The Braves announced they’ve re-signed free agent closer Raisel Iglesias to a one-year, $16MM deal. The PRIME client returns for what’ll be a fifth season in Atlanta on the same salary he made in 2025.
As is often the case with Braves moves, the signing comes out of the blue. President of baseball operations Alex Anthopoulos suggested at the GM Meetings the team was more focused on addressing shortstop and upgrading the starting rotation while keeping the bullpen on the back burner. That apparently changed with the opportunity to keep Iglesias, who remains a high-end reliever as he enters his age-36 season.
The 11-year veteran carries a 2.35 earned run average in 218 2/3 innings since the Braves acquired him from the Angels at the 2022 trade deadline. He’s fourth in MLB with 113 saves since the start of that season. Iglesias posted a sub-3.00 ERA each season between 2020-24 as one of the steadier closers in the league.
Things seemed as if they might come off the rails early in 2025. Iglesias gave up an early-season home run barrage, including five longballs in April alone. He surrendered seven round-trippers before the end of May and carried an ugly 5.91 ERA through the first two months. The switch flipped over the summer, as Iglesias was one of the league’s best late-game arms from the beginning of June onward. He reeled off 46 frames of 1.96 ERA ball while striking out 29.3% of opponents over the season’s final four months. Iglesias only gave up one home run in that time despite a massive 54.5% fly-ball rate.
The truth certainly lies somewhere between those two extremes. Iglesias wasn’t going to continue giving up homers on a quarter of fly-balls, as he did early in the year, nor will he maintain the sub-2% homer/fly rate he posted later in the season. That’ll be the main concern moving forward, but his strikeout and walk profile remains strong. Iglesias punched out 27.4% of opponents against a tidy 6% walk rate. He turned in a 3.21 ERA overall while going 29-34 in save chances — coming up just shy of the sixth 30-save showing of his career.
MLBTR ranked Iglesias as our #32 free agent and the #5 reliever in the class in predicting a two-year, $26MM contract. He did not command the second year for what would have been his age-37 campaign. The Braves were apparently one of at least two teams that offered a sizable one-year deal. Francys Romero reports that the Dodgers also made an offer around $16MM but Iglesias declined to remain in Atlanta. L.A. and the Blue Jays were the only other teams publicly linked to Iglesias in what turned out to be a brief stay on the open market.
Toronto and Los Angeles are two of a number of teams that remain in the market for a late-inning reliever. Edwin Díaz is almost certainly going to command the largest contract in the class despite rejecting a qualifying offer from the Mets. Devin Williams has gotten a lot of attention in the first few weeks of the offseason. Robert Suarez should command a multi-year deal at a hefty salary. Ryan Helsley, Kyle Finnegan, Emilio Pagán and Kenley Jansen are among the many other unsigned closers.
Iglesias returns at the back of an Atlanta bullpen that still needs a lot of work. They’re getting Joe Jiménez back after he missed the entire ’25 season recovering from knee surgery. Dylan Lee is a high-end option from the left side. Atlanta dropped right-handed setup arms Pierce Johnson and Tyler Kinley at the beginning of the winter, so another righty alongside Jiménez in the late innings is a must. They’ll balance that against the yet to be addressed starting pitching and shortstop holes.
The Braves now have 13 players on guaranteed contracts that’ll combine for $192.5MM next season. They’re operating with a very light arbitration class that features a number of non-tender candidates. That group is unlikely to add more than $4-8MM to the books. The Braves opened last season with a player payroll around $208MM. They’d likely need to go beyond that mark to address the rotation and shortstop, especially if they fill the latter position by re-signing Ha-Seong Kim. RosterResource projects them for roughly $208MM in luxury tax commitments, putting them well shy of the $244MM base threshold. The Braves are believed to have stayed below the CBT line this year but had paid the tax in 2023 and ’24.
Image courtesy of Dale Zanine, Imagn Images.
Makes sense. I don’t like the 16m, but who else would they go with the upside at this price? Honest question. Curious about opinions.
