Cost of Promoting Albies Now

[Enscheff]

Despite many folks claiming the Braves would not continue rushing prospects to the MLB level, the Braves are predictably promoting Albies tonight. Let's take a look at what this will cost the Braves in terms of future control and surplus value (the currency MLB players are valued with).

Albies is a potential star-level player, even better than Swanson. Davenport projects him to produce as follows from 2017-2022:

2017 (20): .269 .329 .392 (.721 OPS), 2.6 WAR (0.8-0.9 WAR rest of season)
2018 (21): .280 .340 .404 (.744 OPS), 26 SBs, 3.2 WAR
2019 (22): .283 .344 .408 (.752 OPS), 27 SBs, 3.5 WAR
2020 (23): .287 .351 .424 (.775 OPS), 25 SBs, 3.9 WAR
2021 (24): .288 .358 .428 (.786 OPS), 25 SBs, 4.2 WAR
2022 (25): .289 .355 .429 (.784 OPS), 23 SBs, 4.0 WAR

We can safely project another couple ~4 WAR seasons in 2023/2024 when Albies is 26/27 years old and entering his peak years. His speed and defense will begin to decline at that age, but power tends to tick up to compensate.

Promoting him now gives the Braves the following years of control and projected salaries (based off Dee Gordon's figures plus inflation):

2017 (pre-arb): $0.2M
2018 (pre-arb): $0.5M
2019 (pre-arb): $0.5M
2020 (pre-arb): $0.5M
2021 (arb 1): $3M
2022 (arb 2): $5M
2023 (arb 3): $9M

Total: $18.7M
WAR produced: 23.7
Surplus value: $218.3M

Waiting until 2 weeks into 2018 gives the Braves control of Albies through 2024, but he will be a Super 2 player. His projected salaries then become:

2018 (pre-arb): $0.5M
2019 (pre-arb): $0.5M
2020 (pre-arb): $0.5M
2021 (arb 1): $2M
2022 (arb 2): $4M
2023 (arb 3): $8M
2024 (arb 4): $12M

Total: $27.5M
WAR produced: 26.8
Surplus value: $240.5M

Promoting Albies now is costing the Braves ~$22M in surplus value ($240.5M-$218.3M). Taking into account the worst possible errors in the projected salaries could drop the wasted value to the ~$20M range.

But wait, what if they extend him? Extending him can happen in either scenario, and will provide the exact same amount of surplus value depending on the price they pay for the additional FA years. The ability to extend him in no way affects the surplus value calculation of this decision.

This move gains the Braves 2 months of Albies' production this season when the Braves are on pace to win 75 games, plus 2 weeks of his production in 2018, at the cost of $20M+ in surplus value. We have seen the Braves make the same decision with Swanson they are currently making with Albies, and it shouldn't be surprising when they do the same thing with Acuna.

[thewupk]

This move gains the Braves 2 months of Albies' production this season when the Braves are on pace to win 75 games, plus 2 weeks of his production in 2018, at the cost of $20M+ in surplus value. We have seen the Braves make the same decision with Swanson they are currently making with Albies, and it shouldn't be surprising when they do the same thing with Acuna.

We were told by some this wouldn't happen. It's obviously happening and going to continue to happen. Braves on pace to win 74 games now.

[nsacpi]

gold standard franchise

[thewupk]

gold standard franchise

the best

[cajunrevenge]

Enscheff, can you tell me what front office GMs promote all their top prospects using the service time loophole?

[nsacpi]

Enscheff, can you tell me what front office GMs promote all their top prospects using the service time loophole?

Cubs, Rays are a couple who come to mind who have used it. The Astros in 2014 with George Spinger.

[cajunrevenge]

I just want to know what GMs Encheff would be happy with.

[Enscheff]

Enscheff, can you tell me what front office GMs promote all their top prospects using the service time loophole?

I'm not asking the Braves to promote all top prospects using service time loopholes. I'm asking them to promote players when it makes sense, taking into account service time (something they have openly stated they do not do). Trying to generate excitement because the FO failed to do anything during the trade deadline is not a good enough reason to waste $20M in surplus value.

