeruns. It's just a matter of finding the right combination of need for power, need at position and desire to contend, but likely the inability to spend on the big boys in the market due mostly to your location or the current payroll situation.
For this exercise, I have over 5 teams I think could be enticed to take Ozuna's entire contract...but we'll focus on three of them who can afford the salary and then some (AKA: No small budget teams looking to add the prospects). The first is the Boston Red Sox. They have openings both behind the dish and at 2B (if Story is move over to short with Xander hitting free agency). If the BoSox feel they are teetering on the precipice of having to rebuild a bit they could be interested in either of Contreras or Grissom and could very well convince themselves that with the Green Monster in left that Ozuna's career may revive a bit. The second would be the Minnesota Twins who could use Contreras behind the dish and Ozuna at DH to make up for some of the offense lost by Correa's free agency. Finally, and potentially my favorite concept, is the Seattle Mariners who will likely be desperate for any kind o offense after down years from a lot of their outfielders not named Julio. They could use Grissom at 2B whilst having Ozuna slot in at DH for the departing Santana. After their first playoffs appears in forever, they will have the motivation to want to add big pieces....but I can't imagine them being a hot destination for the biggest free agents like Judge or the shortstops (and they seem committed to Crawford there also).
In all cases you aren't looking for the world in return. Probably a prospect without much of a future....but also I feel you could probably nab something halfway useful for the major league roster with the right trade partner--especially if the trade piece attached to Ozuna is Grissom.
Just kidding. I appreciate your position on this. To me, I do not want to lose assets just to gain some financial freedom and count me as dubious to how much freedom the Braves will actually get. I will definitely not be for including Contreras, who I believe provides too much value to mute it by tying him down with Ozuna. It's like tying Melvin Upton to Craig Kimbrel. Sure, you shed salary and the Braves maxed out the draft pick that was part of the deal by astutely picking Austin Riley, but the Braves obviously received less in the deal than Kimbrel was worth at the time. Adding an asset like Contreras or even Grissom to a deal just to get rid of Ozuna's salary means you get some (probably not all) relief and hurt your roster in the process. These Braves don't need to do that in my opinion.
But I understand it's easy to say all this when it's not my money or my budget.
As an aside, I have been workshopping an idea of turning Grissom into a Mark DeRosa-type who might not be a full-time starter, but can play a variety of positions and put an end to this idea that guys can't take off days because the depth isn't good enough.
lol, I had to sign up for a substack to reply so maybe I will! =P
I mean, yeah...the ideal is that we don't have to perform such an action to get rid of Ozuna, but when your other options are keeping/playing him, Patrick Corbin, or eating the $37M owed to him the idea of packaging him with a value piece to realize some savings becomes so much more a palatable option. The way I figure things is this....the Braves really do need to get rid of Ozuna somehow--even if it's merely just to free up the roster spot at this point. I just happen to be of the opinion that neither of Grissom or Contreras (or Muller, for your example) should stand in the way of the Braves accomplishing this. Giving up one (or even both, but in separate deals) this winter will freak a lot of people out, but it will be fine in the long run.
You mention the Kimbrel/BUpton package and it's funny that you did, as I've used this as an example elsewhere in discussions. People freaked out back then too....and while we did suffer from the loss of Kimbrel, the Braves were not a 90-loss team because we traded Kimbrel. It was for other bone-headed decisions like retaining Chris Johnson when his chip should have been cashed in after the .999 BABIP season, for placing our faith in some guy named Hector Oliveira, for throwing a good chunk of the money saved in the deal at Nick Markakis and trying to convince people that was a great idea.
That said....I agree that we didn't entirely get value for Kimbrel in that deal, but I also feel like Braves fans severely overvalued Kimbrel as well. He wasn't exactly cheap in the final few years of that contract the Braves had signed him. Yes, we probably should've let BJ Upton's deal play out seeing as how the Braves sucked for the next 3 years anyway....and yes, we should've traded Kimbrel for a prospect return instead to expedite the rebuild or at least to try and retool....but I don't know if you can look back at that trade and say the Braves didn't come out the back end of it okay. Just as they'll come out just fine on the back end of moving Grissom or Contreras in an Ozuna salary dump. The only real concern I have is that the farm system is thinner after having graduated so many players to the major league roster....but the international spending limit sanctions have also lifted and there are the annual drafts that allow the Braves to replenish. So long as AA doesn't go bat shit crazy trading his farm system for rentals then the future still looks bright.