Airbender? He would be “better” (imo) and cheaper?!??? That being said, maybe ATL just likes the familiarity, and my Pads can go get Devin Williams instead. Haha
Williams probably won’t be on a one year deal
Probably not, no. You might get 2yrs at the same price? Idk, hard to judge his market.
I’d guess four or more. He’s young and he’s earned it.
I could see a closer-desperate team go 4yrs… (Mets?) With the relative volatility throughout Bullpens, I wouldn’t go more than 3 for basically ANY reliever. Somebody might!
Allegedly no one wanted him at deadline but now he is worth 16.
I’d rather get 4 or 5 guys for 16m. Waivers ptbnl cash considerations last years 10th round draft pick are my favorite ways to get relievers though.
You should have watched the Braves and Iggy specifically the latter part of the season.
Bet you Williams gets at least 2y/24M or the same 1y/16M
He might now, but I would have said “no chance!” yesterday! I still think his market is soft after a “rough” season in the Bronx.
Think so too, G. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if he just gets a 1 year prove it deal.
I like it Gwynning. I picked Iggy to be re-signed by the Braves in the 50n FA Contest. I’m up to 6 right. Probably ends there for me. I actually picked both Iggy and Williams to go to the Braves. Figured I’d get at least one of them right, lol.
@NashvilleJeff 6 correct on the Free Agent Contest is tremendous Jeff!! You’re off to a great start. I think I have 2. You must have nailed all the QO candidates.
I’m wrong about something I said there. I didn’t pick both Iggy and Devin Williams to go to the Braves. I picked Brad Keller and Iggy. I remember having trouble deciding which of Keller/Williams I wanted to pair w/Iggy. I picked Keller because I think he’s going to be used as a hybrid set up/closer if he doesn’t find a chance to return to starting, and that made him a better fit for the Braves than Williams—especially if they re-signed Iggy.
Nashville
I thought only 6 of 50 have signed, does that mean you are a perfect 6 for 6?
I have correct Naylor, Shota, Torres and Iglesias.
Wrong Grisham, Woodruff. I was on the fence and should have predicted Grisham to take the QO but Woodruff I was just plain wrong.
The one year that I did the best, better than all of the staff, I picked half the players to go back to their last team.
@MLB: I’m wrong, I’m 5 of 6. Predicted Imanaga to the Angels, got the other 5. Yeah, picking players to be re-signed is decent strategy. I did a lot of that this time. Partly because I believe in the strategy, partly due to indecision.
Even on a 1 year deal I think $16m is a little steep.
I think this sets the market high for Suarez, Diaz, and Williams. If Iglesias can get 16m surely those 3 can get that or more.
They’ll be more about the years attached than the AAV. Atlanta took the short term commitment.
Pete Fairbanks.
Probably not on a one year deal. For a one year contract beyond Iglesias you are probably looking at Kenley Jansen, Kyle Finnegan, Kirby Yates. Even Helsley probably gets a multi-year deal even after being terrible with the Mets
We are going to see a LOT of high dollar one year deals this off-season!
Agreed. Lockout looming is going to impact things.
Yes-The QO acceptances alone already accomplished that. 22mil was a lot for the handful of guys that were some combo of injury question marks, bad down the stretch or inconsistent year to year in general.
Bullpen guys tough to accept 1yr unless older like Iglesias. It’s such a use them up/spit them out area. For many clubs they don’t want to pay bundle in guarantees for a very used car & instead roll dice on cheap less used bouncebacks or odds that at least 1 to 2 minor leaguers will thrive.
As they say, there are no bad one-year deals. Iglesias’ floor is a decent setup guy.
I like the signing, and I don’t mind the 16m in the least because it’s only a 1 year deal. His start to last season was a little concerning, but they’re not locked into anything that’s impossible to get out of with the deal.
Too much $
Yep way too much money. they needed to commit that 16 million to the rotation and offense
Way too much money…? Just wait for what D-Will, Suarez, Diaz will be paid.
And Run those guys will get paid AND have a QO attached to them. I wish they had signed him for a bit less, but if that was the price required to keep him from going to the Dodgers then I fully understand it (plus it was only one season).
