Cost of Promoting Albies Now

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.
 
Hawk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Hawk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
sturg33 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hawk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Hawk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Enscheff said:
The hole in their knowledge is how to value those service time implications.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hawk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Enscheff said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Enscheff said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
I really feel like people are struggling with the word OPTIMISTIC... think thethe when posting in this area please...
Click to expand...

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