FGs 2018 Trade Value Top 50

[Enscheff]

FG is in the middle of releasing their 2018 Top 50 Trade Value Series. Spots 11-20 were just relased today, and they include the Braves 2 most valuable assets, Albies and Acuna: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2018...alue-11-to-20/

Acuna #17
Albies #15
Newcomb HM

This isn't surprising, as I explained how Albies would have a Top 20 trade value a week or so ago.

Newcomb as a controllable #4 with plenty to dream on is also very valuable.

Look at the projections for Acuna though. A 5+ WAR star in his mid-20s. His struggles now at a young age compared to what is expected to be in 2020+ should crystallize in folks' minds beyond all doubt why his service clock was delayed. In my opinion, he should still be in AAA right now delaying his clock even more rather than being rushed (as were both Swanson and Albies), but that's another topic of discussion altogether.

[BeanieAntics]

FG is in the middle of releasing their 2018 Top 50 Trade Value Series. Spots 11-20 were just relased today, and they include the Braves 2 most valuable assets, Albies and Acuna: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2018...alue-11-to-20/

Acuna #17
Albies #15
Newcomb HM

This isn't surprising, as I explained how Albies would have a Top 20 trade value a week or so ago.

Newcomb as a controllable #4 with plenty to dream on is also very valuable.

Look at the projections for Acuna though. A 5+ WAR star in his mid-20s. His struggles now at a young age compared to what is expected to be in 2020+ should crystallize in folks' minds beyond all doubt why his service clock was delayed. In my opinion, he should still be in AAA right now delaying his clock even more rather than being rushed (as were both Swanson and Albies), but that's another topic of discussion altogether.

Back when we thought this year would be a 75-78 win season, I would agree with this sentiment. To let Acuna season in AAA while we delayed his clock further. But given how the season has gone, I think I'm glad that we have him up with us right now.

[Enscheff]

Freeman slots in at #9, somehow improving from #14 last year despite losing a year of control. I'm guessing this is a bit of Kiley's bias sneaking in here.

Kiley also put out the usual silly line fans like to blabber about Freeman aging, "Freeman figures to age better than the average first baseman given his build, durability, athleticism", but he is still extremely valuable asset. Hopefully AA is smart enough to let Freeman walk at the end of his current deal if he isn't interested in extending for a couple additional years at a time.

The takeaway from this list should be excitement over the Braves having a trio of extremely valuable position players to serve as the core of the team for the medium term future.

[UNCBlue012]

Freeman slots in at #9, somehow improving from #14 last year despite losing a year of control. I'm guessing this is a bit of Kiley's bias sneaking in here.

Kiley also put out the usual silly line fans like to blabber about Freeman aging, "Freeman figures to age better than the average first baseman given his build, durability, athleticism", but he is still extremely valuable asset. Hopefully AA is smart enough to let Freeman walk at the end of his current deal if he isn't interested in extending for a couple additional years at a time.

The takeaway from this list should be excitement over the Braves having a trio of extremely valuable position players to serve as the core of the team for the medium term future.

Do think we could still get Dee Gordon for Albies?

[Enscheff]

Do think we could still get Dee Gordon for Albies?

Might have to kick in Jenkins

[smootness]

Freeman slots in at #9, somehow improving from #14 last year despite losing a year of control. I'm guessing this is a bit of Kiley's bias sneaking in here.

Or it could possibly be that Freeman's ZiPS projections have improved, the guys ahead of him last year also lost a year of control and several of them, like Carlos Martinez, Gary Sanchez, Anthony Rizzo, and Corey Seager, have taken at least a mild step back.

[Enscheff]

Or it could possibly be that Freeman's ZiPS projections have improved, the guys ahead of him last year also lost a year of control and several of them, like Carlos Martinez, Gary Sanchez, Anthony Rizzo, and Corey Seager, have taken at least a mild step back.

Well...

Freeman is 28 and projected for 15.7 WAR over 3 years while being guaranteed $65M.

Bryant (26) is ranked below him while being projected for 16.6 WAR over the same 3 seasons, and is guaranteed $0.

Seager is 24, ranked below Freeman, and is projected for 16.5 WAR over the same 3 seasons, while also being guaranteed $0.

How exactly are younger guys who are projected to be better while being guaranteed nothing possibly less valuable than Freeman? They are, by the definition of trade value, more valuable based on every single objective measurement.