“There’s no such thing as a bad one year deal” is the quote, right?
Only Diaz got a QO of that group.
Slight overpay, but if that extra $4 million prevents us from re-signing Kim or signing a #3-4 starter, we have way bigger issues
Braves brass said they want to be top 5 in spending. Maybe more excitement to come.
One year contracts always cost more. You have to offer more money to make almost no comittment more appealing.
With baseball going away in 2027, one year deals are going to be a good option for teams.
Oh stop. Baseball is not going anywhere. Stop being that person
Honestly, I love baseball, but I frankly don’t care at this point if they play or don’t. I’ve had it with this dog-and-pony show between MLB and MLBPA. At the end of the day, the owners will want a cap and the players will want a floor, but then they’ll come back with the same result of neither, with the PR statements alluding that they fixed things when they haven’t for the fans – only themselves. The big markets will still have financial advantages and small market teams will continue to not spend as they continue to serve as feeder teams for the big market teams that they push networks to air nationally for bigger dollars.
At this point, being a Marlins fan, screw them all. When both sides agree to a Cap&Floor system, that’s when I’m emotionally invest myself again. When MLB stops with this version of a rigged system, and changes to a system that includes letting the Marlins having a real owner instead of blocking better choices to hand over ownership to ‘boys club’ choices like the last two times, then I’ll find both sides credible in their words.
Somebody tell Never Remember to troll somewhere else. I would, but he banned me for outing him as being blackpink/Joel/etc.
If I were a Marlins fan I wouldn’t care if they played or not either…
As a Miamian who grew up before the team existed, I can see where you’re coming from, but you have to know that giving owners what they want never makes the game better. When owners can set wages and prices, those wages and prices only ever favor the owners. The Marlins’ owners have been the worst of the worst over the years, acting like vulture capitalist trying to squeeze the taxpayers for all we’re worth and giving nothing back, then selling to the next vulture in line, but why would a salary cap/floor make them act differently?
Now if MLB wanted to consider demotion, then maybe we could talk.
What would set the cap and floor at that would be reasonable?
Why do people who start a sentence with the word “honestly” always end up saying the most bat sh things. You love baseball, but you don’t care if it gets played??? You care more about a cap and floor than about watching the game you love?? you crazy
Honestly Freddie, I just don’t care about the things I care about.
@Another Dodgers Fan
Easy for bandwagon fans to say. Change you screen name to “Another Dodgers Fan Since 2020”.
@elegantmule
You are right on a lot of aspects, but are missing one key thing. Jeffery Loria and Bruce Sherman were put in place by the broken system. Remember the underhanded deal that placed Loria in becaue MLB was trying to block Mark Cuban from being able to bid for either the Red Sox, Expos/Nats, and Marlins? Remember how Gustavo Cisneros, when he was much younger and more energized a lively then the walking corpse about 15 years later, when he eas waiting for John Henry to put the Marlins on sale before that underhanded deal between Henry, Loria, and Selig? How about years later when Jorge Mas stepped up in the bidding to buy the team from Loria? Remember that? We all saw the pattern of Mas outbidding every offer Sherman and Jeter did, and how he planned to keep doing so since he has far more money than Sherman and that group, but then Loria mysteriously comes up with that “questionable” deadline in which Sherman was given the chance to make the last bid and reports came out that Mas was not permitted to outbid Sherman again. Remember that?
With a Floor, that forces MLB to have to only go with MLB owners that are able to afford to have a certain certain payroll. That prevents them using dirty tactics to place guys like Loria (who had already destroyed baseball in Montreal) and Sherman from becoming owners over guys who have far deeper pockets because Loria and Sherman are part of the ‘boys club’ and guys like Gustavo Cisneros, Jorge Mas, and even Mark Cuban are not. Let’s be honest. Take a lokk around MLB. There are at least 10 organizations that have ownerships where the best person to own those teams is there. And while we saw what MLB did in Miami, I’m pretty sure fans of those other teams know of situations that MLB prevented more competent guys (such as Mark Cuban) in those otehr organzations.
