Dansby Swanson Already Proving He Belongs

[smootness]

Horsehide and Enscheff, we all understand the point you're making. I promise you, we do. I understand that purely as an asset, Swanson would retain more value if he had an extra year of control. But since we aren't planning to trade him, his value as an asset isn't likely to make any difference.

Therefore, what really matters is the extra year itself (it will obviously hurt if he leaves a year earlier than he otherwise would have) or the extra money we will have to pay during that year if we extend him.

His value as an asset matters little, if at all, to the Braves. It would be nice if you got credit as a baseball team for the value of all your assets, but if you're not going to be trading them, it doesn't much matter.

 

[nsacpi]

But since we aren't planning to trade him, his value as an asset isn't likely to make any difference.

I don't think that's quite correct. If you look at the contracts of players that sign extensions, it is generally the case that there is a step up in the salary in the free agent year(s) that is being bought out. Sometimes the step up is smoothed out to some extent. But advancing forward the year a player is eligible for free agency has a cost even in the case where the player signs an extension.

 

[smootness]

I don't think that's quite correct. If you look at the contracts of players that sign extensions, it is generally the case that there is a step up in the salary in the free agent year(s) that is being bought out. Sometimes the step up is smoothed out to some extent. But advancing forward the year a player is eligible for free agency has a cost even in the case where the player signs an extension.

Yes, and I mentioned the extra money we would have to pay him in that year as a potential negative. But that doesn't have anything to do with his value as an asset, which is what Horsehide and Enscheff keep harping on. In that case, it only comes into play if we attempt to trade him.

 

[thewupk]

I don't think that's quite correct. If you look at the contracts of players that sign extensions, it is generally the case that there is a step up in the salary in the free agent year(s) that is being bought out. Sometimes the step up is smoothed out to some extent. But advancing forward the year a player is eligible for free agency has a cost even in the case where the player signs an extension.

That's true. Consider the Braves holding Swanson down awhile to start 2017. Who starts the year at SS? Some AAA retread? A stop gap? How much does that stop gap cost? Holding him potentially makes him a super 2 (under current terms) and gets him a 4th year or abry. Overall I don't think that increase in salary is going to be that big of a deal. There are a lot of factors. I also believe all of this will be pointless in 4 months. The players (especially after the Bryant debacle) are going to push hard for service time changes.

 

[nsacpi]

Yes, and I mentioned the extra money we would have to pay him in that year as a potential negative. But that doesn't have anything to do with his value as an asset, which is what Horsehide and Enscheff keep harping on. In that case, it only comes into play if we attempt to trade him.

Well his value as an asset is the sum of the present value of his excess value in each pre-free agent season. I believe the early call-up does have an effect on that. Non?

 

[Julio3000]

If that's the case, there's no reason to feel better about Freeman or Ortiz getting a chance to hit in close games in the 9th inning than having Pierzynski or Francoeur up there, right?

I think there's a pretty compelling reason to feel better with the superior hitter batting in that situation, right?

 

[GovClintonTyree]

Well his value as an asset is the sum of the present value of his excess value in each pre-free agent season. I believe the early call-up does have an effect on that. Non?

In terms of optimizing the efficiency of the dollars we spend, you are certainly correct. Lil Coppy is telling us that they're not overly concerned with that. And if you look at the personnel moves this year and last they're not all geared toward optimizing the dollars we spend. I think the dollars we have to work with moving forward aren't as scarce.

That doesn't mean we're wasteful, but it means we don't try and compete in a $140m with an $80m payroll, and squeeze every drop of juice out of the lemon.

Make sure when you go to Cobb you fritter away plenty of bucks at The Battery.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

I still don't see why it is out of the realm of possibility that they do similar to a tron deal. Sometime next year, they lock him up for 8 years at roughly 72 million. Players like that instant stability and guarantee money. That still puts him in FA at 31. 9 million/per for a potential 3 war player is a great value for the Braves.

 

[thewupk]

I still don't see why it is out of the realm of possibility that they do similar to a tron deal. Sometime next year, they lock him up for 8 years at roughly 72 million. Players like that instant stability and guarantee money. That still puts him in FA at 31. 9 million/per for a potential 3 war player is a great value for the Braves.

For a FA deal that would be great value. However the Braves already have Swanson for something like 6/25 give or take depending on how well he plays. So you'd essentially be paying 24 million or so for the final 2 years. Could be that's a bargain by that time but I would shoot for something in the 8/60-65 range.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

For a FA deal that would be great value. However the Braves already have Swanson for something like 6/25 give or take depending on how well he plays. So you'd essentially be paying 24 million or so for the final 2 years. Could be that's a bargain by that time but I would shoot for something in the 8/60-65 range.

by the time he is even close to those final two years then he will be worth more than 15+ million per. You can't have your cake and eat it too. you can't pay the guy league minimum for 4 years then hope he takes a discount when he is established and that close to FA. but if he would go 8/65, that is fine. My point was even at 9 million, he would be a good value..

 

[thewupk]

by the time he is even close to those final two years then he will be worth more than 15+ million per. You can't have your cake and eat it too. you can't pay the guy league minimum for 4 years then hope he takes a discount when he is established and that close to FA. but if he would go 8/65, that is fine. My point was even at 9 million, he would be a good value..

I know. But usually when a player signs away some of their FA years (year 7 and 8 in this case) it would be at below market prices in exchange for financial security.

