Braves Locking Up Their Future Signing Another Homegrown Star

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
23,325
The gran facenda
The Braves are a cash cow with the revenue from the Battery and the new stadium with the subsidies they received from Cobb County of $350 million. They also control the parking at the lots adjacent to the stadium, many of which are lots and parking garages in businesses within walking distance. They are also looking at building an office complex in the area across the street to the north of the stadium. It's actually Truist asking for more tax breaks for the complex, but the Braves control the land.

Out of the players Passan named, Grissom and Contreras aren't arb eligible until 2025. Wright in 2024. The two big FAs they have are Swanson and Fried. I read the Fried contract details incorrectly. He isn't a FA until 2025 per B-Ref. Reports are that they are working on a deal for Swanson. I haven't heard anything on Fried yet, but I wouldn't be surprised for the Dodgers to be a player for him since he's from there and his favorite player growing up was Sandy Koufax.

And let's keep this thread for the baseball side of things. We can discuss the racist chant and name in another thread.

edit: changed Fried contract information
 
Last edited:

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,405
Smarter and better? Maybe. Definitely lucky that the Braves' targets for early signings were themselves also willing to sign early.
Is it luck, or do they foster relationships and an environment that is conducive to this sort of thing?

That’s a real question, I have no idea. But they’re so consistent that I’m inclined to think there’s something more than just good fortune working in their favor.
 

Wingack

Yankee Mod
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
34,360
In The Quivering Forest
Smarter and better? Maybe. Definitely lucky that the Braves' targets for early signings were themselves also willing to sign early.
I don’t think it’s luck. They sign all their young players. It’s obviously a skill they have. If it was luck, there would be some players that refuse to sign.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,533
I don't think it's luck either. I think that the Braves make really good offers that players want to sign. I'm not 100% of their negotiating tactics are, but it doesn't seem like they try to low-ball their players so that they can "win" every negotiation. It seems to me that they take a look at the landscape, add a bit of a premium and then make an offer that's fair to everyone.

Yes, there are going to be some contracts that might suck in a year or two. But the Braves seem to be able to live with that as a cost of doing business.
 
I'm guessing there's a cultural element at play here as well - the Braves are young, they win a lot, and their players are all signing extensions to stay with the club into what feels like the distant future. It's maybe a positive form of friendly peer pressure?

Of course, we'll see what Dansby Swanson decides to do this winter. I'm not 100% convinced he'll stick around, but if he does, I'm guessing it'll be in part because he enjoys playing with all of these guys and knows with as much certainty as there is in this business that he'll get to keep playing with most of them for nearly a decade.
 

Wingack

Yankee Mod
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
34,360
In The Quivering Forest
I don't think it's luck either. I think that the Braves make really good offers that players want to sign. I'm not 100% of their negotiating tactics are, but it doesn't seem like they try to low-ball their players so that they can "win" every negotiation. It seems to me that they take a look at the landscape, add a bit of a premium and then make an offer that's fair to everyone.