The concept of moving all or even just part of Ozuna's money this winter gives the Braves some extra wiggle room to add that "final piece" type of player, IMO. It could be the difference between simply re-signing Dansby Swanson because he's the cheapest of the shortstops and actually having the choice of the shortstops and not having to worry about the CBT or the upper reaches of the available funds. Trading Grissom and/or Contreras may hurt the depth of the roster some, but I'd rather the depth get tested than to regularly start guys like Ozuna and Rosario....and before you suggest to just bench or cut them....then you thrust Grissom and Contreras into starting roles and you're back to square one with a weak bench. So yeah....trade them or keep them, I think you're kind of stuck because of the contracts owed. As I mentioned before, for true improvement you need to get out of paying the money and utilize it more wisely. There's a path to it....but it's kind of all or nothing. If you trade one, you could argue to trade both to load your lineup/roster.
But....as you noted, it's easy for me to say and not easy to actually do. If I were actually in AA's shoes, I'm sure I'd be losing a lot more sleep over the possibility of having to part with young players to rid of a contract. It's just that I keep finding myself taking a step back and taking note that both Grissom and Contreras are effectively blocked at their most valuable positions for at least the next two years (longer for Grissom) and while it's great to have a plan for 2-5 years down the line, I feel like having a backup plan for your infield or behind the dish is overrated when the majority of your starting 8 is decided for the next 6-7+ years.
Regarding Grissom as a DeRosa-esque utility type, I'd be fine with that....but I also feel like relegating him to such a role immediately doesn't entirely capitalize on what he could be in the eyes of other beholders. While that type of role might ultimately be Grissom's future, there has to be management squads out there in the league who look at Grissom and salivate over the thought of him as an everyday 2B....or even shortstop. Despite his late season struggles with breaking pitches, there just has to be someone out there willing to do stupid, compromising things to get their hands on him. And....well, I'm not so sure that there's ever been the idea that guys can't take off days because the depth isn't good enough. Guys playing 162 games in a season is a management issue....not a depth issue. I just think that Snitker doesn't have enough of a backbone as a manager to pull his guys when they are clearly dead, bloated and floating face down in the whirlpool. Dansby didn't start 162 because there were no other options. It was because he didn't get hurt and he likely refused to come out of the lineup when it was proposed he needed a day off and talked his way into the lineup.
While I agree with you on your assessment that Ozuna shouldn't be able to tell the next set of cops that he plays for the Atlanta Braves, I disagree with your assessment of how to handle going about getting him off the roster.
A simple release does accomplish the goal in a nice and quick fashion, but I think you have downplayed the amount of weight $18M/year for the next two years on the payroll. Yes, you've noted that The Battery is a lucrative money-maker for the franchise and the Braves will likely have money to spend, but if they intend to improve they will need to get out from under that contract somehow.
You've alluded to the process by mentioning Muller, but I honestly don't feel he's the guy that'd get him off your roster. It'll either be William Contreras or Vaughn Grissom. Sounds like blasphemy (and admittedly, I haven't read your other writeups on catchers and infielders yet) but hang in there with me.
My reasoning on Grissom is simple. Down the stretch in the biggest games of the year, Snitker turned to Orlando Arcia to start at 2B. This isn't saying Grissom does not have a bright future, but it does say that Snitker likely didn't trust him defensively at 2B with the division on the line. With this in mind, I can't imagine a sudden shift in opinion over the winter where Grissom becomes a trusted replacement for Dansby Swanson at shortstop. Nor will Grissom supplant Ozzie Albies at the keystone. Sure, you could probably throw him out into left field or spend time DH'ing, but that's where his value as a hitter will go to die. Well...I lie. It won't die....but his value will definitely be blunted and he'll no longer be special as an offensive-minded middle infielder.
