Freddie Freeman and Choosing Youth over Track Record
As the calendar has flipped to February, we are officially transitioning out of free agent season — though a few stragglers remain — and moving into extension season. With arbitration providing the nudge for teams and players to run valuations and negotiate over their differences, it’s only natural that these discussions often turn into conversations about long term deals that avoid the process entirely, and the spring training months provide the best opportunity for a team and a player to come to a mutual agreement on a mutli-year extension. While Clayton Kershaw kicked off the extension season a few weeks ago, Freddie Freeman’s new deal with the Braves is a reminder that extension season isn’t limited to just big market teams with overflowing revenues, and also a reminder of just how important a player’s age has become in long term valuations.
Freeman’s deal is for eight seasons, covering his remaining three arbitration eligible years and then five free agent years beyond that. If we assume that his arbitration prices would have gone something like $5 million/$8 million/$12 million, then he was in line for something like $25 million over the next three years, meaning the Braves bought five additional years of team control for $110 million or so, or essentially $22 million per year. It’s the largest contract extension ever given to a player with between three and four years of service time, though if you count the guaranteed dollars left on Ryan Braun’s deal when he signed his second extension, the Brewers were on the hook for $141 million over nine years going forward from the point of the agreement.
The Braun comparison is interesting, though, because Freeman’s track record right now doesn’t really stack up to Braun’s at the point that the Brewers committed to him for a decade. Here’s Freeman’s career line compared to Braun’s performances from 2007-2010:
| Name | PA | AVG | OBP | SLG | wOBA | wRC+ | BsR | Off | Def | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freddie Freeman | 1,908 | 0.285 | 0.358 | 0.466 | 0.357 | 127 | -6.5 | 52.9 | -45.7 | 7.1 |
| Ryan Braun | 2,548 | 0.307 | 0.364 | 0.554 | 0.393 | 141 | 13.9 | 143.0 | -68.8 | 15.8 |
Braun not only had an extra season’s worth of playing time, he had been demonstrably better than Freeman to that point, with a specifically large advantage in the power department. Even if you give Freeman a significant bump for defensive value relative to what UZR suggests he’s been worth, he’s still not particularly close to Braun, and remember, Braun’s defensive rating during that time was dragged down by his miserable rookie season at third base as well. Braun, at the point at which he sold five free agent years for $105 million, was pretty clearly a more accomplished player than Freeman is now.
Of course, baseball has seen a lot of inflation over the last few years, and Braun’s contract came three years ago, so it shouldn’t be too surprising that Braun’s benchmark contract — for players with this level of service time — didn’t last that long. Prices have been going up for everyone, and $105 million in 2011 dollars is more than $110 million in 2014 dollars. This is just part of the cycle of baseball teams getting richer; baseball players get richer too.
But I think there’s something else at play here as well. Braun was 27 when he signed his deal, and the five free agent years he sold for $105 million cover his age-32 to age-36 seasons. Freeman is 24, and the five years he sold cover his age-27 to age-31 seasons. While Braun and Freeman’s total contract prices are similar, and they have somewhat similar amounts of service time at the point of the extension, they really weren’t selling the same thing. Braun sold the Brewers his decline phase, while Freeman is selling the Braves the years that are likely to be his most productive.
Historically, we’ve been conditioned to expect players to prove their value on the field over several years before they land these nine figure contracts, and Freeman stands out as something of an anomaly in the land of $100+ million extensions. He’s had one really good season, a year driven by a sky-high BABIP that almost certainly isn’t sustainable, and as a first baseman with good but not great power, he doesn’t fit the prototype of a superstar, nor has he played like one for an extended period of time. But this is where age comes into play so heavily, because the prime years of a good player are often more productive than the decline years of a superstar, and it’s likely a better investment to give an in-his-prime, good-not-great player more money than it is to reward a superstar for what he’s already accomplished.
We already saw the market come to this same conclusion with Masahiro Tanaka this off-season. Tanaka has no major league track record, but because he will be 25 next year while all the other free agent hurlers are pushing the wrong side of 30, he landed $175 million in guaranteed dollars while Matt Garza, Ervin Santana, and Ubaldo Jimenez probably won’t get that total put together. The market made it very clear that, when given a choice between youth and track record, it would choose youth.
And the Braves had to know that Freeman’s age would weigh strongly in his favor if they let him get to free agency. Even if he never developed into much more than what he is now, and if his BABIP regressed, and UZR actually is measuring his defensive value fairly well, he’s still likely to be a +3 to +4 win player by the time he gets to free agency. If he never learns how to hit left-handers and never adds much power, then he’s basically Shin-Soo Choo, and Shin-Soo Choo just got $130 million for ages 31 to 37. Barring a major injury, Choo seems something close to Freeman’s floor, only Freeman would be hitting the market in his prime rather than leaving his prime. With any reasonable amount of inflation and even stagnant performances from Freeman over the next few years, he was going to get paid as a free agent simply because of his youth.
In fact, I’d say that even with one less year of service time, the better contract comparison here is probably Elvis Andrus. Last winter, after his age-23 season, Andrus signed away his age-26 to age age-33 seasons for $120 million, but also got an opt-out that will let him hit free agency again after his age-29 or age-30 season if he feels he can land a bigger contract at the time. While Andrus was a year closer to free agency, the opt out has significant value, and Freeman’s skillset is generally rewarded more in agency. Andrus’ deal shows the premium that teams are willing to pay to lock up prime years rather than decline years, and that’s what the Braves have done with Freeman.
$135 million for a player three years from free agency is certainly a steep price to pay, and there’s unquestionable downside if Freeman goes the way of Nick Markakis, but in general, I think this is more evidence that teams have decided that they’d rather bet on the prime years of good players rather than the decline phase of great players. Because of his age, Freeman doesn’t have to become a great player to justify this contract; the value to the Braves here is that they’re not likely to be on the hook for any years in which Freeman is worthless. And to a team with the worst TV contract in baseball, that has a lot of value.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
I believe the contract is too risky. If I were the Braves, I would have liked to see one more year of strong production before I committed, even if I paid a bit more. There is simply too much performance risk in that contract.
Even without the risk they overpaid. Look at other 1B contracts: Rizzo, Goldschmidt, Fielder. The Braves bought out 5 free agency years for only $1.7M less per year than Fielder got on the open market; or about $4M more per year than the Rangers are paying Fielder.
