Offseason Roster Thread 2025-26

[glory]

Jeff Passan posted the following on his "Threads" account:

2) Kyle Tucker: The market for the best free agent in the class could stretch into the new year potentially. At the end of the day, nobody can make a team better like Tucker, and whether it’s Toronto, Philadelphia, either New York team or perhaps one that misses out on the rest of the top players in the class, Tucker’s price will be met, and he’ll get a 10-year-plus deal for more than $300 million — with an even higher ceiling possible.

6) Bo Bichette: One could argue that behind Tucker and Schwarber, Bichette is the best bat available. And considering the paucity of everyday infielders available on the free agent and trade markets, his game stands out even more. Going back to Toronto is the most obvious outcome, but in the end, Bichette’s willingness to move off shortstop will buy him significantly more interested teams and a deal that because of his age (27) could approach $200 million.

If the difference between Bo and Tucker is going to be $100M+ and multiple years, then you could argue that Bo looks way more appealing. 

[Brownie19]

https://www.thescore.com/news/3415565

Kenny reporting we're in on Fairbanks.

[John_Havok]

1 hour ago, glory said:

Jeff Passan posted the following on his "Threads" account:

2) Kyle Tucker: The market for the best free agent in the class could stretch into the new year potentially. At the end of the day, nobody can make a team better like Tucker, and whether it’s Toronto, Philadelphia, either New York team or perhaps one that misses out on the rest of the top players in the class, Tucker’s price will be met, and he’ll get a 10-year-plus deal for more than $300 million — with an even higher ceiling possible.

6) Bo Bichette: One could argue that behind Tucker and Schwarber, Bichette is the best bat available. And considering the paucity of everyday infielders available on the free agent and trade markets, his game stands out even more. Going back to Toronto is the most obvious outcome, but in the end, Bichette’s willingness to move off shortstop will buy him significantly more interested teams and a deal that because of his age (27) could approach $200 million.

If the difference between Bo and Tucker is going to be $100M+ and multiple years, then you could argue that Bo looks way more appealing. 

In a vacuum, yep. However, filling an area of need also weighs on that decision, along with clubhouse chemistry as we know the Jays value. 

For the Jays specifically, they need to evaluate whether the extra money and years for Tucker which fills a bigger positional need going forward vs Bo being a pretty great hitter in his own right, costing less money, and already has the clubhouse chemistry in place. Some of this will also depend on whether he is willing to play 2b as his primary position. 

That.... or put your balls out there, sign both of them and, Diaz, and Imai to big deals with massive deferrals, knowing this is going to be cracked down on in the next CBA, and tell the rest of the league to start signing cheques or get left behind. 

[John_Havok]

5 minutes ago, Brownie19 said:

https://www.thescore.com/news/3415565

Kenny reporting we're in on Fairbanks.

"rarely allows HRs" - incoming massively high career rate of HRs allowed incoming. Thanks Kenny, 

[Terminator]

Fairbanks seems like a fine option to me but he's always dealing with some sort of small injury which limits his innings.

Last year was the first time he cracked 60, before that he topped out at 45. 

I'd definitely take a flier on him but he would need to sign for relatively cheap, and I suspect that he will. A 1 year deal with a team option/buyout seems possible.

[John_Havok]

15 minutes ago, Terminator said:

Fairbanks seems like a fine option to me but he's always dealing with some sort of small injury which limits his innings.

Last year was the first time he cracked 60, before that he topped out at 45. 

I'd definitely take a flier on him but he would need to sign for relatively cheap, and I suspect that he will. A 1 year deal with a team option/buyout seems possible.

Maybe an option that triggers with him reaching come IP threshold in 2026 

[Brownie19]

1 hour ago, John_Havok said:

"rarely allows HRs" - incoming massively high career rate of HRs allowed incoming. Thanks Kenny, 

It's already been climbing the past 3 years.

I don't hate the idea of Fairbanks, but I don't know if he's much of an upgrade over Hoffman.  