And let me add, remember that John Henry (yes the Red Sox owner) was one of those Marlins owners you talk about. Again, remember how and why he left? Remember all that crud he pulled? and for the finishing touch, when everyone knew Cisneros was waiting to buy the team, he sent a final “screw you” to all of us in Miami with that underhanded deal I mention above.
As for the Cap, I don’t unerstand how any Marlins fan can defend the system that allows for Super Teams when the Marlins will never be able to spend money like the Dodgers or Mets or Yankees. Maybe if John Henry was forced by MLB to stay here or if he and Selig didn’t pull off that crooked deal, and allowed Cisneros to grab the team, but it didn’t happen. And still, it just wouldn’t have felt as fun having our team build a Super Team to compete with teams struggling to get MLB suality players on their roster. But again, I don’t understand how a Marlins fan defends the current system.
@Chucky D
I would go with the average of all payrolls to set a midpoint, then go with a bottom and top from there – probably keeping everything at around a $30 million differential between the Cap and Floor. I would also include a sort of equivalent to the NBA’s Larry Bird Exemption. And I’d have it scheduled to transition entirely within three years by teams over the cap and two years for teams under the cap.
Then, any owner who can’t afford the Floor can sell their team or get partners, Bye bye!
That’s what I’d do.
I’ve been a Dodgers fan longer than Florida has had major league teams. Combined.
So long that I remember when the Marlins won.
Bummer that there’s only one major league team left in Florida at the moment. Hopefully their ownership will step up. But hey, come at me for saying I wouldn’t watch a team where the owner is terrible.
Dodgers had the McCourt era. And Dodgers fans refused to give that man any of their money. The only owner forced to sell because he was a cheap sob.
So yeah, go ahead and tell me all about who I am. Lol.
@Another Dodgers Fan
If you truly are what you posted, then why would you take a shot at a team with a crappy owner for saying what I said when you supposedly experienced the same thing with the McCourts?
Wikipedia may not be able to help you explain that contradiction/paradox…heck, hypocrisy.
I’m saying that just because McCourt sucked as an extremely cheap and overall terrible owner, I didn’t blame the Yankees or other teams that tried for ruining baseball.
Frank McCourt ruined baseball for Dodgers fans. Not the CBA.
@Another Dodgers Fan
Okay, it seems there’s inability to understand how business works in the big picture. The pattern that exists with what the Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, and the small number of big market teams and the Rays, Marlins, Pirates, and several “small market” and lower “mid market” teams do does have a negative impact on the league – both immediate and residual. And when MLB and MLBPA get together and come to an agreement on a CBA that maintains the status quo, there is a problem that will sooner or later hurt the game. There are signs of this residual problem as we are starting to see more and more stadiums with a bunch of empty seats mid-season in approximately 20 of the markets – even with teams contending for a Wild Card spot. In business, when many of your locations are starting to have decline in interest such as that, it’s just a matter of time when the residual problems become major problems. It’s there.
And again, it’s easy for a Dodgers fan to take you stance now. I’m pretty sure if the McCourts were still in ownership, you would be right in line with me on this about the need for a Cap&Floor system. But you love the system that allows your Dodgers to build a Super Team while the best player many markets can afford would categorize as the 5th to 10th best player on the Dodgers,if even that high because some teams’ best player wouldn’t make the Dodgers starting lineup or rotation.
And obviously you’re rooting for your Dodgers to add more stars to make a three-peat happen. Guess what? I’m rooting for it too! You’re rooting for it as a selfish fan. I’m rooting for it because, contrary to the surface opinion that it’s bad for baseball, I know that on a deeper level, it’s good for baseball to have the Dodgers three-peat to send the league into the lockout. It would be exactly what is needed so that will be the focus as the fan pressure is on for a Cap&Floor system as a result of the Dodgers and the Mets and the Yankees, etc. As much as I love my Marlins, I know if by some luck they (or any small market team) won the World Series next year, it would be horrible for baseball because they would be evidence that the status quo should remain – that there is nothing wrong with a league of ‘Haves’ and ‘Have-Nots”. But with the Dodgers Three-peating or if dethroned by a team like the Mets after spending a billion dollars in payroll, that would be good for the game because that would be the image going into the lockout. That would come with fans in all the smaller markets screaming for a Cap among the emotional ones, and fans like myself who say Cap&Floor.