Fielder, who sold his age 28 through age 36 seasons? Did you even read the article, or did you jump directly to the comments to pop off about how this is obviously a bad deal?
Someone disagrees with a Braves move, so you immediately get needlessly confrontational. What in TK’s post deserved your sort of response?
this
Freeman sold his age 27-31 seasons of Free Agency. Fielder sold his 28-36. So if you want to argue that the Braves are paying to not buy his 31-35 seasons which is waht makes this a better deal, then I can see that argument. However, you aren’t and instead jump directly to the comments to pop off about how this is obviously a bad comment.
The argument is already right there in the post, and you didn’t engage with it. What’s the point of restating it? Yes, the reason this is a good deal is that it avoids a bunch of potential dead money at the back-end. As Dave said.
Goldy is older than Freeman, and his extension only covered 5 years, 4 of which he was under team control already.
Rizzo is the same boat as Goldy, while basically the same age as Freeman, his deal only covered one FA year, and his deal could be up to 7 years for 73 million, again only covering one FA year.
Completely different.
Cubs bought up 3 of Rizzo’s FA years, the last two are team options. Also, Goldschmidt has a team option that allows the contract to cover 2 FA years.
I agree they are not exactly the same, however I think they form a context along with Fielder that shows this contract is an outlier.
Rizzo and Goldshmidt also signed their deals last off season, before their break out years, well for Goldy at least. I, and maybe just bc im a braves fan, do not put Rizzo in the same category as FF and Goldy. If Goldshmidt signed his eztension this offseason, i doubt it would be as cheap as it was
Okay, the last two are team options for 14 million per I believe. None of those are buying out five years of FA.
I think Rizzo is probably the best comp, and point in your favor that Freddies contract is excessive.
But it’s hard to argue these points without knowing the exact breakdown of the contract and the confirmed numbers.
I also don’t buy the Fielder comparison. Fielder signed a 9 year 214 million dollar contract on the open market for about 23 million a year. What Detroit is paying Texas as a result of the trade is irrelevant. Because his market price was 24 million a year, almost 10 million more a year than Freeman got.
And if we take the arbitration figures out that are mentioned in the article Freddies deal is a 5 year 110 million deal for 22 mil a year. Still less than Freeman.
The biggest difference is that Prince was 27-28 and signed a nine year deal. Freddie would be 26-27, signing a 5 year deal. How many 26-27 year old players are going to sign a 5 year deal? That’s why there is a premium in the cost.
The metrics community argues about this quite a lot, and I say it’s better to overpay (if it can be called that) for prime years, than for decline years!
Act, still less than Prince! I guess I just have Freddie on my mind.
I mean, the Rizzo/Freeman comparison’s aren’t quite fair, since they signed deals at different service times. That said, given the choice today between the two players along with their contracts, I’d prefer Freeman, who’s WORST wRC+ of his career still beats Rizzo’s BEST of his career.
Assuming he’s only worth 3 Wins a year on average for those 5 bought out seasons, and average $7mm/Win on open market (maybe too conservative), the deal is basically breakeven. I hope the Braves weren’t pricing this deal with expectations for 4.5+ WAR seasons every year going forward, but even if he averages 3.5 WAR the deal is in the money. Hard to see it not working out from that perspective.
The interesting question is did they get much of a bargain on those FA years by guaranteeing them 3 years in advance. It’s hard to see him hitting the open market in 2016-17 and getting more than a $30mm AAV over the same five seasons. That would imply $40 million saved by taking on all the risk three seasons early, which is the real debate-point on this deal in my opinion.
I don’t see why having expectations of more 4.5+ WAR seasons going forward is unrealistic. He’s 23, heck I’d be projecting some better than 5 WAR seasons going forward into his prime.
He could collapse horrendously, but his batted ball profile paints the picture of an excellent hitter, one that BABIP alone isn’t responsible for.
Because last year was BABIP-driven. The only significant difference between his 1.8 WAR 2012 and 4.8 WAR 2014 was outcomes on batted balls. Can he maintain a .370 BABIP, the huge jump in LD% and the huge drop off of IFFB%? If so, yeah, I’d expect more 4+ WAR seasons. But he’s not a huge power guy, a high OBP for him is going to rely on a high BABIP, and he’s really got no upside to his defensive and base running value (which likely have already peaked).
I like the deal because he’s not likely to physically collapse during it, falling off of a production cliff….I think the ceiling here isn’t that high, but the risk isn’t that great either (at least, compared to you typical 8 year deal). Not paying for the decline phase is the huge win here.
That and his -24 UZR..
Have you seen his line drive rate? If anyone is a good bet for a high BABIP, it’s him.
I agree with most of what you said.
But I don’t get where you argue a huge jump in LD%. His LD% was 26.7% last year in 2013, the year before that it was 26%. The year before that it was 23%. I think that’s pretty reasonable movement for a younger player who is developing.
My worry would be his drop off in IFFB%, because it was pretty significant from the year before, however in 2012 it was actually a lot higher than it had been in 2011. So who knows where it will settle.
I do agree that he isn’t a huge power guy, but it’s not because of a product of his actual strength, when Freeman hits balls square, he hit’s them a long way (The league average HR distance was 396 ft last year, while Freddies was 407 ft. Chris Davis average was 406 ft)
His power output is a function of his swing, which is level quick stroke, that is a LD producing machine. He hit’s to all fields and it makes sense that his profile be that of more of a gap hitter than a power hitter.
It’s one reason why I think this past season is more indicative of Freeman going forward. He may not be a 5 WAR player every year, but he should sit between 3-4 WAR regularlly.
Wil, he’s certainly capable of putting up more years like that, but I agree with Brian that he shouldn’t be expected to do it year after year. 4.5 WAR seasons don’t grow on trees for a 1B.
In 2010, 6 1B put up that much WAR. 3 of them (Pujols, Barton, Huff) never did it again.
In 2011, only 4 1B put up that much WAR. One of them (Adrian Gonzalez) hasn’t put up a season like that since.
In 2012, only 1 1B put up 4.5 WAR (Prince Fielder).
Last year, Freeman was one of only 4, trailing Chris Davis, Paul Goldschmidt and Joey Votto.
