Cost of Promoting Albies Now

E

Enscheff

Well-known member
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.
 
Enscheff said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Enscheff, can you tell me what front office GMs promote all their top prospects using the service time loophole?
 
cajunrevenge said:
Enscheff, can you tell me what front office GMs promote all their top prospects using the service time loophole?
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
Enscheff said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Just for personal clarification, why are the Braves paying Albies one million less in scenario 2 for each of 2021, 2022, and 2023?
 
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.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Southcack77 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
sturg33 said:
If they are, then the FO is even dumber for ignoring the data
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top