So, while you and I can go on until the end of time debating this, at least we can root for the same thing that we both clearly want for different reasons. You want no limits on spending because your Dodgers are at an advantage and you love your Super Team. I want a Cap&Floor that prevents Super Teams and forces MLB to kick out owners who are not able to meet a Floor standard. As a result, we both want the Dodgers to Three-peat.
Let’s say it together! Let’s go Dodgers in 2026! Three-peat! You get your third straight parade. I get to see the fan pressure on as MLB goes into a lockout – and MLB owners and MLBPA need to take a serious look at it to fix the situation to fans’ liking, or work their butts off to come up with another dog-and-pony show and PR fodder that they can get the majority of MLB fans to believe will be a fix even though it’s not the wanted Cap&Floor system.
Go Dodgers!
BannedMarlinsFanBase,
Yes it seems you don’t understand how the business of baseball works.
If Milwaukee can be competitive year after year so can the Marlins. Sorry the Marlins owner has betrayed his obligation to compete in order to fulfill his obligation to his wallet.
Here’s the part you’re not getting or just bending the comprehension to suit your team.
If the Marlins have a superstar player, if he refuses to sign an extension with them because he wants to test free agency because he wants to see what the Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees want to offer, there is no way possible that the Marlins will be able to outbid those teams. Those teams, especially your Dodgers and the Mets can outbid everyone else for players…period.
And under your point about the Marlins owner, did you misunderstand anything I said about a Cap&Floor system? I clearly stated and common sense states that a Floor would mean that guys like Bruce Sherman would have to spend to compete, or they would have to sell their teams. And going forward, MLB would be required to only approve sales to owners who are able to pay the payroll Floor or they can remove them even faster than they did the McCourts. There would be no more deals like when Bud Selig did favors for his ‘boys club’ members like Jefferey Loria or what was done with current Marlins owner Bruce Sherman (with Jeter), while allowing John Henry to leave the Marlins in a side deal, ; and along the way blocking or using shady tactics to keep guys like Gustavo Cisneros, Mark Cuban, and Jorge Mas from owning MLB teams over less competent owners. Did I not say that? I’m pretty sure I explained that in my post. Or did you only focus on the Cap part because that affects your Dodgers, but you ignored the part that doesn’t – the Floor which addresses what you state at the end of this last post. If you didn’t get it in my previous posts, a Floor would address what you state in “If Milwaukee can be competitive year after year so can the Marlins. Sorry the Marlins owner has betrayed his obligation to compete in order to fulfill his obligation to his wallet.” Do you not get that? Do you know what a Salary Floor does? If you don’t, I don’t know what to say. Clearly a lack of understanding business of any form, including baseball.
Let me know when this scenario of the Marlins having a superstar happens.
In the past when the The Marlins went all in, they won. Yes they broke up the band afterwards, but they won it all twice. There is extra postseason money and extra marketing opportunities when you’re a winning team.
But even when they won, the owner wanted to pocket the extra money generated. So again it isn’t a system problem, it’s an owner issue.
Okay, so you’re saying it’s an owner issue, but then you are opposing what I’m saying about the floor part?
Please explain how a Salary Floor does not work for what you are arguing.
You are saying what I’m saying about an owner problem. I’m offering a solution that addresses that problem. You are not.
Please explain how it’s not a system problem when under this system these owners with the Marlins, Pirates, etc. are pulling this off under the system. And explain how the Salary Floor doesn’t fix the problem based on what I said. I’m calling you out on this. Do explain. In the very least, if you don’t have anything and just want to go with the same ole ‘It’s not the system’ then ‘it’s the owners’ who are doing it in this system, just say you have nothing else to offer or are just trolling for additionl posts here. Again, calling you out.