In a nutshell, 4.5+ WAR puts you in some great company at 1B. Maybe he’s an elite 1B, but it shouldn’t be expected year after year.
I’d agree with your assertion that he probably won’t be a lock every year for a 4 + WAR, but I don’t think it will be particularly uncommon for him.
The comps you bring up are also largely irrelevant to Freeman because none of them were 23 or going into their prime during the seasons you pulled out.
Most of those guys were either close or on the wrong side of 30 in the preceding seasons after the 4 WAR year you cited. In 2010 half the 1B you cited did post another season of 4 WAR, and in 2011 3 of the 4 you mentioned did post another season of 4 WAR.
And last year, I’d say Davis, Goldy, Votto and Freeman all have decent chances of reaching the 4 WAR mark again.
exactly why the Braves just paid him a bunch of money, he is a rare commodity.
Wil, I wasn’t trying to compare him to those players – I was just pointing out how few players achieve that level each year. Freeman may be one of the best 3-4 1B year after year, but he can also be a top 5-10 1B that doesn’t reach 4.5 WAR territory every year. That’s not an insult to Freeman, it’s just that plenty of good 1B don’t put up 4.5 WAR.
Larry, maybe he is a rare commodity, but let’s not assume he’s going to be an elite player every year. If 2 WAR is ‘average’, then he’s had one above-average season in his life. I think he’ll be fine going forward. I like him as a player. But plenty of players have taken a WAR-related leap in their early 20’s, then failed to maintain that status every year.
viva-
i agree that he shouldnt be expected to produce 4+ win seasons every year for the life of the contract, but i wouldnt be suprised to see a season or 2 under 3 wins and a season or 2 over 5 wins with the rest falling the middle.
Do you know how many 5+ WAR 1st basemen there were last year? 3. In 2012? 0. In 2011…3. The point is that it’s really, really hard to get to 5+ WAR, especially if you’re a 1B.
I’m not saying Freeman won’t have any 5+ WAR seasons in his future, but it’s pretty audacious to expect them. Steamer has him projected for 3.7 WAR next year while ZIPS has him projected for 3.2. What are you doing that they’re not that has Freeman projected at 5+ WAR?
Freeman had a 4.8 WAR last year. Is it really hard to believe that sometime in the next few years as he reaches his baseball and physical prime that he will post a 5 WAR season?
Call me crazy, but I didn’t know predicting players to have their best performing years in their prime was so audacious.
Again, it’s not unreasonable to believe that it might happen. But that’s a far cry from projecting it to happen — more than once, as you intimated — when ZIPS and Steamer have him for a win and a half less than that.
He might become a 5 win player. He also might become Nick Markakis. Would you to someone projecting him to become a 1 WAR player?
“Would you object” is how that last sentence is supposed to read.
And ZIPS and Steamer are infallible? They project him for a baseline around 3 1/2 WAR. That’s a projection I actually agree with. But it won’t surprise me if he surpasses it.
I’m sorry if you think that it’s outlandish to predict a 23 year old who just finished a season with a 4.8 WAR will post a 5 WAR in some upcoming seasons as he enters his prime, I have no idea what to tell you.
Come on man. What does Nick Markakis have to do with Freedie Freeman? He’s not even a good comp for Freeman…. I wouldn’t object to it, but it would fly in the face of logic and the average development of MLB players relative to their age.
Joey Votto objects to your statement that no 1B reached 5 WAR in 2012. He only got to 5.6 in 475 ABs.
The bargain they get is that no 27 free agent is going to sign a 5 year, 110 million dollar deal. In an alternate world where he did not sign, and he had 3 3.5ish WAR seasons, he’d be looking at a likely 7 year, 150 million dollar deal, with much more risk of paying for some decline years. Of course, there is also the possibility he gets worse or of course the possibility that he gets better.
“no 27 [year-old] free agent is going to sign a 5 year, 110 million dollar deal.”
Tommy Hanson and Phil Hughes would love, love, LOVE to have gotten even half that. As would Daniel Hudson (26), Joba Chamberlain, Delmon Young, JP Arencibia, and/or Salty (28).
I said none are going to. As in, it will not happen. Not that none would if offered.
Assuming that Freeman is a 4.0 WAR player in 2014 (steamer projection prorated for 600PA is almost exactly 4), and that after his age-27 season he starts declining by .5 WAR/year, he should generate 15 wins in the five would-be FA years where he will be paid $110.
If you think that a win currently costs $6M, the Braves paid just under market value (saved $4M). However, if you think the cost of a win is currently closer to $7M (as it appears to be this offseason), then the contract looks a lot better (Braves saved about $19M).
In his first three years, his strikeout rate has declined each year. His walk rate and line drive rate have increased each year. That’s the kind of guy you want to lock in his prime.
When he first came up I thought he’d be a solid hitter with a patience problem. But linear progression like that for a 24 year old is a great sign his patience is here to stay.
First, great article, I agree “in principle,” you could say. However, I am not sure what you mean by “if he never learns to hit left-handers….”? For his career he is roughly average against lefties, and last season he handled them pretty well. He is really good against righties and good against lefties. The only thing he seems to really be missing is power against lefties.
A second point I would like to clarify is his BABIP. I agree his BABIP was high, and likely won’t stay THAT high, but his hitter profile is one that will support a continued high BABIP as he is a great line drive hitter, one of the best in baseball. So where he is giving up power, he is driving the ball in ways that are more likely to fall for hits. I don’t necessarily disagree that a reasonable WAR range is 3-4, but I also don’t see why he couldn’t continue to prove to be a 4-5 WAR guy, and he has potential to take another step forward.
So I agree with your excellent article, but I am a touch more bullish on Freeman’s likely value barring injury.
I think it’s clear that when Dave says never learns to hit lefties and never adds much power he isn’t suggesting that he’s terrible against lefties and has no power.
He’s just saying that he won’t have to be great against lefties or have elite power to earn the contract. League average against lefties (104 wRC+) with 20-25 home runs along with the rest of his game is enough. Adding power or getting better against Lefties is how Freddie could outperform the contract.
I also don’t think Dave is saying he’s terrible against lefties, but I do think the statement quoted above is at least implying that he hasn’t yet learned to hit lefties and that, along with a slide in BABIP, could suppress his overall value (to just really good, not great).