As far as Contreras goes, the thought process is similar. Travis d'Arnaud started all three games of the Mets series at the end of the year and the bulk of the playoffs if I'm not mistaken. Sure....d'Arnaud is an excellent framer and game-caller, but I think it also speaks volumes that Contreras was not used behind the dish often towards the end of the year, suggesting that he was simply being used because he was the hot bat at any given point and the alternatives were Rosario/Ozuna/Duvall for the DH spot and for the simple fact that d'Arnaud couldn't play 162 games behind the dish. As a mediocre pitch-framer, I feel Contreras doesn't really fit the mold of more recent catchers in Atlanta like the aforementioned d'Arnaud, Tyler Flowers, Kurt Suzuki. He could surely pick it up over time, but it would be a break from organization philosophy to dub him the catcher of the future. That said, if you're not going to use him behind the dish, his offense becomes a little less special when you DH him often. It's liken to how the Braves moved Evan Gattis out from behind the plate and into left field. What made him special as a catcher kind of just became another guy as a left fielder.
Of course, it's easy to suggest and not so easy to actually apply....but that's why you know me, right Thomas? =D I kid. Sort of. Honestly, I feel that if teams can move injured players with 1 year left on a deal, you can absolutely move someone who despite how poorly he really did hit still managed to pop 23 homeruns. It's just a matter of finding the right combination of need for power, need at position and desire to contend, but likely the inability to spend on the big boys in the market due mostly to your location or the current payroll situation.
For this exercise, I have over 5 teams I think could be enticed to take Ozuna's entire contract...but we'll focus on three of them who can afford the salary and then some (AKA: No small budget teams looking to add the prospects). The first is the Boston Red Sox. They have openings both behind the dish and at 2B (if Story is move over to short with Xander hitting free agency). If the BoSox feel they are teetering on the precipice of having to rebuild a bit they could be interested in either of Contreras or Grissom and could very well convince themselves that with the Green Monster in left that Ozuna's career may revive a bit. The second would be the Minnesota Twins who could use Contreras behind the dish and Ozuna at DH to make up for some of the offense lost by Correa's free agency. Finally, and potentially my favorite concept, is the Seattle Mariners who will likely be desperate for any kind o offense after down years from a lot of their outfielders not named Julio. They could use Grissom at 2B whilst having Ozuna slot in at DH for the departing Santana. After their first playoffs appears in forever, they will have the motivation to want to add big pieces....but I can't imagine them being a hot destination for the biggest free agents like Judge or the shortstops (and they seem committed to Crawford there also).
In all cases you aren't looking for the world in return. Probably a prospect without much of a future....but also I feel you could probably nab something halfway useful for the major league roster with the right trade partner--especially if the trade piece attached to Ozuna is Grissom.
HEY! IF YOU WANT TO BLOG, GET YOUR OWN SUBSTACK!
Just kidding. I appreciate your position on this. To me, I do not want to lose assets just to gain some financial freedom and count me as dubious to how much freedom the Braves will actually get. I will definitely not be for including Contreras, who I believe provides too much value to mute it by tying him down with Ozuna. It's like tying Melvin Upton to Craig Kimbrel. Sure, you shed salary and the Braves maxed out the draft pick that was part of the deal by astutely picking Austin Riley, but the Braves obviously received less in the deal than Kimbrel was worth at the time. Adding an asset like Contreras or even Grissom to a deal just to get rid of Ozuna's salary means you get some (probably not all) relief and hurt your roster in the process. These Braves don't need to do that in my opinion.
But I understand it's easy to say all this when it's not my money or my budget.
As an aside, I have been workshopping an idea of turning Grissom into a Mark DeRosa-type who might not be a full-time starter, but can play a variety of positions and put an end to this idea that guys can't take off days because the depth isn't good enough.
lol, I had to sign up for a substack to reply so maybe I will! =P
I mean, yeah...the ideal is that we don't have to perform such an action to get rid of Ozuna, but when your other options are keeping/playing him, Patrick Corbin, or eating the $37M owed to him the idea of packaging him with a value piece to realize some savings becomes so much more a palatable option. The way I figure things is this....the Braves really do need to get rid of Ozuna somehow--even if it's merely just to free up the roster spot at this point. I just happen to be of the opinion that neither of Grissom or Contreras (or Muller, for your example) should stand in the way of the Braves accomplishing this. Giving up one (or even both, but in separate deals) this winter will freak a lot of people out, but it will be fine in the long run.