Cons

- decreased velo

- rapid decline in K/9

- big decline in xFIP and FIP the past 2 years (over his 2022-23 #'s)

- entering age 32 season

- often injured

Pros

- won't demand 3-4 year contract

- still good velo

If we don't have the budget for one of the better closer options (Williams, Diaz, etc.), and we prioritize budget towards an impact bat, then sure - Fairbanks is a solid option to add, but he feels like a fallback option at this point.

[The_DH]

You know how the players got something like 30+ million bonuses for the world series appearance -- did the team also get paid?    The reason I'm asking this is if there is extra cash to spend.

[The_DH]

I'm also wondering what the impact of potential work stoppage next season will have on the contracts being discussed at this time.  

[John_Havok]

3 minutes ago, The_DH said:

You know how the players got something like 30+ million bonuses for the world series appearance -- did the team also get paid?    The reason I'm asking this is if there is extra cash to spend.

The structure for Major League Baseball (MLB) postseason bonuses is based on a revenue-sharing pool derived from ticket sales, with teams receiving payouts based on their advancement in the playoffs. The World Series champion receives the largest share of the pool at 36%, followed by the runner-up with 24%, and other teams receiving progressively smaller portions based on how far they advance. The pool is formed from 50% of gate receipts from the Wild Card Games and 60% from the first three games of the Division Series, and the first four games of both the League Championship Series and the World Series. The total pool is distributed to the 10 postseason teams, and each team then decides how to allocate its share among players, coaches, and other personnel through a vote by players who were on the roster for the entire regular season.

(some internet site so it's guaranteed to be accurate)

Translation, ownership gets 50% of all the gate receipts for all their home games, the other 50% goes into a pool and gets split up to all post-season teams. The bonuses are not a set dollar amount. 

[John_Havok]

3 minutes ago, The_DH said:

I'm also wondering what the impact of potential work stoppage next season will have on the contracts being discussed at this time.  

Hard to say. Some teams will be conservative about it, some might take some risks and try to take advantage of current rules that may be removed or modified. 

If I had to guess, one contract rule that will probably be explored is the use of deferrals, and while deferring money will still be allowed, the number of players on a roster receiving deferred money might be capped and perhaps the total deferrals cannot exceed a certain % of total payroll (something similar to NHL limits on retained salary)

If I was a rich owner and I thought that rule was coming, I might be persuaded to tack on as many deferrals as reasonably possible now to get grandfathered in. 

[Orgfiller]

51 minutes ago, Brownie19 said:

It's already been climbing the past 3 years.

I don't hate the idea of Fairbanks, but I don't know if he's much of an upgrade over Hoffman.  

Cons

- decreased velo

- rapid decline in K/9

- big decline in xFIP and FIP the past 2 years (over his 2022-23 #'s)

- entering age 32 season

- often injured

Pros

- won't demand 3-4 year contract

- still good velo

If we don't have the budget for one of the better closer options (Williams, Diaz, etc.), and we prioritize budget towards an impact bat, then sure - Fairbanks is a solid option to add, but he feels like a fallback option at this point.

I see Fairbanks as more of a Seranthony replacement rather than the top high leverage arm in the bullpen. Either of those options could also be acquired midway through the season if the price tag on Williams/Diaz is too high, or if we'd rather use budget on Bo/Tucker without going too deep into the luxury tax.

[Brownie19]

2 minutes ago, Orgfiller said:

I see Fairbanks as more of a Seranthony replacement rather than the top high leverage arm in the bullpen. Either of those options could also be acquired midway through the season if the price tag on Williams/Diaz is too high, or if we'd rather use budget on Bo/Tucker without going too deep into the luxury tax.

That's a good way to put it.  I agree and I'd be fine with this approach.  Fairbanks certainly does carry upside as well.

[The_DH]

4 minutes ago, John_Havok said:

Hard to say. Some teams will be conservative about it, some might take some risks and try to take advantage of current rules that may be removed or modified. 