Yes, there are going to be some contracts that might suck in a year or two. But the Braves seem to be able to live with that as a cost of doing business.
I think if enough of the contracts hit, they can afford one or two of the contracts to be misses.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,229
I think if enough of the contracts hit, they can afford one or two of the contracts to be misses.
Well, that's the real question, isn't it? How many of these guys continue to perform and how many turn into Cody Bellinger or Michael Fulmer?
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,533
I think if enough of the contracts hit, they can afford one or two of the contracts to be misses.
Right. That's the inherent gamble with these things right? Who knows which one is going to bottom out or have a devastating injury or whatnot, but Atlanta is kind of acting like Mr. Burns in the "Homer at the Bat" episode: "Smithers, there's no way I can lose this bet. Unless of course my nine all stars fall victim to nine separate misfortunes and are unable to play [tomorrow] but that will never happen. Three misfortunes, that's possible. Seven misfortunes, there's an outside chance. But nine misfortunes, I'd like to see that."
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
They signed a guy they already have control of for five more years to a six year contract. They got it done by offering a but more than what they might expect to pay going year to year. I'm not sure that's luck or skill, just a willingness to guarantee money they aren't obligated to guarantee. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, especially if they're flush with cash, but it is something that any team could do.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
They signed a guy they already have control of for five more years to a six year contract. They got it done by offering a but more than what they might expect to pay going year to year. I'm not sure that's luck or skill, just a willingness to guarantee money they aren't obligated to guarantee. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, especially if they're flush with cash, but it is something that any team could do.
Man, thank you. Not sure this one saves anything, just gives them cost certainty.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,344
They signed a guy they already have control of for five more years to a six year contract. They got it done by offering a but more than what they might expect to pay going year to year. I'm not sure that's luck or skill, just a willingness to guarantee money they aren't obligated to guarantee. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, especially if they're flush with cash, but it is something that any team could do.
How do you project the last 3 arb years though? I'd guess that they're likely to be saving a significant amount those years than going to arb considering salary escalation. I admit to not understanding how all this works though.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
Dunno who a good comparison is, but for instance, Luis Castillo has made around $13M combined in his first six seasons.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
They signed a guy they already have control of for five more years to a six year contract. They got it done by offering a but more than what they might expect to pay going year to year. I'm not sure that's luck or skill, just a willingness to guarantee money they aren't obligated to guarantee. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, especially if they're flush with cash, but it is something that any team could do.
Yeah. It's fine but the net gain here isn't what people who irrationally fetishize these contracts think it is. If the Sox had done this with Mookie they still would have faced a decision point on him, it just might have been a year or two later.

Let's say the Sox do this now with Bello/Casas. Sure, it will be nice to have buy out an extra year before FA. But you know what lese would be nice? Having them both count for next to nothing in the tax calculations for the next three seasons while still having control over them the three seasons after that. Nothing is free.
 

Wingack

Yankee Mod
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
34,360
In The Quivering Forest
One important aspect of this is that they are building positive negotiating relationships with these players and their agents. They also just get to skip the ugliness of the arbitration years, while the young ATL players get to feel like their organization took care of them.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,049
Alamogordo
One important aspect of this is that they are building positive negotiating relationships with these players and their agents. They also just get to skip the ugliness of the arbitration years, while the young ATL players get to feel like their organization took care of them.
I agree. It seems like good businessing to me, whether it works out on them on the other side we shall see. I think that one other thing it does is allow the players to bloom (for lack of a better term I can come up with right now) without having to worry about what next year's rent is, or what next year's contract looks like.

I don't know that I would go so far as to call them geniuses or anything, but treating your people well is a bit of a lost art these days, so it is is nice to see.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
How do you project the last 3 arb years though? I'd guess that they're likely to be saving a significant amount those years than going to arb considering salary escalation. I admit to not understanding how all this works though.
It's not that complicated to project arbitration years. Look at players with a similar profile who've already gone through it, maybe add a couple million per year for inflationary purposes, and you've got a reasonable ballpark figure to work from.

I'm just going to use Luis Castillo as a quick analog for Strider. He came up with similar success with the Reds so should be a reasonable comparison. Castillo got more or less the minimum his first three years (550K, 557K, 663K) then $4.2M, then $7.35M this year. His new extension with the M's will pay him $10M next year (what would have been his final year of arbitration before free agency) then $22.75M for the next four years after that. So if we use his figures for the years covered by Strider's deal, it's 557K, 663K, 4.2M, 7.35M, 10M, and 22.75M for a total of 45.5M. League minimum has been raised to 700K so let's add at least a half million to the pre-arb years to account for that for Strider. Add on another $8-9M for salary inflation in the arb-eligible and free agent years, and now you're at $54-55M over 6 years. Strider's getting $70M.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,667
I really wish the "sign our young players to extensions early in their careers" philosophy that is sweeping across baseball would have come along a few years before. There would have been no reason the Sox couldn't have signed Betts, Bogaerts and Devers on deals similar to how Atlanta (and other teams) have locked up their core.