I would contend, however, that last year he demonstrated a major step forward in his ability to hit lefties, and that is one of the main reasons his value went up (to 4.8 WAR). He went from mediocre versus lefties to above average:
2011 = .247/.304/.403 6.4% BB 27.0% K 96wRC+
2012 = .237/.315/.399 8.6% BB 26.0% K 96wRC+
2013 = .287/.367/.397 8.7% BB 19.5% K 118wRC+
My point is that it seems he HAS LEARNED to hit lefties pretty well. His only real offensive weakness is the low power output against the south paws. He actually has pretty good power from the right side (career .500 SLG/ .200 ISO).
The only wacky thing left for him offensively is that he seems to hit more ground balls and pop ups against the lefties, but his LD% from the left is just as good as it is from the right, and overall it was top 10 in baseball last season.
Pretty much the same things I had in mind. I think a 3-4 WAR player is his floor, and if he puts together a season that the defensive metrics like, he could easily top 5 WAR. As far as his power goes, I’m not sure we’ve seen him top out there. His FB% was down a little last year from 2012, but his HR/FB was up just a bit. For a lanky 24 year old that’s still reasonably adding bulk, I think he may have some 30 HR seasons. Doubt it would ever get too far above 30, though.
If he has just three 4 WAR seasons, and the rest are 3 WAR, at $7MM/win, you’re looking at ~$50MM in surplus value. I think that’s completely reasonable, considering the ages the contract covers. He’s also been really durable so far into his career. Even when he’s spent time on the DL, he’s managed at least 147 games in every season.
30 home run power is basically elite in today’s National League. Maybe in a career year he hits 30 homers.
3-4 wins is a weird floor for a player who has played three full seasons and only topped two wins in one of them. I think 3-3.5 wins is a totally reasonable projection for Freeman going forward, but that’s very different from saying three wins is his floor.
Well, defensive ratings of -23 and -13 will kind of kill your WAR. I think his most recent season, where he rated positively before positional adjustment, is a better indication of his defensive skill. Also, he’s only 24. I don’t think it’s fair to use his WAR in his age 22 and 23 seasons as his floor from this point forward. His ridiculous 2013 BABIP may have inflated his value last season, but I think even with a normalized BABIP by league standard (his career BABIP is .334) he should be good for 4 WAR. Even if he averages 3 WAR for the next 8 years, it’s a good deal for the Braves.
He’s 24 right now – of course you should consider his age 22 and 23 seasons when figuring out his floor! A floor doesn’t mean “if this player has a normal aging curve, what’s the worst season you’ll project for him?”. A floor means “if this player doesn’t age well and takes a step backward, how low can he reasonably go?”. Freeman can absolutely have a 2014 season that’s in line with his 2012 performance. Not all 24 year olds take steps forward each year going forward.
Ruben Tejada was born 1-2 months after Freeman. Using a normal aging curve, he would’ve put up maybe 2.5 WAR last year. He wound up sub-replacement. That’s what a floor represents – what happens when things don’t work out well?
I don’t think the way you’re defining “floor” is very interesting, jeter. Every player’s floor is sub-replacement-level scrub if he suffers a catastrophic and uncorrectable loss of talent (or a serious and uncorrectable injury). What floor should mean to be a useful concept (that isn’t an expression of the inescapable complexity of human athletic performance) is a 5th or 10th or whatevereth percentile projection. For Freeman, that is surely lower than 3 fWAR, but it’s also higher than 0 fWAR.
Reading back, I may have misunderstood what you were saying, since you do talk about what one would project for the player rather than what is rationally conceivable. Again, I agree that for Freeman the lowest one would reasonably project in a single season is less than 3 fWAR. For me, it might be about 1.5 fWAR, given, as you say, a normal aging curve which would suggest his physical capabilities have now and will continue to progress past his 22- and 23-year-old self.
Obviously the Braves would be in huge trouble if Freeman averaged 1.5 WAR over the course of the deal, but since a reasonable central-tendency projection is probably more like 4 WAR, I’m not quite sure why people are saying the Braves took on an unreasonable amount of risk here.
Yeah, 3-4 WAR is nowhere *near* his floor. 3-4 WAR/year may be a mean or reasonable projection for the next 3-4 years. (forecasting out, say, 6-8 years is about like predicting the weather in 10-14 days; i.e., total guesswork)
This is such intelligent writing and analysis.
But who can really use Braun of all people as a comparable.
And your complaint about the Andrus comp (which Dave admitted was probably a better comp anyway) is….?
I agree that it was a very cogent explanation of the deal. It seems to make pretty good sense from the Braves’ perspective.
This deal makes a ton of sense given the situation of the Braves and the age/skills of Freeman
1) Freeman has a good chance to be a 4-5 WAR player over the next eight years, which makes the deal worth it on a pure cash on cash basis.
2) If Freeman had a good 2-3 more years, he could have commanded a higher annual salary later into his decline phase. The Braves may not have been able to match, thus resulting in the Braves losing out on the peak Freeman years (late 20s). The Braves needed to secure “peak Freeman” as they move into the Gwinett County stadium given he is a fan favorite.
3) Freeman is seen as the “franchise player” for the Braves. They just let go another franchise player (McCann) at age 31. It wouldn’t be surprising to see Freeman head off to the AL at the end of this contract as well, assuming the Braves financial situation doesn’t change dramatically for the better.
4) The total contract for Freeman right now gives him security against any regression over the next few years, so he was right to sign it.
Good move all around.
He’ll regret this contract once Heyward gets more money on the open market. There was no need for him to be this risk-averse considering he hasn’t even played an arb year yet.
idk if its possible to regret getting paid $135 mil to play ball, even after Heyward signs a massive FA deal.
He’ll be what, 31 after his contract? He’ll definitely be able to sign another huge deal if everything goes well for him.
Ignoring the 3 years where the Braves had him under control, they basically offered him a free agent rate of 5/110 after having had only one really good year. I think it was very smart of him to take that, considering he otherwise would have had to wait 3 years to be a free agent. A lot of bad things can happen in that time.
Why would he? $10 million is enough money to allow you to do pretty much anything you want, and he’ll collect several times that, even after taxes. Do you really think there is a huge lifestyle difference between having say, $65 million in the bank and $100 million?
He’s set to be very rich for the rest of his life. Why would he wait any longer and risk an injury that could keep him from earning anything?