It made no sense to promote Albies now with BP producing adequately at 2B and the Braves out of contention. In this case, it makes all the sense in the world to promote Albies a couple weeks into next year, and gain the extra $20M in surplus value.

It made no sense to promote Swanson on Aug 17 last year when he was posting mediocre numbers in AA, and the Braves were once again out of contention. Again, it would have made all the sense in the world to keep Swanson in AA for all of 2017, start him in AAA this year, then call him up as soon as a spot opened up.

I'm assuming they are going to do the same thing with Acuna.

Making this mistake once in a while is fine. Having Heyward on the opening day roster in 2011 was defensible because they were playoff contenders and needed every win they could get. They did the same thing with Freeman, but they were in contention then.

Consistently making this same mistake is not fine. It shows a systemic misunderstanding of player value. It should be concerning to every fan.

[WaitingFor2017]

I feel like the old dinosaurs that run the team are rushing these prospects, so that they can try to go out on a winner within the next few years. They are sacrificing the very bright future to try to win now when this team likely won't be competing deep into the playoffs until 2019 or 2020 (with successful roster moves). This franchise will be better off without JS, Cox, and Hart.

[cajunrevenge]

I'm not asking the Braves to promote all top prospects using service time loopholes. I'm asking them to promote players when it makes sense, taking into account service time (something they have openly stated they do not do). Trying to generate excitement because the FO failed to do anything during the trade deadline is not a good enough reason to waste $20M in surplus value.

It made no sense to promote Albies now with BP producing adequately at 2B and the Braves out of contention. In this case, it makes all the sense in the world to promote Albies a couple weeks into next year, and gain the extra $20M in surplus value.

It made no sense to promote Swanson on Aug 17 last year when he was posting mediocre numbers in AA, and the Braves were once again out of contention. Again, it would have made all the sense in the world to keep Swanson in AA for all of 2017, start him in AAA this year, then call him up as soon as a spot opened up.

I'm assuming they are going to do the same thing with Acuna.

Making this mistake once in a while is fine. Having Heyward on the opening day roster in 2011 was defensible because they were playoff contenders and needed every win they could get. They did the same thing with Freeman, but they were in contention then.

Consistently making this same mistake is not fine. It shows a systemic misunderstanding of player value. It should be concerning to every fan.


I am all for abusing the service time loophole like crazy but I dont see other teams abusing it like crazy either. Dont listen to what the Braves say publicly, they cant admit to doing it without risking grievances by the union. I think you could say we did save service time on him this year since a lot of people thought he would start the season with the Braves. I dont think he will be all that good his first year or two so we might be better off letting him figure things out in the majors now as opposed to when we have a better chance to compete. I also do believe in the theory that leaving a player at AAA too long can cause them to try too hard to impress the FO for a promotion.

[Southcack77]

Just for personal clarification, why are the Braves paying Albies one million less in scenario 2 for each of 2021, 2022, and 2023?

[thewupk]

Cubs, Rays are a couple who come to mind who have used it. The Astros in 2014 with George Spinger.

Dodgers did it this season with Cody Bellinger.

[Horsehide Harry]

Pretty much every smart organization does it now, even the ones who have plenty of money.

And, oh, BTW Hart mentioned (according to Chip and Joe) that it would be difficult to bring Medlen up right now because the 40 man is full. I won't speculate on the value of Medlen at the ML level because I doubt there is any BUT the inflexibility now faced to make any move is directly related to the fact that Albies is up, on the 40 man, and didn't have to be.

It will be interesting to hear all the crying this offseason if the Braves lose somebody to rule 5 claim because they don't have room to protect them.

[Southcack77]

Pretty much every smart organization does it now, even the ones who have plenty of money.

And, oh, BTW Hart mentioned (according to Chip and Joe) that it would be difficult to bring Medlen up right now because the 40 man is full. I won't speculate on the value of Medlen at the ML level because I doubt there is any BUT the inflexibility now faced to make any move is directly related to the fact that Albies is up, on the 40 man, and didn't have to be.

It will be interesting to hear all the crying this offseason if the Braves lose somebody to rule 5 claim because they don't have room to protect them.