If I had to guess, one contract rule that will probably be explored is the use of deferrals, and while deferring money will still be allowed, the number of players on a roster receiving deferred money might be capped and perhaps the total deferrals cannot exceed a certain % of total payroll (something similar to NHL limits on retained salary)

If I was a rich owner and I thought that rule was coming, I might be persuaded to tack on as many deferrals as reasonably possible now to get grandfathered in. 

Thanks John, it just makes me wonder how contracts will be negotiated this season and specifically was trying to figure out if the team has extra cash to spend this one season.  

[John_Havok]

10 minutes ago, The_DH said:

Thanks John, it just makes me wonder how contracts will be negotiated this season and specifically was trying to figure out if the team has extra cash to spend this one season.  

That's really hard to guess at unfortunately. We know what the luxury tax levels are, what we don't know is Rogers willingness to go over and above the 2nd or 3rd threshold, or what the general feeling is on how the luxury tax may look different in the new CBA.  

There's a lot of moving parts and variables we fans just don't have access to.

What I do know is Rogers and the FO has always maintained as revenues grow, so does payroll. We know revenues are way up this year, so an increase in payroll should be a reasonable expectation. How much that increase will be is up in the air.

For me personally, without knowing 90% or more of the whole picture, I say they should spend, spend, and spend some more and take their chances that the new CBA won't be any more detrimental to big spenders than it is now. 

 

[The_DH]

John, your second and third paragraphs are key for me.  I'm trying to figure if there's more cash to spend which is vital.  Also trying to figure out the impact of other teams not in the bidding because of next season's contract.

[Sorrow]

I wouldn’t be shocked if deferrals are allowed but they do not allow more than something like 10% of the contract and the total hit to a cap or luxury tax is going to be the contract over years without the deferrals factoring in.

I don’t think we see a salary cap unless we see a salary floor and you’d have a lot of big spending teams that would probably push for a cap of around $280m with a floor maybe around $140 but the cheaper owners would argue probably more like the last CBA of 180/100

[John_Havok]

38 minutes ago, The_DH said:

John, your second and third paragraphs are key for me.  I'm trying to figure if there's more cash to spend which is vital.  Also trying to figure out the impact of other teams not in the bidding because of next season's contract.

My guess is, the same teams that would be in the running for expensive FAs will be, and the cheaper teams won't, like usual.   It's hard to guess at what the teams that were over the 2nd threshold this season will do... did they want to get under the 2nd level to avoid additional penalties for going over that threshold for multiple years? I don't know. Some speculate the Yankees are trying to get under that 2nd level and won't be a big player this offseason. 

Maybe there's a chance a team like the Cubs decide to get off the wallet and open it up a bit... Astros and Rangers appear to be not willing to add significantly. Boston could very well make some moves I think. Detroit should be... but yeah there's a lot of guessing and speculation involved. Braves could add, but are probably somewhat limited given AA's reluctance to pay market value for literally anyone. 

Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Minnesota, KC, Tampa, Athletics, Miami, Cincinatti, Colorado, Arizona, Cleveland are all firmly on my list of "no chance they add the biggest names" list. I don't consider Helsely to be some massive splash indicative of a spending spree by the O's, especially given their garbage rotation - more like a move that they just spent almost their entire offseason budget on a closer they'll probably be shipping out at the deadline. White Sox are unlikely to be in play on any big name just based on the fact they are terrible and nobody wants to sign there. 

Teams that you can never really count out of spending money, Angels, Giants, Padres, Seattle is a bit of a wildcard as they are in my tier of "should be spending but probably won't" but it wouldn't surprise me to see a decent addition. I don't have much of a read on the Cardinals other than they suck right now and probably won't add big names via FA, even though they could. 

[Olerud363.354]

1 hour ago, Sorrow said:

I wouldn’t be shocked if deferrals are allowed but they do not allow more than something like 10% of the contract and the total hit to a cap or luxury tax is going to be the contract over years without the deferrals factoring in.