The Julio Rodriguez extension I found fascinating in that it seems to work for both parties. Julio has a strong base salary, so even if he gets hurt or sucks, he will still make hundreds of millions, but it's not so big that it would cripple Seattle. If he becomes the best player in baseball, he will be compensated as such.

I think it's a great thing for baseball that teams will have identifiable cores of talent once again, if this trend continues.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,049
Alamogordo
I would also like to acknowledge the fact that we, as Red Sox fans, are probably a bit more in tune with things like this after watching Lester and Mookie get moved, and the appearance of drama on the horizon with Xander and Devers. I definitely feel some jealousy watching the Braves do this, BUT will also acknowledge that you have to develop the players that are deserving of contracts like this. I would argue that Lester, Mookie, Xander and Devers )Benintendi as well, perhaps?) might be the only four players the Sox have developed in the last 15 years+ who might have deserved contracts like these, while the Braves have nearly an entire MLB roster of players they have developed. That is something that takes time.

There have also been a few players the Sox have partially developed only to trade away for established players as well. I think the Braves have gotten to the point where they really, really trust their system, and believe all of these guys are going to provide positive value for the life of the contracts, and I just don't think the Sox have been in a position to do that for various reasons. I think that is the goal of Bloom's office, though I think it will probably take multiple years to get there.

I also don't know if what I just typed makes any sense.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
I really wish the "sign our young players to extensions early in their careers" philosophy that is sweeping across baseball would have come along a few years before. There would have been no reason the Sox couldn't have signed Betts, Bogaerts and Devers on deals similar to how Atlanta (and other teams) have locked up their core.

The Julio Rodriguez extension I found fascinating in that it seems to work for both parties. Julio has a strong base salary, so even if he gets hurt or sucks, he will still make hundreds of millions, but it's not so big that it would cripple Seattle. If he becomes the best player in baseball, he will be compensated as such.

I think it's a great thing for baseball that teams will have identifiable cores of talent once again, if this trend continues.

They did sign Bogaerts. He has been here three years past his scheduled free agency. Most of these deals have bought out less time than that.

Also, this wonderful organization that loves its players just let a genuine Home Grown Star walk away for nothing because they apparently were too cheap to lock him before he hit free agency.
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
Doesn't this affect the luxury tax implications at least? Higher now, less later
Very good point. $12.5M AAV against the luxury tax for the next 6 years. For a team like the Braves with their payroll obligations, not a big deal. For a team like the Red Sox (or the Dodgers or Yankees or any other team at or over the luxury tax), a significant issue. Picture the 2018 Sox if Devers' tax hit was $10M instead of $600K.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
Very good point. $12.5M AAV against the luxury tax for the next 6 years. For a team like the Braves with their payroll obligations, not a big deal. For a team like the Red Sox (or the Dodgers or Yankees or any other team at or over the luxury tax), a significant issue. Picture the 2018 Sox if Devers' tax hit was $10M instead of $600K.
Yep, which is why the Bloom strategy is trying to build the farm system with quality and quantity ... so that by the time these players get to the majors, and find success, the Red Sox would be in position to make deals along the lines of what the Braves are doing.

But you can't get to Step 5 without going through Steps 1-4, for which a segment of the fanbase and media are willing to accept
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,808
The back of your computer
Very good point. $12.5M AAV against the luxury tax for the next 6 years. For a team like the Braves with their payroll obligations, not a big deal. For a team like the Red Sox (or the Dodgers or Yankees or any other team at or over the luxury tax), a significant issue. Picture the 2018 Sox if Devers' tax hit was $10M instead of $600K.
Right. You have to right-size your payroll before you can beginning frontloading salaries for young potential stars. When your organization spends up to/beyond the luxury tax threshold every year, it simply does not have the payroll flexibility to enter into deals like the Braves are doing. People who argue that the Red Sox should spend, spend, spend to the max every year can't turn around and gripe about the fact that they don't enter into these sorts of deals.