Right now the Braves have the likes of Jason Hursh, Micah Johnson, Danny Santana, Lane Adams, Jace Peterson, Wisler, Blair, Krol, Enrique Burgos, Biddle, Lindgren, Rivero, Motte, Phillips etc on their 40 man. If they lose someone they want to the Rule 5 draft it won't be because they promoted Albies.

[Horsehide Harry]

Right now the Braves have the likes of Jason Hursh, Micah Johnson, Danny Santana, Lane Adams, Jace Peterson, Wisler, Blair, Krol, Enrique Burgos, Biddle, Lindgren, Rivero, Motte, Phillips etc on their 40 man. If they lose someone they want to the Rule 5 draft it won't be because they promoted Albies.

It's not necessarily about who the Braves have on the 40 man right now. It's about flexibility. It's not the main reason Albies shouldn't be up but it's one of them.

[sturg33]

I seriously doubt anyone in this dumb FO is doing the analysis that Enscheff just did

[Hawk]

I seriously doubt anyone in this dumb FO is doing the analysis that Enscheff just did

lol

[sturg33]

lol

If they are, then the FO is even dumber for ignoring the data

[GeorgiaGirl]

I can't produce the rule that says why, but I think Albies had to be added to the 40 regardless this offseason because of how young he signed.

And if I'm wrong, does it matter? Because if he wasn't gone in a trade he was always going to get put on the '18 OD roster since the Braves could give two rips about clock time.

[Hawk]

If they are, then the FO is even dumber for ignoring the data

Right . . .

I mean, I think that this FO is, um, less than talented (never bought into the Coppolella hype, the Hart 'stable hand' nonsense, or the hiring of the FanGraphs blogger of the year) and I don't think the Braves should have called up Albies (although I do think he's capable of performing at the Major League level).

But to assert that the 'data' (and I think that's a kind descriptor) available only supports one conclusion is static reasoning.

For all we know the Braves calling up Albies could be a showcase. We have no clue how they view him long term.

If they don't have a long term plan then I will stop being a Braves fan.

[Enscheff]

The Braves have openly stated on several occasions they do not take service time into account when making these decisions. If they don't care about it, I wouldn't be shocked if they don't calculate it.

I am 100% confident the Braves FO knows they could have kept Heyward or Albies or Swanson down for 2 weeks and gained another season of control. For whatever reason, they don't think that's an important factor to consider. They've never offered a reason other than "Braves Way", so all we can do is speculate as to why they choose to operate that way.

Maybe they don't know how much it costs them in terms of player value...after all, this is the same FO that kept Teheran through the rebuild and essentially wasted the bulk of his value on losing teams. This is the FO that agreed to take on Kemp's contract because he can hit 30 HRs.

[sturg33]

Right . . .

I mean, I think that this FO is, um, less than talented (never bought into the Coppolella hype, the Hart 'stable hand' nonsense, or the hiring of the FanGraphs blogger of the year) and I don't think the Braves should have called up Albies (although I do think he's capable of performing at the Major League level).

But to assert that the 'data' (and I think that's a kind descriptor) available only supports one conclusion is static reasoning.

For all we know the Braves calling up Albies could be a showcase. We have no clue how they view him long term.

If they don't have a long term plan then I will stop being a Braves fan.

As enscheff posted above, I don't think they know how to calculate value... and if they do know how, then they are proactively ignoring it.

I think another poster is probably right that they are wanting to be a part of the winner before they hit their dementia phase of their lives.

[Hawk]

I don't really find it shocking that the FO would trot out a line toeing the CBA and paying lip service to the idea of putting the best team available on the field.

[sturg33]

I don't really find it shocking that the FO would trot out a line toeing the CBA and paying lip service to the idea of putting the best team available on the field.

But they've never done anything to contradict that lip service.

I really think they have a hard time understanding value...