You mention the Kimbrel/BUpton package and it's funny that you did, as I've used this as an example elsewhere in discussions. People freaked out back then too....and while we did suffer from the loss of Kimbrel, the Braves were not a 90-loss team because we traded Kimbrel. It was for other bone-headed decisions like retaining Chris Johnson when his chip should have been cashed in after the .999 BABIP season, for placing our faith in some guy named Hector Oliveira, for throwing a good chunk of the money saved in the deal at Nick Markakis and trying to convince people that was a great idea.
That said....I agree that we didn't entirely get value for Kimbrel in that deal, but I also feel like Braves fans severely overvalued Kimbrel as well. He wasn't exactly cheap in the final few years of that contract the Braves had signed him. Yes, we probably should've let BJ Upton's deal play out seeing as how the Braves sucked for the next 3 years anyway....and yes, we should've traded Kimbrel for a prospect return instead to expedite the rebuild or at least to try and retool....but I don't know if you can look back at that trade and say the Braves didn't come out the back end of it okay. Just as they'll come out just fine on the back end of moving Grissom or Contreras in an Ozuna salary dump. The only real concern I have is that the farm system is thinner after having graduated so many players to the major league roster....but the international spending limit sanctions have also lifted and there are the annual drafts that allow the Braves to replenish. So long as AA doesn't go bat shit crazy trading his farm system for rentals then the future still looks bright.
The concept of moving all or even just part of Ozuna's money this winter gives the Braves some extra wiggle room to add that "final piece" type of player, IMO. It could be the difference between simply re-signing Dansby Swanson because he's the cheapest of the shortstops and actually having the choice of the shortstops and not having to worry about the CBT or the upper reaches of the available funds. Trading Grissom and/or Contreras may hurt the depth of the roster some, but I'd rather the depth get tested than to regularly start guys like Ozuna and Rosario....and before you suggest to just bench or cut them....then you thrust Grissom and Contreras into starting roles and you're back to square one with a weak bench. So yeah....trade them or keep them, I think you're kind of stuck because of the contracts owed. As I mentioned before, for true improvement you need to get out of paying the money and utilize it more wisely. There's a path to it....but it's kind of all or nothing. If you trade one, you could argue to trade both to load your lineup/roster.
But....as you noted, it's easy for me to say and not easy to actually do. If I were actually in AA's shoes, I'm sure I'd be losing a lot more sleep over the possibility of having to part with young players to rid of a contract. It's just that I keep finding myself taking a step back and taking note that both Grissom and Contreras are effectively blocked at their most valuable positions for at least the next two years (longer for Grissom) and while it's great to have a plan for 2-5 years down the line, I feel like having a backup plan for your infield or behind the dish is overrated when the majority of your starting 8 is decided for the next 6-7+ years.
Regarding Grissom as a DeRosa-esque utility type, I'd be fine with that....but I also feel like relegating him to such a role immediately doesn't entirely capitalize on what he could be in the eyes of other beholders. While that type of role might ultimately be Grissom's future, there has to be management squads out there in the league who look at Grissom and salivate over the thought of him as an everyday 2B....or even shortstop. Despite his late season struggles with breaking pitches, there just has to be someone out there willing to do stupid, compromising things to get their hands on him. And....well, I'm not so sure that there's ever been the idea that guys can't take off days because the depth isn't good enough. Guys playing 162 games in a season is a management issue....not a depth issue. I just think that Snitker doesn't have enough of a backbone as a manager to pull his guys when they are clearly dead, bloated and floating face down in the whirlpool. Dansby didn't start 162 because there were no other options. It was because he didn't get hurt and he likely refused to come out of the lineup when it was proposed he needed a day off and talked his way into the lineup.