“Barring a major injury, Choo seems something close to Freeman’s floor”
Dave, with all due respect, I disagree with you on that one. I think a lot of people misuse the term ‘floor’ like you’re doing right here. Even without a major injury, Freeman might just have a performance decline that puts him well below the player that Choo is (unless you’re talking about the 2011 version of Choo).
Look at Ike Davis as an example. In his rookie season (2010) he was about the same age as Freeman was in 2012 (Ike was about 5-6 months older). Davis put up 3.1 WAR in 2010, Freeman put up 1.8 WAR in 2012, his second full season in the majors. Yes, Davis had an ankle sprain that cost him most of the next year, and he might have contracted Valley Fever one spring training, but I don’t consider those to be career-threatening injuries. He got out of sync, and can’t even be traded for a decent relief pitcher right now.
You used Markakis as an example – he’s had 5 straight disappointing seasons after his career year, including a replacement-level season in 2013. As great as he was in 2008, his ‘floor’ has been 0-2 WAR.
That happens to players. I don’t expect it to happen to Freeman, and it’s certainly not the most likely course he’ll take, but that type of career path can’t be ignored. Just yesterday there was an article about Griffey – he was a first ballot HOF, and then he sucked out of the blue. Same thing with Alomar. It happens.
Point is – when you sign someone to a $100MM contract, you should not expect their floor to be on par with someone who just put up a 5 WAR season. There’s a non-zero chance that he stays healthy and just suffers a natural performance drop.
“Point is – when you sign someone to a $100MM contract, you should not expect their floor to be on par with someone who just put up a 5 WAR season. There’s a non-zero chance that he stays healthy and just suffers a natural performance drop.”
They’re not paying him as if they expect him to produce 5 WAR/year over the life of the contract, though.
I disagree Anon. They are paying with the expectation that he will be a 5 War/year guy. They are giving up a ton of near term payroll flexibility and assuming a lot long term risk. They are hedging their bets that they are going to be paying a 3 WAR price for 5 WAR production. If they weren’t betting on that outcome, I can’t see why else they’d assume that much risk.
i disagree man. you are only looking at 1 risk that the Braves face, if the FF doesnt produce at levels to justifty the deal. They face other risks, especially as a mid market team with a terrible tv deal. One such risk is that FF is great the next couple years and prices himself above what the Braves can afford to pay in FA. Then they have no 1B, aint much in terms of bats in the minors either. So while they took a risk locking him up this early, they also avoided other risks.
I don’t see them assuming “a lot” of long-term risk. He’s not injury-prone, and they’re paying him for his prime, when his risk of injury by reason of age is lowest. He has demonstrated an elite hit tool, and his plate approach has improved each year he’s been in the big leagues. Your argument is essentially an argument against playing the market rate for wins in any long-term deal, ever, because when you guarantee a contract it’s always possible that the player could suck or get injured and you’ll end up paying too much. There’s some truth to that, but good luck building a baseball team never guaranteeing a contract of more than three years.
maybe im doing something wrong here, but if he puts up 3.5 WAR/season for 8 seasons thats 28 WAR. At $6 mil/win that would be $168 mil. Seems to be considerable vallue for the Braves even if he is only a 3-4 win player for the life of the contract
stev-0, the Braves had him under control for the next three years already, which Dave predicted would have cost them about $25MM combined. So they’re really only buying out 5 years at $22MM/year. The excess value over the next three years, they would have had that even if they didn’t sign him to this contract.
gotcha, that makes sense. i still see value in this contract assuming future inflation in $/WAR. but at $6 mil per win, he is gonna havta really produce to make it worth it.
Anon – Of course you have to bite the bullet and give stars 5+ year deals. I never hinted otherwise. That doesn’t change the fact that eight year deals well north of $100 million are very risky. The point I was making is that I disagree with:
“They’re not paying him as if they expect him to produce 5 WAR/year over the life of the contract, though.”
I think they are pretty clearly betting that he is 5 WAR/year guy going forward. Whether he earns the contract is irrelevant, as he only has to put 3 WAR per year to do so. I like his chances, personally. The point is that you don’t see teams commit 8 years to what we define as 3 WAR players – solid, above average players – they commit that kind of money to stars. That’s why him simply “earning” the contract isn’t good enough. You think the Pirates would have been satisfied if McCutchen was putting up 2.5 WAR per for the last few years?
Bottom line: The Braves obviously think he’s an unfinished product and that he’ll be a star or else they never would have offered the deal.
I think there’s a bit of imprecision here. Obviously they would be happy if he averaged 5 WAR per year over the course of the deal. Perhaps you can speculate that given their financial position and the point in his service-time history at which they handed out this deal, they are expecting that he will produce an average of 5 WAR per year. But they aren’t paying him as a 5-WAR-per-year guy according to the market price of wins. So to get their money’s worth, he doesn’t have to be 5-WAR/year good.
I think what he meant by the Choo comparison (though, I may be putting words in his mouth here) was that Freeman’s floor for his age 27-31 seasons (the FA years he sold) is essentially Choo for his 32-36 seasons (the first 5 years of the Choo deal)….not Choo from his age 27-31 seasons.
I thought this, too, because it makes sense, but it was not that clear in the article.
Well said, with the exception of this:
“he might have contracted Valley Fever one spring training, but I don’t consider those to be career-threatening injuries.”
With all due respect, Conor Jackson would have a word with you about that one. Valley Fever is not only career threatening, it’s life threatening if not treated correctly.
Micah and RMD nailed it. I was shocked before the 2013 season when I realized how good of a line drive hitter he is. He is also maybe the most popular player on the team, and that can’t be ignored in this discussion.
On the contrary, I believe we can completely ignore his popularity when discussing his new contract.
It’s worth remembering that the two highest contracts in MLB history have both gone to the same villain.
I don’t think MLB teams pay for clubhouse chemistry or popularity when talking big dollars. (I could see a fringey roster guy getting his spot because of it…) Unless there is some evidence that teams pay for popularity, I think Freeman would have gotten the same contract if he weren’t highly thought of.
Some teams value clubhouse chemistry more than others, and are known to get rid of “problem players”. I’ve heard a lot of discussion of the Braves being in this category over the past two decades. Strong rumors are that one reason for trading Yunel Escobar was because he wasn’t good for the clubhouse.