1. They thought Kemp would be a worthy investment, despite him being a negative player

2. They thought Markakis was worth a 4 year commitment coming off neck surgery and age 31

3. They thought Matt Adams was SO good, that they were willing to move the franchise player to a position he has never played to accomodate

4. They have now wasted prime years of two consensus top 10 MLB prospects in order to bring them up in non-contending seasons, and I guarantee they will do the same with Acuna

5. They clearly missed the warning signs of Julio... and did not trade him when the market was hot an his value was its highest

6. They've developed a re-build strategy focused way too heavily on pitching, and we are starting to see the cracks in that philosophy

7. They traded away a generational talented shortstop, and actually legitimately believed that Aybar would not be a steep drop off in production

If I thought hard enough about this, I could probably name several more examples

[Hawk]

But they've never done anything to contradict that lip service.

I really think they have a hard time understanding value...

1. They thought Kemp would be a worthy investment, despite him being a negative player

2. They thought Markakis was worth a 4 year commitment coming off neck surgery and age 31

3. They thought Matt Adams was SO good, that they were willing to move the franchise player to a position he has never played to accomodate

4. They have now wasted prime years of two consensus top 10 MLB prospects in order to bring them up in non-contending seasons, and I guarantee they will do the same with Acuna

5. They clearly missed the warning signs of Julio... and did not trade him when the market was hot an his value was its highest

6. They've developed a re-build strategy focused way too heavily on pitching, and we are starting to see the cracks in that philosophy

7. They traded away a generational talented shortstop, and actually legitimately believed that Aybar would not be a steep drop off in production

If I thought hard enough about this, I could probably name several more examples

The discussion I am trying to have here is whether or not the team was aware of the service time implications of calling Albies up.

I agree with everything else you listed, to a tee, but it's all kind of tangential to the point.

[sturg33]

The discussion I am trying to have here is whether or not the team was aware of the service time implications of calling Albies up.

I agree with everything else you listed, to a tee, but it's all kind of tangential to the point.

I think they are aware that it costs them a year... but I'm not sure they are aware of the surplus value they are forfeiting... and if they are, holy **** I think that may be worse

[Enscheff]

The discussion I am trying to have here is whether or not the team was aware of the service time implications of calling Albies up.

I agree with everything else you listed, to a tee, but it's all kind of tangential to the point.

The Braves obviously know about the service time implications. That much is obvious.

The apparent hole in their knowledge is how to value those service time implications.

As sturg said, they have shown an alarming inability to properly valuate players, and valuing service time considerations is a big part of that...especially when the team is building around young players.

When they do the same thing for Swanson and Albies and Acuna and Maitan...that will add up to HUGE value lost.

[Hawk]

The hole in their knowledge is how to value those service time implications.

But can you really call it a hole yet? Again, I'm just talking about service time.

I guess, from my perspective, it's still too fluid. Too many extraneous factors to consider.

Yes, if Albies ends up becoming an integral part of the team's core then they've squandered future value. Absolutely. But that's presuming a great deal and isolating the impacts of player development, acquisitions, injuries, etc.

Take Heyward for example. The decision to play him early cost the Braves future control, but if we're calcuating ultimate value ... did they actually lose out? Maybe they did. I don't know.

I agree that the call-up was premature for all the same reasons you do, but I don't necessarily agree with the previous comment that the Braves are simply 'dumb' and made the decision willy-nilly. I do think they have a plan, not saying it's the right one.

[Enscheff]

But can you really call it a hole yet? Again, I'm just talking about service time.

I guess, from my perspective, it's still too fluid. Too many extraneous factors to consider.

Yes, if Albies ends up becoming an integral part of the team's core then they've squandered future value. Absolutely. But that's presuming a great deal and isolating the impacts of player development, acquisitions, injuries, etc.

Take Heyward for example. The decision to play him early cost the Braves future control, but if we're calcuating ultimate value ... did they actually lose out? Maybe they did. I don't know.

I agree that the call-up was premature for all the same reasons you do, but I don't necessarily agree with the previous comment that the Braves are simply 'dumb' and made the decision willy-nilly. I do think they have a plan, not saying it's the right one.

The Heyward promotion was defensible because the Braves were trying to earn a playoff spot. The Braves ended up winning the WC spot by 1 game over SD that year. Holding down Heyward for 2 weeks may have cost them a playoff appearance that year.

That was not the case when Dansby was promoted. That was not the case when Albies was promoted. Both seasons were non-contending seasons.