A floor is similar to what the A’s faced this previous off-season. The players were going to file a complaint against them for how low their payroll was. A’s signed one expensive player and called it a day, thereby getting around the grievance/floor. They didn’t even try to be competitive, or they would have used the money differently.
I think a modification to the CBT would be much more effective. Add larger penalties if you want. But make the revenue sharing (at least a percentage) mandatory payroll spending. And have levels similar to the high end.
Currently owners get to pocket the revenue sharing money and call it team expenses. Take the money out of their pocket if they aren’t being at least minimally competitive and being cheap doesn’t pay anymore. Make egregious lapses a disqualification from revenue sharing money.
Money is motivating them too be non competitive. Only by threatening their money will they change.
See, the A’s mimmicked a floor to avoid a grievance. They didn’t have a floor.
And I’ve made it clear in another post that a Cap&Floor system for me would be mandatory. and the range would be a Cap&Floor that is about $20 to $30 million apart from top to bottom. And it would include something similar to what the NBA had with the Larry Bird exemption. And the starting point of the Cap&Floor system would be based on the average payroll of MLB teams which would serve as the midpoint, then establishing the Cap and the Floor from that midpoint. I’m pretty sure that the Floor would impact more number of MLB teams payrolls having to go up than it would impact the number MLB teams needing to come down to the Cap. Then I would give more time for the Cap teams to bring their payrolls down over a number of years than the amount of time I would give the teams below the Floor to bring their payrolls up. In fact, for payrolls that need to come up to reach the Floor, I’d give a short window of 2 years because there is no excuse to not be able to sign players.
And how does an established Floor work in contrast to the “floor” the A’s self-implemented is that they are required or penalized and, based on that midpoint I mentioned above, the Floor will be a lot more higher than just signing one player and calling it a day. And for owners who can’t meet the standard, they have to sell the teams outright or get more partners involved. Under this, I’m pretty sure you’ll see the ownership here in Miami and the ownership in Pittsburgh would almost immediately put their teams for sale. And once that happens with any MLB team, then the MLB League office is limited on the possibility of operating as a ‘boy’s club’ and must focus first and foremost on potential owners that can afford to own a MLB team with the ability to sustain a minimum payroll – again that is just $20 to $30 million from the Cap number.
To me, I don’t get your issue with this system other than your fandom looking to maintain a system where your team can continue to take advantage and pay players contracts that are more than some MLB owners are even worth (see Shohei and Soto’s contracts compared to Bruce Sherman’s worth). Tell me how it’s good for baseball that teams like the Marlins can develop a star like Miguel Cabrera (and every team develops guys like that sooner or later), but they can’t keep them because once they test free agency, the Dodgers or Mets can run up the tab until the other markets can’t reach it? Again, sounds like you’re thinking about your team and not the rest of the MLB market.
But like I said in the previous post, I’ll be rooting as you will in 2026 for the Dodgers to win it all again for a three-peat. Of course, as I said, we’ll both be rooting for them for different reasons. You want your parade, and I want that to be the image as we head into the lockout. MLB will be at a key moment in this league where they will have to figure out how they keep the support of about 20 fanbases who will be screaming for a Cap – many of which fans like myself who see it as more of a Cap&Floor because we know it isn’t just the teams at the top of spending, but also the teams at the bottom of spending. It’s going to get interesting what happens then.
So, again…go Dodgers! Get that that three-peat!
This would severely limit players salaries and push vets out quicker. The players won’t accept that. And they shouldn’t.
How? The Floor would mandate spending by the teams who currently are not spending. And with a system like the Larry Bird exemption, teams can go over the Cap for their own player.
As for players not accepting it, I know that’s an issue.