“in general, I think this is more evidence that teams have decided that they’d rather bet on the prime years of good players rather than the decline phase of great players.”
Not sure “rather” is more appropriate than “be just as willing to”. See Cano, Ellsbury, Choo and a bunch of other old dudes that have gotten paid for their declining years. Non-big market teams don’t have a choice. Big-market teams don’t seem to care.
Thanks for the interesting perspective, Dave.
One question on what may have been your most dramatic statement – that the Braves are “…a team with the worst TV contract in baseball..” That’s incredible to me, given the sorry state of the Twins’ deal in the upper Midwest. I know it’s not the main point of this article, but it’s a hugely significant factor in prompting teams to make deciisons like this. Any light you care to shed on the subject?
Twins are making $29 million/season on TV rights, correct? The Braves haven’t released exact figures, but informed speculation pegs their annual income at about $15 million for another 16 years. So yeah, it’s pretty bad.
Was it Liberty Media that negotiated their TV deal, and did they keep it in house? I ask because it seems that they could be robbing Peter to pay Paul. If not, then I guess someone just messed up BAD!
No, Time Warner negotiated the deal before they sold the Braves to Liberty Media. They negotiated it with themselves…..
and bc it hasnt been specifically stated, i feel i need to add that TW negotated a 30 year fized rate deal with themselves. Yes, 30 year fixed rate.
Wil & bobby, Thanks!
I don’t think it’s 30 years. To my knowledge the Braves currently have 13 years left on their TV deal.
I think it was a 20 year deal that started in 07, and there are 13 years left. The whole deal was pretty shady, and probably involved a lot of padding of pockets. I’m not sure where I read it, but people in the Braves front office have hinted that the deal seemed suspicious, and there’s just nothing they could do about it. I think it was along the lines of TW signing the TV deal knowing that they would sell the team to Liberty, who would then stand to benefit from it. I don’t know that TW negotiated it with themselves as much as they negotiated it FOR Liberty as a part of the sale. TW had a lot of incentive to sell to Liberty, since Liberty basically traded their 60 million shares in TW (at the bottom of the market) for the team. At the time of the sale, those shares were worth $1.27B, and they’re now worth about $3.8B. TW got what they wanted from the only buyer in the market that had the currency they wanted, and the TV deal was probably just a facilitator to get the deal done.
dan ugglas forarms is right, it was a 20 year deal, not 30 year. i also remember hearing some suspiciousness about the dealing. Primarily that TW negotiated the deal knowing that they were selling the team soon. so they negotiated a deal that benefitted them in the short term while knowing it would be problematic down the road.
in their defense tho, LM purchased the team fully aware of the TV deal situation
@Dan Uggla wouldn’t Liberty Media want the TV deal to be as high-dollar as possible? It sounds like TW giving itself a sweetheart deal would devalue the club and hurt Liberty’s ownership. What am I missing?
@Travis
Liberty Media holds stock in DirecTV, and by extension, many of Fox Sports’ networks. Conveniently, the Braves are broadcast on a Fox Sports network. Liberty is basically paying the club (their own asset) small amounts of money and using the team, along with their massive fan base, to promote itself 162 times a year. They basically facilitated a TV contract with themselves, and use the Braves as advertising for their own network/s.
It’s really sad. A team that was given a broad fan base by Ted Turner will probably struggle to retain a lot of those fans by the time this contract is over. I’d do just about anything to have an owner who views the team as more than a vehicle to more money, even if it’s someone as enigmatic as Ted Turner. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Liberty sell the team leading up to the expiration of the current TV deal that’s making them tons of money.
“That’s incredible to me, given the sorry state of the Twins’ deal in the upper Midwest.”
Exactly. That’s just how bad the Braves deal is… It truly is incredible, in the worst kind of way.
I liked it more when the rumor was 8/125.
At 5 years/22 mil a year I feel like the Braves are taking more risk than there is room for reward. I agree that most likely he more or less earns it, 12-18 WAR over those 5 years is what seems most likely if I had to predict now which would be somewhere around the average WAR per dollar in FA. It probably just goes down as a fair contract.
I just feel like if you look at outcomes where he under/overperforms the contract. The unders all seem more likely to me. I’m a pessimist and a Braves fan though.
I have it more like 15-20 wins over that span. I thought this was a really good deal for the Braves when I first heard it, and, you’re right, it all comes down to whether you think the unders outweigh the overs. I look at it this way (which was well wxplained in the article): over the next 3 years, I’ve got him pegged at maybe 10.5 wins, and 12 is certainly possible. If he hits FA at 27 after a four year stretch with about 15-17 WAR, his contract is 150/7 or 175/8 or something like that. There’s some risk here, sure, but the risk is basically the risk of getting his 2017-2021 seasons without knowing what happens in the next 3 years. I just think it’s a lot more likely the next three years go really well rather than really poorly, which should mean the braves save money in the long run.
Sounds about right.
As a comparison, Jason Thompson, another big slow lefty 1B with a good bat, was worth about 17 WAR over ages 24-31, despite nagging injuries that brought on a quick decline.
I had forgotten how young Freeman is when I first heard the news, and thought it was a big overpay. Now I’m feeling OK about the deal.
I’d rather have seen them extend Heyward, but I don’t think he was interested in signing a long term deal coming off of last season.
Rumors have stated as much. Heyward felt like his various injuries have kept his numbers (and thus, his value) down below where they “deserve” to be.
The timing seems curious to me. I have to believe this is going to hurt their payroll flexibility in the near term. B.J Upton has a nearly untradeable contract. His brother is making around $15 M this year and next. Heyward and Kimbrel are two years away from free agency as well. The Braves are going to have some really tough decisions to make in a couple of years.
They were always going to have tough decisions to make in two years. But this actually removes one tough decision by locking in a quality offensive performer for his prime. One less question mark about what their 2017 team will look like.
obviously idk how the deal is structured but I would assume that its somewhat backloaded in that the salary in what were his arb years will probably be close to what was expected in arb, like Dave mentioned $25 mil or so over the 1st 3 years of the contract. I think that is generally how these extensions are done, could be wrong tho
This is correct. I’d guess 5, 8, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 (BJ Upton’s 5 year deal has 1 million dollar annual raises)
Of course, that’s what happens when you have a bunch of good young cost controlled players. It’s a damn good problem to have (though being able to just pay and keep them all is a nice alternative).
