The Braves Extend Their New First Baseman

© Jayne Kamin-Oncea-USA TODAY Sports

The Atlanta Braves have decisively answered the questions about their newly acquired first baseman’s future with the team. On Tuesday, they signed Matt Olson to an eight-year, $168 million extension that will keep him with the club through the end of the 2029 season.

Olson still had two years of arbitration remaining, so the deal isn’t quite at the level he likely would have gotten as a free agent.

The speed with which the Braves signed Olson to an extension suggests that they wanted to avoid the sort of uncertainty they experienced with Freddie Freeman as his own long-term deal approached its expiration last fall.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

Now that we know what it took to extend Olson, was it the right decision? Obviously, much of the answer comes down to what you think of him and Freeman. Olson and Freeman have similar near-term projections, but Olson is four and a half years younger. Olson’s age when the deal concludes in 2029 will be the same as Freeman’s four years from now. Would you rather have Olson at 35 or Freeman at 39? I think that’s an easy answer, and ZiPS agrees:

ZiPS Projection – Matt Olson
Year BA OBP SLG AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SB OPS+ DR WAR
2022 .273 .375 .558 527 93 144 30 0 40 124 80 3 140 5 4.6
2023 .274 .375 .562 514 90 141 31 0 39 120 77 3 141 5 4.5
2024 .270 .370 .547 497 86 134 30 0 36 113 74 4 136 5 4.0
2025 .265 .365 .530 479 80 127 28 0 33 105 70 4 131 4 3.5
2026 .260 .359 .505 461 72 120 26 0 29 94 65 4 123 4 2.9
2027 .255 .349 .475 436 65 111 24 0 24 83 58 4 113 4 2.1
2028 .247 .337 .443 413 57 102 21 0 20 72 51 3 102 4 1.4
2029 .240 .322 .414 350 44 84 16 0 15 55 39 3 91 3 0.6

ZiPS Projection – Freddie Freeman
Year BA OBP SLG AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SB OPS+ DR WAR
2022 .294 .386 .512 562 101 165 32 2 29 92 80 7 133 3 4.0
2023 .288 .379 .500 538 93 155 32 2 26 85 75 6 128 2 3.4
2024 .285 .374 .477 512 85 146 28 2 22 76 68 5 121 2 2.8
2025 .282 .365 .460 483 76 136 25 2 19 68 60 5 115 2 2.1
2026 .275 .353 .437 455 67 125 22 2 16 60 51 4 106 1 1.3
2027 .267 .339 .411 397 54 106 17 2 12 48 39 3 95 0 0.4
2028 .260 .324 .383 311 40 81 12 1 8 34 27 2 84 -1 -0.2
2029 .254 .314 .358 201 24 51 7 1 4 20 16 1 76 -1 -0.5

ZiPS originally suggested seven years and $141 million for Olson; the eighth year pushes that to about $150 million. (As an aside, I expect that if Freeman had been willing to sign something around six years and $140 million, it would have gotten done a year ago). From a projections standpoint, $168 million is perfectly reasonable; as I said when I wrote up the trade, first basemen/designated hitter types are at an unusual premium right now, and what’s $18 million between good friends?

Of course, Olson and Freeman aren’t the only considerations here. Given that there’s an expectation that Olson will likely be better than Freeman would have been in the out years of a deal, the question is whether the better deal given to Olson is worth the prospects given up (you can find Eric Longenhagen and Kevin Goldstein’s deep dive on the players going back to Oakland here). I think it is. Cristian Pache is still a good prospect, but he’s risky and the team still has Drew Waters or, should his knee bounce back all the way, the option of playing Ronald Acuña Jr. in center. Shea Langeliers was the prospect most likely to help the team quickly, but the Braves still have Travis d’Arnaud signed for two more seasons with an option for a third. Ryan Cusick may come back and bite them later, but the key word there is later. Atlanta’s coming off a World Series championship and is in the same division as the Mets, who seem likely to be very aggressive in the coming years. The foundation of the offense — Acuña, Olson, and Ozzie Albies — is now basically in Atlanta for the rest of the decade. I think the benefit is worth the cost.