I’m not arguing in favor or against either side. I’m pointing out the reality of where the league is headed if they continue as status quo with the ‘Haves and Have-Nots’ system. Let’s see how much the players fight the system if the game reaches a point where MLB has to contract teams instead of expand because they have so many markets that can’t compete because they don’t have a system in place that works for all markets (not just a handful), and fans stop supporting those teams as we’ve seen and it continues to get worse because they know they can support the other teams in town. Miami is a perfect example of this as anyone can see the difference between how the Marlins situation is versus how the Miami Heat and Florida Panthers situations are, and even the Dolphins. Think about that. The NHL team has more fan support right now in an area where kids don’t play ice hockey, and where baseball is the most played sport by South Florida kids. And MLS is on the rise here with how Inter-Miami operates, and will explode further once their new stadium is complete – literally a short drive from the Marlins stadium.
MLB, both the league office and MLBPA, need to all realize that they are competing with other sports leagues for consumer dollars – not themselves. That is one of their biggest problems that the other leagues know. And those leagues have payroll structures (mostly Cap&Floor systems) that make the leagues flourish in ways and areas where MLB is declining, struggling, or failing. Again, look at Miami as a perfect example of that. MLB should feel embarrassed that they can’t make it work in Miami where the other leagues have made it work – “Heat Culture”, ‘Phins Phans’, Panthers, and Inter-Miami. The Marlins don’t keep anyone, but we’re the city where LeBron (one of the greatest players ever) learned how to win championships, Messi plays MLS here, the current 2-time defending NHL champions reside here, and our football team (even while poorly constructed) has always been in the game with acquiring players (like Tyreke Hill, etc.), but MLB has a team with a revolving door installed in the locker room. And this is before I point out the other markets where the other leagues make it work and MLB doesn’t. Again, MLB should feel embarrassed about it. And at the end of the day, it’s on the league office and MLBPA. they need to realize they are competing against these other leagues for consumer dollars. No consumer with common sense is going to support this system when they have another sports team in town that they can rely on due to the league managing it better – and the stars on those teams have a great chance of staying in many cases.
So, you’re an optimist?
I need to get my prescription checked. I initially read your comment as, “See, you’re an optometrist!”
You do realize that players don’t get paid if there is a lockout. They can commit all the money they want beyond this year, the lockout won’t matter.
It’ll matter as soon as the lockout’s over. No way it lasts forever.
Too much money to be lost to ever see the loss of an entire season. I don’t think 162 is likely, but the chance of 0 is far less likely.
Glad to have him back, and there is no such thing as a bad 1 year deal. But I do wish it was a bit cheaper. I’d rather just sign him for 2 years 23-24 mil than 16 mil for 1. But we know how much AA loves them 1 year deals and how he loves to over pay for that bullpen
No bad 1 year deals? Cole Hamels would like to have a word…
…fwiw, that was less than 7M in the 2020 season, despite it being a 18M signing.
It’s because of the high risk pitchers inherent have that a one year deal and no commitment to them after a bad season or injury riddled season or even they just fall off the map, is why one year deals can rarely be truly bad compared to other contracts
Kirby Yates and Michael Conforto on lines two and three…
Again, you’re not stuck to them. Sure, it didn’t work out but they are easy enough to let go or move on from once the season is over. It’s not something like hypothetical Soto, and if he were to suddenly be awful at baseball…. A “bad” 1 year contract looks pretty good all the sudden
Lots of cash for an older reliever. He did turn it around last season. I was thinking 10 maybe 12 tops on a 1 or 2 year deal. Good for him.
He’ll probably get his pay direct deposited vs cash.
My free agent predictions are cooked
Hefty payday for a 36 year old coming off a shaky season.
And he stoped throwing his slider which was getting demolished
Yes he did. Threw darts w/his fastball, demolished hitters w/his change, and spotted his curveball just enough. His fastball and change command was excellent after he ditched the slider.
People are saying too much money but A) it’s a one year deal, and B) after June 5th, his last 43.1 innings of the year, he had a 1.25 ERA, 1.98 FIP, 48 Ks, 10 BB. You can argue that he had a .194 BABIP over that stretch but anecdotally, he seems much more in command in the second half. I think it’s a fair price, especially with no commitment beyond 2026.
This guy knows ball
@rct Agreed. I consider this a team friendly deal
Have to say this now before it ends:
I’m batting 1.000 for the free agent contest.