Very true. I’m curious to see how it plays out. I think they winding up holding onto all of them and take their shot these next two years and pile up the comp picks when they all leave. That would be my guess.
“If he never learns how to hit left-handers and never adds much power, then he’s basically Shin-Soo Choo, and Shin-Soo Choo just got $130 million for ages 31 to 37.”
Choo 2013 vs LHP: .215/.347/.265
Freeman 2013 vs LHP: .287/.367/.397
Guess he learned? And this isn’t the steroid era anymore; 23 homers is a solid amount and there is no reason to think he won’t hit close to 30 one of these years. Only 13 players in the entire MLB hit 30+ HR.
30 homers in the National League today is like god-status.
Career 104 wRC+ against lefties is below average for a 1B.
Dude he just turned 24 at the end of the 2013 season, it’s not surprising his career wRC+ against LHP is below average. This year he showed big time improvement. He’s been getting better every year at the MLB level while most players his age were developing in the minors and are now just breaking into the bigs.
if good stat for Freeman: very real, talent level will not change!
if bad stat for Freeman: dude he’s only 24, his talent level will change!
in conclusion, logic! <3<3<3 freeman braves all smart good best forever <3<3<3
Crazy people…Expecting a 24 year old not to get worse any time soon.
And Choo posted a .275/.369/.456 slash against lefties in 2009. 1 year sample sizes wheeeeeee
104 career wRC+ compared to a 92. It’s not just a year sample size.
The best thing I can say about this deal is that I don’t hate it. I certainly don’t think it’s a bargain. A lot of people here are acting like 3-4 WAR/year is Freeman’s floor over the life of the contract. IMO it’s pretty easy to see him dropping to a 2 WAR player. Take a look at 2012. Or 2011.
In 2008 BJ Upton was 24 and put up his second straight 4.5+ WAR year. He looked for all the world like a guy you’d pay big money to lock up for his prime years. He’s averaged 2.5 WAR/year since then. Performing well at a young age is no guarantee that the player will keep it up. I’d be especially worried about Freeman because, as a player who offers no positional, defensive or baserunning value and has limited power, he pretty much HAS to keep up a high BABIP to be a top 10 1B (something that he wasn’t until 2013).
Again, I don’t hate this deal but I could see it turning into an albatross just as easily as I could see it turning into a bargain.
I agree.
How is the floor of a guy that that has posted a WAR of 7.1 in nearly 2000 plate appearances anywhere near 3.5 or 4.0? That’s just a bridge too far for me on a guy who, while young and well regarded, has only posted said WAR one time.
With that said, he hit MLB pitching pretty well as a really young player. I was kind of guffawed by the contract that Yadier Molina got after one really good year at the plate, but it turns out that MLB scouts might know a bit more than me about whether a guy can repeat his successes or not. Now his deal is a massive bargain.
Thanks Professor! I was trying to think of a recent player who managed to out-do what seemed to be an overpay on a contract. The best I could come up with was Jayson Werth (meh).
Back in the day, I remember the Phils giving out a big contract to Darren Dalton after one-half a strong season, and he turned out to be worth it.
This contract is somewhat similar, in theory, to how the Rays operate, with a few differences:
The Braves signed Freeman with 3 more years of team control, and after he had one All-Star season. The Rays will also extend players after very little service time, but they usually do it before that player ever even breaks out, so they get the player absurdly cheap.
By signing these players when they have no track record to leverage in negotiations, they get a cheap rate and/or lots of team options. The team option is the ultimate way to avoid risk. If the Braves had signed Freeman last offseason, they may have managed to avoid giving him any guaranteed money for his free agent years, and just loaded up on team options. That would change Freeman’s contract from “decent” to “one of the game’s best bargains”.
I’m not sure why the Braves gave Freeman five additional guaranteed years. I wonder if they wanted it longer or if Freeman did. If they got a really great rate on those five years, like 15 million, then I could see why they would want more years, but at 22 million a year, they aren’t likely to get a bargain; more likely they pay about market rate for him. It seems to me that they could have gotten fewer guaranteed years, so I’m left to wonder if they wanted more years, and $22 million AAV is the result of reducing AAV in exchange for more years. I have to agree with some commenters; it seems the Braves are very high of Freeman, and probably expect him to exceed our projections.
They probably realize 22 million AAV at the later end of the deal is worth only 16-18 million in todays dollars
The biggest difference between Freeman and a guy like Upton is the hit tool. Freeman has an upper echelon hit tool, and that seems to be something that is less prone to falling off a cliff.
Some players slack off once they get a big pay day. Freeman also was helped by a 370 BABIP so some regression is expected there. Maybe he improves in the next few years, but there is no guarantee.
I agree. I just think the Braves didn’t get a good enough discount considering they just guaranteed him a contract from ’17 to ’21. The average outcome is probably a bit of surplus value but I don’t think it’s enough to justify the risk. Especially for a team like the Braves, who are a small market team with no new local TV deal in sight. Projecting what’s going to happen in the next five years is incredibly hard, not to mention a five year period that starts three years from now.
It’s also a big buy high move. I like the idea of locking someone up 3 years before FA instead of 2, as it usually costs more the later you do it, but in the case of Freeman having a career year they probably should have waited longer.
Take a look at his brWAR in those seasons. Seems pretty clear that UZR was clearly under rating him based on scouting reports, DRS, and his most recent UZR. He averaged better than 3.1 brWAR in his age 21-23 seasons. That’s pretty good.
I think a major thing people keep over looking, despite DC covering it just about every large contract signing is that you can’t just compare AAV anymore. Teams have shown over and over that the AAV is hanging in the 18-23M range with the exception of the ultra-elite.
Teams instead of increasing AAV to be commiserate with production have earmarked that money in extra years where the player will be grossly overpaid, with both sides understanding this.
Obviously the Braves are convinced that that Freeman will not crater, but that is more confidence in their scouting. So even assuming Freeman is a 3.5-4 win player for the next 3 years he would be in line for a salary in the 20m range, but for a longer term deal in the 8 year range covering him into his mid 30s.