Also, once you have 1-2 young players on board long-term, it is easier to attract other young prospects to join the party, so to speak. If your organization is focused on having established stars, then there usually isn't room for lots of young prospects to effect this strategy.

Finally, you have to pick the right prospects. It's a disaster if you sign someone to a contract like this and they don't pan out.
 

SemperFidelisSox

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2008
31,083
Boston, MA
After some searching on Spotrac.com, it doesn’t look like any of these guys are Boras clients. Someone asked how much of this is luck. Well, your best young players and rookies not being represented by baseballs Darth Vader is kind of a lucky break.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,264
Manchester, N.H.
I think some of this is a bit rosy because it's all worked well to this point (duh) - if a team is 100% (or nearly 100%) confident that their young player is going to be a positive contributor for the next 6-8 years at a price that you can agree to, and it's a situation where you can afford more money upfront (to Redshawks point on Luxury Tax)...then sure. I do think the Braves have had four relatively easy cases to make this kind of determination on: Albies had a 4 WAR in his Age 21 year and gave what would be a relatively huge discount even at a reduced production level, Strider had nearly a 4 WAR season this year, Austin Riley put up nearly 5 WAR last year before his extension as Freeman left, Michael Harris had a 5 WAR rookie year, Acuna had a 4 WAR rookie year.

Mookie is the obvious Sox example here that aligns with that - 2 WAR in a third of a season - that offseason Dombrowski comes in and acquires Pablo and Hanley and Porcello - team salary is 181m and I think the Tax Limit was 189m. In retrospect of course - don't sign Panda, extend Mookie, we'd all be better off, but that's not where the Sox were at that point leadership wise or otherwise.

Compare that to Xander who was an absolute blue-chip prospect who put up 1.0 WAR in his first 650 PAs or so over 2013-2014. It worked out and he signed the 2019 extension of course but Boston would have already had two min years eaten up if they waited for that 4+ WAR year to extend. Devers followed a very similack track - a year and a half of totally understandable (age and experience) meh performance before that breakout year. And to Semper's point: I don't know or think that Scott Boras lets his players who put up 4-5 WAR in a year in their early 20s sign away key money making years that easily and the Braves aren't exactly extending these young stars until they prove the goods at the highest level.

The Wander/Julio bets are different of course given the higher overall values and longer term bets on Top 1 level prospects - and if the Sox did that at the end of 2017 they'd probably have given the bag to Andrew Benintendi. At that point, if Benintendi is locked into something like 10 years / 130 million, it changes a bit including if they can extend X at a guaranteed 20M or even Devers negotiations now..

Basically, if you trust your scouting and development and all of that to identify those handful of players who will continue to be blue-chip superstars? Sure. But there's a lot of risk involved in this too. And honestly we have to see how a lot of these play out in the years Atlanta locked them up for beyond what they would have normally gotten. Harris and Strider just signed. Acuna put up 2.8 WAR for 15 million this year, Ozzie Albies put up .9 WAR for 5 Million. I'm sure Atlanta is satisfied by both of those - they're both in arbitration timeframes regardless, but the true benefit of these contracts is likely 24-27 for Albies (hard to imagine he's not worth 7 million if he's close to healthy) and 25-28 for Acuna (easier to imagine scenarios where he might not be worth 17m but he's clearly good enough to be worth twice that if everything goes right) - luckily Atlanta also built in a buy out which...good on them.
 