I know, don’t mess with a streak but had to say it.
Welp 1/6. Had Rasiel to the Rangers.
Ding ding ding ding – the sound of me getting another right.
Probably be like the first year – I got like 6 out of first 7 and then got only 1 right the rest of the way!
Right there w/you Longtime. I expect to get crushed the rest of the way. Heh.
Giants weren’t willing to go to 2 years to get him? Sheesh
Good move for them, but $16 million is a lot for 60 innings. Makes me feel better about the Phillies paying $9 million to bring back Alvarado.
$9M for a guy coming of PED suspension 😬
It’s not the worst 1-year deal in the world. As great as Diaz has been for the Mets (w/ estimates 3yr/$60m), the Braves need a solid 3-4 starter and an SS. This gives them more room to sign, maybe a Z. Galen and H. Kim. Gives them the ability to see how Jiminez bounces back and whether Lopez will be able to return as a starter or become a big arm in the bullpen. Also gives them more ammo at the deadline if necessary.I was pretty certain Iglesias would return, but not sure about the next moves.
Wondering if AA feels like he’s not going to be able to re-sign Kim after the Allen/Dubon trade. I’m guessing they don’t sign anybody w/the QO attached so they don’t lose the PPI pick they got for Baldwin’s ROY win. Gallen got the QO from Arizona.
@Nashville — possibly, but they had to have a better bench player regardless, esp with taking a cheap option from Ozzie after he had offseason surgery. To me, this shows their confidence, or lackthereof in Ozzie, as well they should, but also provides them more SS depth than Allen would provide. I don’t think it negatively affects their desire to bring back Kim other than if they hadn’t done anything, Boras would have more confidence at the negotiating table.
@Run: Yeah, I agree w/all of this. Dubon’s a nice upgrade over Luke Williams and Nacho as the bench piece. If acquiring Dubon gives AA leverage in negotiations w/Boras, it makes the deal even better.
Good point about the QO. Maybe they’ll negotiate a combo deal with Boras for Cease and Kim.
@cash3w: Speaking of the QO, Cease got one from the Padres too. Main reason I didn’t have him going to the Braves in the 50 FA contest, lol. Let’s hope you and Run are right about Kim coming back. Braves really need him—-and I picked him to re-sign w/Atlanta in the FA Contest. Heh.
Wow. The Braves are doing it. They want to compete. The traded for Maurico Dubon, and they also re-signed their closer. I’m impressed with their GM.
New manager
newish coaching staff
Same Run it Back Mentality
SMH!!
I feel more comfortable keeping Raisel for another year than signing Williams to a multi year. I still think they could also grab Pete Fairbanks as another high leverage righty.
Need the FA Contest Leaderboard!!!!! The FA are falling like Flies !!!!!!
One of the most underrated closers ever. Only pitcher ever with at least 250 saves, an ERA under 3.00, and never to have appeared in a All-Star game.
Does this give him 10:5 rights or would that begin after year five?
What the article doesn’t tell you is that Iglesias dumped his slider, and he almost immediately returned to his former dominant self. He was struggling mightily with his slider at the beginning of last year, and that was the pitch that was causing the most trouble, in terms of allowing hard contact.
With all of that being said, it shows that it wasn’t just some fluke that Iglesias was able to turn his season around. Obviously, relievers are extremely volatile from one season to the next, in general, much less when you’re talking about a closer who is in his late 30s, but all signs are pointing to Iglesias at least having one more high level season in him. For that reason, I believe the Braves needed to make this move, and I think AA did a good job locking Iglesias down early, before any other teams could offer him a second year or more money.
Spot on richard. AA also hasn’t minded paying a little more on 1 year deals, and most of them have worked out pretty well. Same salary Iggy’s made over the 4 years of his previous deal.
Good for them. He was effective for them, and they know him well. No need to make a change for the sake of change.
Now multiply it by 4 and you have the stupidity that is the Tanner Scott contract
Will his plaque feature a Reds hat or a Braves hat? Only the future will tell.
I see this signing going south.