So that is the bet the Braves are making. They are choosing to bet Freeman doesn’t fall apart in the next three years as opposed to paying him 20-25m for his age 32-26 seasons
I actually think its the players driving the additional years for less AAV. They are looking at total dollars and not AAV. Teams understand this and accept they are getting a bargain in the early years and a bit of an albatross at the end. They also have a good handle on the time value of money and realize 22 million AAV in year 1 is not the same in year 8-10.
Braves are taking more of a gamble perhaps on Freeman at 8/135 than Seattle is with Cano at 10/240. You know what you are going to get pretty much from Cano the next 4 years barring the unexpected, but you are taking a bit more of a gamble on players who don’t have much of a tack record beyond 1 yr with an inflated BABIP
“Braves are taking more of a gamble perhaps on Freeman at 8/135 than Seattle is with Cano at 10/240.”
This strikes me as very unlikely. The Mariners are paying about $6.9 million per win based on ZiPS; the Braves are paying about $5.5 million per win (based on ZiPS projections) for the free-agent portion of Freeman’s contract. Could Freeman blow up in the Braves’ face while Cano turns out to be a huge bargain for the Mariners? Sure, anything’s possible. But the only way you get to that as the likeliest scenario is by ignoring the actual contracts and information about aging curves.
Agreed w/ Anon, considering their relative positions on the aging curve.
I strongly suspect that owners will be asking for buyouts in the next CBA negotiations.
This really makes that Goldschmidt extension last spring look even better now. That is probably the most team friendly contract in baseball now. Shocking, KT actually made a shrewd move.
Bob Watson traded Kenny Lofton for Ed Taubensee within one calendar year of trading Larry Andersen for Jeff Bagwell.
Go figure about KT nabbing Goldschmidt on many fronts.
According to one article I read here he is already in his declining years. They start almost immediately, or so it is claimed.
Also, would you rather have a 900 OPS in his early declining years, or a 750 OPS guy in his peak years?
Would this strategy have prevented Hank Aaron from ever hitting 412 HR from age 30-42 with the Braves? How did all those HOF greats that played well into their 30’s if not 40’s survive their decline years?
“Also, would you rather have a 900 OPS in his early declining years, or a 750 OPS guy in his peak years?”
I have the impression that you think the answer is self-evident, but it isn’t. (Also, Freeman is not a “750 OPS guy.”) Every player’s aging curve is different, but one thing we definitely know is that over-30-year-olds, as a group, are less effective than 24-to-30-year-olds. That doesn’t mean you would sign every 24-year-old to an eight-year deal before any 30-year-old, but it does mean it can make sense to give a contract more associated with a star hitting free agency in his early 30s to a non-star in his mid-20s.
looks like not a lotta guys here got much work done today. cool discussion, i read every post.
I’m not a big fan of this deal. .371 BABIP seems high even for Freeman’s good contact: I like something around his career .334, elevated but not too high. The basic difference between that year and his previous, not too great years is the BABIP and his defense, and I’d expect both to regress some. I like him as a guy who will go in for around 2, 2.5 WAR or so, with the usual yearly variance in BABIP and such. I’d have liked to have seen another year from him first even if it would have cost them more money.
I feel like he’s a true talen 3-3.5 WAR player entering his age 25 season. That’s a good player. I doubt that he’s a bona fide all-star, but he could play in 1 or 2 in the next 5 years (his prime) with another BABIP luck or HR/FB luck driven season. Assuming he is a true talen 3.5 WAR player for 5 years and then drops off at 0.5 WAR per season until his age 32 season and assuming ~5% $/WAR growth (from $6 this year) and assuming he would’ve received $5million/$8million/$12million for his arbitration years, he is something like a $126.5million guy. That’s if he went to arbitration 3 times and then signed a 5-year $101.5million contract based on $7/WAR at the time.
They gave him $135. They probably like him as a person and like his work ethic and think his expected prime years will produce roughly 4 WAR per season. If they’re right, this is probably a good contract for the Braves.
It certainly isn’t an obviously bad deal, and one that I don’t think should raise any eye brows…other than the fact that a dude just got $135million to play baseball…
He got 135M to draw 30,000 fans 81 times a year and get people to watch him on tv; generating way more than 135M. I’m in sales, if I generate hundreds of millions in sales, I’ll be rich too
Freddie Freeman is personally drawing 30K fans 81 times a year and single-handedly driving TV ratings?!
(!!)
Correction: Freddie Freeman has not ever and will not ever generate “hundreds of millions in sales”. He is however a perfectly good player who could be one of several who contributes to a winning team in 2014 and beyond.
/fixed/
just a thought, but maybe with how Freeman’s success is so much based on BABIP–which is notoriously variable year-to-year–the Braves should have waited for Freeman to have a “down” year (low BABIP, worse results) to negotiate an extension. They had what, 3?, arb years left, so if even one of them was unlucky for Freeman, they might have been able to get a much better long-term rate.
Instead they signed at what is probably Freeman’s peak BABIP, which I think even the most optimistic fans don’t believe is sustainable in the long run.
Guess it would depend on how shrewd other front offices and agents are these days…
Didn’t read all the comments, but what is the likelihood locking freeman up helps keep justin upton, heyward, Simmons, or Kimbrel (not that I want all of them to sign long deals namely Kimbrel)
Are you saying, what’s the chance that others stay because we signed Freeman? I don’t think other players ever really stay somewhere because one of their buddies is there as well. Most players go for the financial security even if it means playing for a bad team or playing in whatever part of the country, the exception of course being end of career players who want to win a championship.
I think that Andrelton Simmons will be signed to a long term deal within a year and Heyward and Kimbrel will walk. Someone like Teheran or Wood might get signed long term and from there you fill in the gaps with prospects and free agents. Looks like we’re set on pitching/middle infield/catcher prospects but the outfield will need to be filled in a couple years.
If they won’t stay for me, they won’t stay for anyone
I more meant that they stay because they know Atlanta would have a solid core. Heyward, Simmons, freeman then a pitcher or 2 signed for age 25-32 is a solid foundation to be competitive for a long time.
This deal only works because it buys prime years, but that is where the value is. It’s less half the price of the Pujols deal for the free agent seasons, but he might be able to come close to the total WAR, just because he is so much younger. We often overlook that in reality the aav is much higher than it appears. Does anyone think Cano/Pujols will be anything at 40 years old, but I would expect FF to play at a high level through this deal.