Last edited:

leftfieldlegacy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
1,005
North Jersey
In a quick review of the Braves contracts (Cots), there are a lot of club options and buyout provisions listed among the player's contracts but I did not see any players with an "opt out" clause or a "no trade" clause and as noted above the Braves have no players represented by Scott Boras. The Red Sox gave opt outs to Sale, Xander, Story, Hosmer and JD. (Xander, JD and Hosmer are Boras clients). The Braves seem to be drawing a line in refusing the opt out provision. When they sign a multi year extension they never have to concern themselves with renegotiating ever. Seems like a better way to do business.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,533
Mookie is the obvious Sox example here that aligns with that - 2 WAR in a third of a season - that offseason Dombrowski comes in and acquires Pablo and Hanley and Porcello - team salary is 181m and I think the Tax Limit was 189m. In retrospect of course - don't sign Panda, extend Mookie, we'd all be better off, but that's not where the Sox were at that point leadership wise or otherwise.
Those signings/trade were Ben Cherington moves. DD had nothing to do with them.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
23,325
The gran facenda
The Braves had a pretty low payroll from 2012 until 2019, when they crossed the $160 million mark. Here's what Cots has for those years. They moved into the new stadium in 2017.
56331
This is what B-Ref has as their payroll going forward. The Strider dollars are not included. You can see the guaranteed player money in the link.
56332
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
In a quick review of the Braves contracts (Cots), there are a lot of club options and buyout provisions listed among the player's contracts but I did not see any players with an "opt out" clause or a "no trade" clause and as noted above the Braves have no players represented by Scott Boras. The Red Sox gave opt outs to Sale, Xander, Story, Hosmer and JD. (Xander, JD and Hosmer are Boras clients). The Braves seem to be drawing a line in refusing the opt out provision. When they sign a multi year extension they never have to concern themselves with renegotiating ever. Seems like a better way to do business.
Apples to oranges. Most of the longer term deals the Braves have signed are with players who were pre-arbitration at the time (Acuna, Albies, Riley, Strider, etc). If those players wanted to opt-out to hit free agency at a preferred time, they'd just not sign the contracts in the first place. Going year to year would give them the "opt-out" anyway. The opt-outs the Sox gave were to free agents or free agents to be, which is a totally different animal and not really comparable.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,494
I really wish the "sign our young players to extensions early in their careers" philosophy that is sweeping across baseball would have come along a few years before. There would have been no reason the Sox couldn't have signed Betts, Bogaerts and Devers on deals similar to how Atlanta (and other teams) have locked up their core.

The Julio Rodriguez extension I found fascinating in that it seems to work for both parties. Julio has a strong base salary, so even if he gets hurt or sucks, he will still make hundreds of millions, but it's not so big that it would cripple Seattle. If he becomes the best player in baseball, he will be compensated as such.

I think it's a great thing for baseball that teams will have identifiable cores of talent once again, if this trend continues.
It's a strategy that's been around for 30+ years. The 8-10 year lifetime type deals are new, but this Strider deal – buy out their arbitration and 1-2 years of free agency – is something nearly every one of Cleveland's stars in the '90s had signed. I believe Sandy Alomar might have been the first player to sign one.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
Apples to oranges. Most of the longer term deals the Braves have signed are with players who were pre-arbitration at the time (Acuna, Albies, Riley, Strider, etc). If those players wanted to opt-out to hit free agency at a preferred time, they'd just not sign the contracts in the first place. Going year to year would give them the "opt-out" anyway. The opt-outs the Sox gave were to free agents or free agents to be, which is a totally different animal and not really comparable.

Right. The impressive part of this is the development off all these young guys at the same time in the first place. The contacts, they will hurt them a bit the first few years with the hopeful payoff of extending the run a year or two.
 

BoSox Rule

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,343
Signing young players isn’t a new concept. The Red Sox under different leadership have done it plenty of times. They did it with Nomar, Pedroia, Lester, Youkilis, etc. The flip side of it is the players have to be willing to sign at least a couple FA years away, not everyone wants to do that, and it’s their right.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,049
Alamogordo
It's not that complicated to project arbitration years. Look at players with a similar profile who've already gone through it, maybe add a couple million per year for inflationary purposes, and you've got a reasonable ballpark figure to work from.