There was no reason to promote Swanson last August, and there was no reason to promote Albies this August.

They have shown a clear lack of knowledge/concern about how much future value these promotions are costing the organization, and nothing suggests they will act any differently in the future.

[Pachoo]

The Heyward promotion was defensible because the Braves were trying to earn a playoff spot. The Braves ended up winning the WC spot by 1 game over SD that year. Holding down Heyward for 2 weeks may have cost them a playoff appearance that year.

That was not the case when Dansby was promoted. That was not the case when Albies was promoted. Both seasons were non-contending seasons.

There was no reason to promote Swanson last August, and there was no reason to promote Albies this August.

They have shown a clear lack of knowledge/concern about how much future value these promotions are costing the organization, and nothing suggests they will act any differently in the future.

Agreed. The Braves know the implications of not using the loopholes. They just don't seem to care, obviously not believing it is much of a handicap long term. I hope they extend both Swanson and Albies early to mitigate the early promotions.

I still hold out hope that they are at least smart enough to keep Acuna off the MLB roster until the 3rd week of next season.

[rico43]

The Heyward promotion was defensible because the Braves were trying to earn a playoff spot. The Braves ended up winning the WC spot by 1 game over SD that year. Holding down Heyward for 2 weeks may have cost them a playoff appearance that year.

That was not the case when Dansby was promoted. That was not the case when Albies was promoted. Both seasons were non-contending seasons.

There was no reason to promote Swanson last August, and there was no reason to promote Albies this August.

They have shown a clear lack of knowledge/concern about how much future value these promotions are costing the organization, and nothing suggests they will act any differently in the future.

Asking this question out of true curiousity about your opinion, and not to pick a fight (which you seem to want to do way too much) ... why is calling up Albies at age 20 the same as calling up Swanson at 22 with four years of college baseball behind him?

FYI, I have generally avoided this discussion, but I was considering that they held Albies back; in fact that the trade for Phillips was designed to keep him in the minors as long as needed. In every other way other than the service time concern, he was ready for the majors, as he is showing on a nightly basis.

I do share your hope that Acuna stays back until May, precisely because of his age; but I had a concern last night when it looked like Ender injured his throwing hand.

[sturg33]

Answer...
A **** ton of money

[thewupk]

Answer...
A **** ton of money

Yeah I was thinking of responding to this again. Could be substantial. One last FU by the previous FO.

[Enscheff]

Answer...
A **** ton of money

I was regularly told that the FO got paid to do this, knew what they were doing, and certainly knew more than me.

[thewupk]

I was regularly told that the FO got paid to do this, knew what they were doing, and certainly knew more than me.

one of those was correct

[The Chosen One]

Would have been nice to have Ozzie for another year of affordability.

[bravesfanMatt]

I really feel like people are struggling with the word OPTIMISTIC... think thethe when posting in this area please...

[Dalyn]

I really feel like people are struggling with the word OPTIMISTIC... think thethe when posting in this area please...

One less year of control on Albies is just the push the front office needs to sign him to an extension ASAP. This is a good thing for the Braves. Guarantees us at least three championships in the next two years. Maybe four. Thank GOD for Trump.

[zitothebrave]

I really feel like people are struggling with the word OPTIMISTIC... think thethe when posting in this area please...

That or they are being optimistic on Ozzie's production.

[thewupk]

Selected as an All-Star in his 1st season. Yeah that price tag is going to continue to climb.

[Enscheff]

Selected as an All-Star in his 1st season. Yeah that price tag is going to continue to climb.

The FO that needlessly promoted him early knew what they were doing and are paid to do this. We aren't, so we can't know more than them.

Correction....they used to be paid to do this...

[Tapate50]

We lose out on one HoF season when he’s in his prime. Booo.

[Dalyn]

Not as much as we thought.

[cajunrevenge]

This thread aged well.

[Tapate50]

This thread aged well.

Yeah, I was about to say the same. Prognosticators beware.

[Enscheff]

Johns must have known Albies would sign away his entire career for a 50% discount.

[cajunrevenge]

I wonder if John Hart or AA have a history of signing players to team friendly extensions early in their service time?