 

[smootness]

Well his value as an asset is the sum of the present value of his excess value in each pre-free agent season. I believe the early call-up does have an effect on that. Non?

My point is simply that if the Braves plan to keep him around past his initial years of control, his value as an asset means nothing to them, unless they just want to sit back and marvel at how much value he has.

Yes, paying Swanson more means they have less to pay others, so in that sense, his value is lessened. But the difference in money there is not going to be enough to really matter a ton. And it's possible we could make it up on the front end by having him up sooner.

 

[Enscheff]

I don't think that's quite correct. If you look at the contracts of players that sign extensions, it is generally the case that there is a step up in the salary in the free agent year(s) that is being bought out. Sometimes the step up is smoothed out to some extent. But advancing forward the year a player is eligible for free agency has a cost even in the case where the player signs an extension.

Yup. Even if the Braves do keep Swanson for his age 29 season, that season will cost about 2x more than it should have. So the price for having Swanson on the team now is that he will cost $10M-$15M more for that season at best, and at worst he won't even be on the team. I'm not sure how someone can claim an extra $10M-$15M for a single season is "no big deal" for a mid-market team like the Braves.

All that downside for what upside? Sorry, I just don't see any potential payoff that justifies either losing Swanson's age 29 season or paying $10M-$15M more for it. It was a sub-optimal move in every possible way, no matter what the financial situation the Braves find themselves in 6 years from now.

 

[thewupk]

Yup. Even if the Braves do keep Swanson for his age 29 season, that season will cost about 2x more than it should have. So the price for having Swanson on the team now is that he will cost $10M-$15M more for that season at best, and at worst he won't even be on the team. I'm not sure how someone can claim an extra $10M-$15M for a single season is "no big deal" for a mid-market team like the Braves.

All that downside for what upside? Sorry, I just don't see any potential payoff that justifies either losing Swanson's age 29 season or paying $10M-$15M more for it. It was a sub-optimal move in every possible way, no matter what the financial situation the Braves find themselves in 6 years from now.

I would counter it with this.

Keep him down a few weeks to gain an extra year

2017: 500K
2018: 500K
2019: 500K
2020: 3.5
2021: 7
2022: 10
2023: 14

Keep him down half the year so he's not a super 2

2017: whatever is prorated of 500K
2018: 500K
2019: 500K
2020: 500K
2021: 3.5
2022: 7
2023: 10

I feel those are fair arby projections based on a ~3 WAR player. Doing the later you are still going to pay someone likely in the 8 million range to be a stopgap SS for 2017 and I doubt even you would want to keep Swanson down half the year. So if the Braves do extend Swanson I don't think they will be paying him 24-29 million for his 2023 season. So your 10-15 million extra for it is just wrong. At most I feel they cost themselves 4-5 million or so for that 2023 season.

 

[nsacpi]

I would counter it with this.

Keep him down a few weeks to gain an extra year

2017: 500K
2018: 500K
2019: 500K
2020: 3.5
2021: 7
2022: 10
2023: 14

Keep him down half the year so he's not a super 2

2017: whatever is prorated of 500K
2018: 500K
2019: 500K
2020: 500K
2021: 3.5
2022: 7
2023: 10

I feel those are fair arby projections based on a ~3 WAR player. Doing the later you are still going to pay someone likely in the 8 million range to be a stopgap SS for 2017 and I doubt even you would want to keep Swanson down half the year. So if the Braves do extend Swanson I don't think they will be paying him 24-29 million for his 2023 season. So your 10-15 million extra for it is just wrong. At most I feel they cost themselves 4-5 million or so for that 2023 season.

what is the total cost under the two scenarios

 

[thewupk]

what is the total cost under the two scenarios

1: 36 million
2: 22 million plus whatever your are paying for your opening day SS in 2017.

 

[yeezus]

2: 22 million plus whatever your are paying for your opening day SS in 2017.

I think not opening the season with Daniel Castro at SS is understandable.

 

[thewupk]

I think not opening the season with Daniel Castro at SS is understandable.

If your holding Swanson down half the year I doubt they roll with a AAAA guy until then.

 

[nsacpi]

1: 36 million
2: 22 million plus whatever your are paying for your opening day SS in 2017.

The difference between the two is a good first approximation for the cost of this decision. You could argue for a bigger or smaller number, but you would end up in this ballpark. About $2M per year. I know our payroll is going up. But I don't think we should be pissing away 2M per year for no discernible benefit. Keep in mind John Hart said Swanson was probably not ready. And in his interview JC makes it clear that the idea of calling up Swanson did not cross his mind until his two mentors nudged him into it.

Have any of you worked in an organization where some old guy well past his sell date still has final decision making authority. Someone who comes to the office around 2:30 in the afternoon twice a week full of ideas. Why don't we do this? Why don't we try that? If the experience is not a familiar one do a little reading about Sumner Redstone. Not the current version. But the one from 10 or 15 years ago who was still making a lot of decisions he really should not have been involved in.

 

[yeezus]

The difference between the two is a good first approximation for the cost of this decision. You could argue for a bigger or smaller number, but you would end up in this ballpark. About $2M per year. I know our payroll is going up. But I don't think we should be pissing away 2M per year for no discernible benefit. Keep in mind John Hart said Swanson was probably not ready. And in his interview JC makes it clear that the idea of calling up Swanson did not cross his mind until his two mentors nudged him into it.

So your plan was open to next season with Daniel Castro as your SS?

And who's to say how much Dansby has been benefited or will be by being called up when he was? You can't quantify it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.