I'm just going to use Luis Castillo as a quick analog for Strider. He came up with similar success with the Reds so should be a reasonable comparison. Castillo got more or less the minimum his first three years (550K, 557K, 663K) then $4.2M, then $7.35M this year. His new extension with the M's will pay him $10M next year (what would have been his final year of arbitration before free agency) then $22.75M for the next four years after that. So if we use his figures for the years covered by Strider's deal, it's 557K, 663K, 4.2M, 7.35M, 10M, and 22.75M for a total of 45.5M. League minimum has been raised to 700K so let's add at least a half million to the pre-arb years to account for that for Strider. Add on another $8-9M for salary inflation in the arb-eligible and free agent years, and now you're at $54-55M over 6 years. Strider's getting $70M.
I don't know that Castillo is a good comp. Strider, at age 23, just struck out over 200 guys at the Major League level in 131 innings, while only walking 45, and allowing a .5 HR/9.

Castillo hadn't even had a cup of coffee at that age, and has never had a season as good as what Strider just had (based off of rate stats). If (and yes, it is a big if, as he is only 23, and also a pitcher) Strider keeps this up, he will be worth way more than the contract he just signed.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
I don't know that Castillo is a good comp. Strider, at age 23, just struck out over 200 guys at the Major League level in 131 innings, while only walking 45, and allowing a .5 HR/9.

Castillo hadn't even had a cup of coffee at that age, and has never had a season as good as what Strider just had (based off of rate stats). If (and yes, it is a big if, as he is only 23, and also a pitcher) Strider keeps this up, he will be worth way more than the contract he just signed.
I didn't really choose Castillo because I though they were identical players. He was just a recent and fresh example of a pitcher who'd (mostly) gone through the year to year salary process while being a moderately successful starter. You're right that Strider looks like he'll be better than Castillo, which just makes Castillo an example of the low end of what Strider might have made going year to year through his arbitration seasons. The point is that the contract isn't necessarily special or something only the Braves are "smart" or "savvy" enough to do. It's just locking in cost certainty over a period the team had control of the player regardless.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
Luis Severino might be a good comparison, 3rd in the Cy Young voting in his age 23 season (which is what Strider just had) and more of a track record. He signed a 4/40 extension and then proceeded to pitch a total of 18 innings in the first three years of that deal.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
Also could be part of the Braves strategy though...
So they drafted guys years ago not based on their skill but so they could sign them for cheaper 5-10 years after drafting them? And also somehow knew none of them would switch agents since then? Seems like pure luck/coincidence.

Also, the one guy the Sox extended was a Boras client.
 
Perhaps a silly or stupid observation, but isn't it also easier to build a roster around young players on long-term contracts in a lower-pressure media environment? If everyone on the current Braves roster was on, say, the Yankees, the hype train would be out of control - all successes and failures would be magnified, both nationally and locally, and it would take a certain type of personality to want to sign up for that environment over the long term.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that the non-Latin American players in this young core on long-term contracts are all from the Deep South. Strider was born in Ohio but went to high school in Tennessee and to college at Clemson; Harris grew up in Atlanta (DeKalb County); Riley grew up in Mississippi; Grissom grew up in Orlando; Wright grew up in Alabama. (And Matt Olson is from Atlanta as well.) Going back to John Schuerholz's tenure as GM, the Braves have consciously scouted, drafted and signed a disproportionately high number of kids from Georgia and elsewhere within what has historically been - going back to TBS Superstation days - a pretty large Braves media market. If you're drafting kids who may well have been Braves fans growing up and/or are culturally comfortable living in and around Atlanta, maybe it's not surprising that they might be willing to stick around for the long haul in what seems to be a winning organization? (Swanson is from suburban/exurban Atlanta as well, of course, which bodes well for the Braves' chances of signing him...whereas Freddie Freeman grew up in California.)
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
Well, he wasn't eligible for free agency until 2028 anyway, so this deal locks him up through....2028, giving them one extra year of control, two if they exercise the option. If Strider plays well, here's his likely salaries in real life (minus this new deal):

2023 - league minimum ($700k)
2024 - league minimum ($700k)
2025 - arb 1 ($5m)
2026 - arb 2 ($12m)
2027 - arb 3 ($22m)

So Strider is looking at making about $40 million, give or take, over the next 5 years as he moves through the normal arbitration process. BUT....he's banking on himself not getting hurt, etc.