I'm going to stick by my assertion that he's rated a few spots too high due to Kiley's bias.

[sturg33]

I admit to not reading the whole thing, but I don't get how these are ranked... Shouldn't it be a ranking of projected surplus value from top to bottom? This clearly is not that

[thewupk]

I admit to not reading the whole thing, but I don't get how these are ranked... Shouldn't it be a ranking of projected surplus value from top to bottom? This clearly is not that

Look. We needed to get Freeman into the top 10. Using straight facts doesn't make that happen.

[Enscheff]

I admit to not reading the whole thing, but I don't get how these are ranked... Shouldn't it be a ranking of projected surplus value from top to bottom? This clearly is not that

Kiley spent some time explaining how some players would have higher trade values to certain teams. Some teams simply can't afford Trout, and rich teams would probably prefer Trout over Albies. In that case he has to make some judegement calls on where to rank guys. He explained this in quite a few individual write ups, and I largely agree with the overall thought process.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter if Freeman is ranked #9 or #15 because the point is that he's extremely valuable. The MAIN point is that the Braves have 3 hugely valuable assets to build around, which is awesome. I also don't think it's much of a leap in logic to conclude Kiley's personal attachment to Braves players shades his valuation on them a little bit.

What I find funny is that someone decided to jump in and take issue with the one comment that was even slightly critical of a Braves player after being silent in the thread for days.

[Managuarantano's Volunteers]

Freeman slots in at #9, somehow improving from #14 last year despite losing a year of control. I'm guessing this is a bit of Kiley's bias sneaking in here.

Kiley also put out the usual silly line fans like to blabber about Freeman aging, "Freeman figures to age better than the average first baseman given his build, durability, athleticism", but he is still extremely valuable asset. Hopefully AA is smart enough to let Freeman walk at the end of his current deal if he isn't interested in extending for a couple additional years at a time.

The takeaway from this list should be excitement over the Braves having a trio of extremely valuable position players to serve as the core of the team for the medium term future.

Not defending his overall position on the board, but I could see someone saying he has as much trade value now as he did last year based off of him being injured less recently and his MVP like first half

[BeanieAntics]

Freeman slots in at #9, somehow improving from #14 last year despite losing a year of control. I'm guessing this is a bit of Kiley's bias sneaking in here.

Kiley also put out the usual silly line fans like to blabber about Freeman aging, "Freeman figures to age better than the average first baseman given his build, durability, athleticism", but he is still extremely valuable asset. Hopefully AA is smart enough to let Freeman walk at the end of his current deal if he isn't interested in extending for a couple additional years at a time.

The takeaway from this list should be excitement over the Braves having a trio of extremely valuable position players to serve as the core of the team for the medium term future.

If it is possible to extend Freeman for an extra 2-3 years I think we should make that a priority. I still think Freddie will be a top shelf 1st baseman until he is about 34. I'd like to see us try to keep him through 2023 or 2024 if we can. But if he is looking to get a big time long term contract after 2021, we should definitely let him walk. I love the guy and it would be cool for him to be a Brave lifer, but it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense for use financially to pay him top dollar through age 40 or something like that. We have seen teams do something like that time and time again and it almost always turns out very poorly after a few years.

To me, that is the reason why teams like the Tigers find themselves in such a tough spot. They have like 70 million dollars tied in to old players with basically no value. I bet the Angels wish they could go back in time and get rid of the Pujols contract, but that is basically a dead 30 million per year through 2021. Blue Jays owe Morales, Martin, and Tulo 50+ million for at least two more years. Just so many bad contracts

[NYCBrave]

Well...

Freeman is 28 and projected for 15.7 WAR over 3 years while being guaranteed $65M.

Bryant (26) is ranked below him while being projected for 16.6 WAR over the same 3 seasons, and is guaranteed $0.

Seager is 24, ranked below Freeman, and is projected for 16.5 WAR over the same 3 seasons, while also being guaranteed $0.

How exactly are younger guys who are projected to be better while being guaranteed nothing possibly less valuable than Freeman? They are, by the definition of trade value, more valuable based on every single objective measurement.

I'm going to stick by my assertion that he's rated a few spots too high due to Kiley's bias.

Did you read the write up on Seager and Bryant? He has legit concerns on both and said they were tough to peg. Bryant -declining, Seager - return from major injury.