Am I missing something still?  Deferrals aren't like some huge benefit to the team.  They still have to buy a bond that basically matures when the money is due.   Hit to the cap is the present day value of the bond.   

Actually not sure how you would even stop deferals.  Because they aren't what people are thinking they are.  If Kyle Tucker want to be paid in bonds that mature in 2038 that's up to him and the team. 

What people think the deferred money is (team doesn't pay until 10 years later) is already banned.  Otherwise a team like Florida could sign huge contracts, go bankrupt, and never pay. 

[Olerud363.354]

My understanding is this is how it works LA buys a 50 million dollar bond that will mature at 70 million in 2035 and set it aside for Ohtani.    If Ohtani for some reason needed the money right now I suspect he could get it (not 70 million but whatever the bond is worth today).

Interesting thing is a team could get a bit screwed if interest rates go way down.  If there is a crypto/AI crisis and they lower the rates to almost 0, LA then has to pay almost 70 million for the bond (that is my understanding anyway).  

[Eat My Shatkins]

 

[max silver]

10 minutes ago, Eat My Shatkins said:

 

I'm not familiar with Ben Verlander but I like the cut of his jib. 

[Brownie19]

26 minutes ago, Eat My Shatkins said:

 

[Eat My Shatkins]

24 minutes ago, max silver said:

I'm not familiar with Ben Verlander but I like the cut of his jib. 

I'm not familiar with him either but hopefully he is a very well connected fellow. Apparently Justin's brother.

[bronson44]

46 minutes ago, Olerud363.354 said:

My understanding is this is how it works LA buys a 50 million dollar bond that will mature at 70 million in 2035 and set it aside for Ohtani.    If Ohtani for some reason needed the money right now I suspect he could get it (not 70 million but whatever the bond is worth today).

Interesting thing is a team could get a bit screwed if interest rates go way down.  If there is a crypto/AI crisis and they lower the rates to almost 0, LA then has to pay almost 70 million for the bond (that is my understanding anyway).  

I thought they had to put the value of the deferral in a bond. So say they have 20 million deferred to one player. They buy a bond for 20 million and keep whatever the extra money earned by the bond is making it benefit the team a little bit. 

Shi mentioned something like this in an interview today but I really don't know how all of it works. 

[Omar]

47 minutes ago, Eat My Shatkins said:

 

No Red Sox or Orioles action which I like. Imai to the Yankees not so much. 

[abola2121]

17 minutes ago, Omar said:

No Red Sox or Orioles action which I like. Imai to the Yankees not so much. 

I think there's a better chance of Imai signing with the Giants or Angels than the Yankees.

[hanton]

Bo and Tucker?   would be f***ing incredible

 

[Perfect Game]

3 hours ago, The_DH said:

You know how the players got something like 30+ million bonuses for the world series appearance -- did the team also get paid?    The reason I'm asking this is if there is extra cash to spend.

Someone here posted the breakdown. MLB gets 15% of ticket sales. The team hosting the game splits the 85% with half going into the players pool while keeping the other half.  The team hosting the games keeps all merch & concession revenue. I have no idea how the ad revenue is distributed. 

Not so funny story, Marge Schott refused to have a party for the Reds when they won the WS because they swept the series & she was pissed she missed out on revenue. The team celebrated by going out for burgers that they paid for on their own.

[The_DH]

22 minutes ago, Perfect Game said:

Someone here posted the breakdown. MLB gets 15% of ticket sales. The team hosting the game splits the 85% with half going into the players pool while keeping the other half.  The team hosting the games keeps all merch & concession revenue. I have no idea how the ad revenue is distributed. 

Not so funny story, Marge Schott refused to have a party for the Reds when they won the WS because they swept the series & she was pissed she missed out on revenue. The team celebrated by going out for burgers that they paid for on their own.

The details of this show that the Jays will have enough cash to cover any taxes and probably Cease's whole contract.  Makes a lot of sense.  Good to know!