Here's the new deal:

2023 - $1m
2024 - $1m
2025 - $4m
2026 - $20m
2027 - $22m

TOT: $48 million, which is more than they were going to pay him in the first place.

BUT the advantage for Atlanta is that they get him for 2028 at $22m, and then have an option for $29m for 2029 as well, which, if he plays like he's capable of, is a good deal.

But they're paying $8 million more in guaranteed money in order to get, really, two more years of guaranteed control at reasonable prices if he develops like they think he can.

Seems like smart business for all parties. Suddenly Strider is a guy with $60 million guaranteed - not bad for a guy who's slated to make "just" $700,000 this coming year. And the Braves have him locked up at reasonable prices for the next 7 seasons if they want (2 more than they otherwise would have). BUT....it's a bit of a risk. Plenty of prospects have flamed out after a couple of seasons.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
I really wish the "sign our young players to extensions early in their careers" philosophy that is sweeping across baseball would have come along a few years before. There would have been no reason the Sox couldn't have signed Betts, Bogaerts and Devers on deals similar to how Atlanta (and other teams) have locked up their core.
I've never seen a detailed account of what happened, but it's pretty clear that the Red Sox did try to extend Mookie early on and he refused to sign a deal. Rob Bradford mentioned this on a recent podcast - he referenced a conversation where Mookie told him that turning down that first offer was the hardest thing he'd ever done in his life, because it was so much money at that stage in his career (obviously, in retrospect he chose wisely).
 

Tokyo Sox

Baka Gaijin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 16, 2006
6,132
There
But they're paying $8 million more in guaranteed money in order to get, really, two more years of guaranteed control at reasonable prices if he develops like they think he can.

Seems like smart business for all parties. Suddenly Strider is a guy with $60 million guaranteed - not bad for a guy who's slated to make "just" $700,000 this coming year. And the Braves have him locked up at reasonable prices for the next 7 seasons if they want (2 more than they otherwise would have). BUT....it's a bit of a risk. Plenty of prospects have flamed out after a couple of seasons.
You have a typo on the 2029 option year, it's also $22mm I think. But anyway I agree with all the rest of your post. If he develops as hoped and they let him hit FA in 2028, the choice then will be the choice everyone always has with aging (he'll be 29) but great FA pitchers: sign him to a mega deal, or let him walk. This way though they get two of what should be his best years for what could look like a massive bargain in 5-6 years.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that the non-Latin American players in this young core on long-term contracts are all from the Deep South. Strider was born in Ohio but went to high school in Tennessee and to college at Clemson; Harris grew up in Atlanta (DeKalb County); Riley grew up in Mississippi; Grissom grew up in Orlando; Wright grew up in Alabama. (And Matt Olson is from Atlanta as well.) Going back to John Schuerholz's tenure as GM, the Braves have consciously scouted, drafted and signed a disproportionately high number of kids from Georgia and elsewhere within what has historically been - going back to TBS Superstation days - a pretty large Braves media market. If you're drafting kids who may well have been Braves fans growing up and/or are culturally comfortable living in and around Atlanta, maybe it's not surprising that they might be willing to stick around for the long haul in what seems to be a winning organization? (Swanson is from suburban/exurban Atlanta as well, of course, which bodes well for the Braves' chances of signing him...whereas Freddie Freeman grew up in California.)
Interesting insight, thanks. I'm sure you're right that it's intentional. Another aspect to this whole approach, while probably unquantifiable, is that I think it positions the Braves to potentially get some of these guys to agree to hometown discounts on their next contracts to be "Braves for life" or whatnot.