As it was for Anthopoulos, who showed visible emotion when discussing the Olson trade, and no doubt was for Freeman’s teammates, I expect this changing of the guard will also be bittersweet for Braves fans. Regardless of whether it was the right decision for the team, moving on from Freeman, the franchise player who the Braves chose to keep throughout their whole rebuilding cycle, was never going to be easy. But there’s comfort to be had. Most of the seasons Freeman is likely to be best remembered for have probably already taken place, and they took place in a Braves uniform. Fans already experienced the catharsis of watching Freeman get his championship ring, again with Atlanta. Keeping a player past their prime can be a double-edged sword. As a kid rooting for the Baltimore Orioles, I had a similar experience with Eddie Murray, Baltimore’s franchise first baseman who they let go at a similar age. It was painful to see him leave, but it didn’t take away any of my memories of Eddie in orange-and-black, the colors he wore for almost all of his best times. And when he went into Cooperstown, it was with an Oriole on his cap, not an interlocked LA. To re-use one of my favorite quotes, by Orson Welles: “If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story.”





Dan Szymborski is a senior writer for FanGraphs and the developer of the ZiPS projection system. He was a writer for ESPN.com from 2010-2018, a regular guest on a number of radio shows and podcasts, and a voting BBWAA member. He also maintains a terrible Twitter account at @DSzymborski.

31 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
4 years ago

I made this comment on the other article about the trade. You have your answer now and Alex Anthopoulos has already locked up Executive of the Year award. 8 years for the same amount of money that Freeman was demanding for 6 and for a player who is 4 1/2 years younger. This is a coup equal to landing the MVP’s of both the NLCS and the WS at last year’s deadline for nothing more than a bag of shags and a couple of broken bats. At the same time Oakland has a chance to benefit as well even though Pache has lost almost all of his lustre and the other prospects are just that.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago

So in addition to the Braves having the trio of Olson, Albies, and Acuna under contract in 2022 and 2023–when they also have Charlie Morton, Max Fried, Mike Soroka (if he ever gets healthy), Ian Anderson, Huascar Ynoa, Austin Riley…

In every single year from 2024-2027, the Braves will have just $46M committed to a three players who are projected for about 14 wins this year. Those three players will be 30-34, 26-30, and 27-31. While they might not project for 14 wins during that period, they’re young enough that they will still be pretty good.

And at least in 2024, they still have most of the secondary guys too. Then in 2025, almost every other guy on the payroll comes off the books.

That’s how you create a competitive window.

CousinNicky
4 years ago

The braves now have olson, Riley, albies, and acuna on the roster until 2026. Fried and Anderson are also on the team until 2025 and 2027. The window is now until 2025/2026. While the difference between players in 2022 and 23 is minimal early the stark defense at the end of the teams winning window is very evident. That is the decision AA made. AA sees that this team has 4-5 more years to try and win another 1-2 WS and Freeman most likely will only help the team in the next 2-3 seasons and become an expensive liability in the last 2 years.

PC1970Member since 2024
4 years ago
Reply to  CousinNicky

That crossed my mind, too. Could it be as simple as Olson’s best years aligning better with Atlanta’s competitive window?

TKDCMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  CousinNicky

That 2025-26 window seems like almost pessimistic. You still have basically prime Acuña and Albies for little money after that and Olson could easily still be treading water as far as value goes.

The farm system wasn’t great before and just got substantially worse, but predicting the extent of new home grown talent 5+ years out is crazy. It only needs to be “not bad” when you have Acuña and Albies already crushing it for a fraction of their value.

MorboTheAnnihilator
4 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

Remember how the Cubs had a 6 year window and were going to be a juggernaut but then fell apart. Wouldn’t surprised to see a repeat here.

Antonio BananasMember since 2026
4 years ago

A world series, 3 division titles, and 5 playoff appearances is pretty good. Winning 97, 103, 92, 95, 84, and what would be 92 wins in 2020 is something I’d take as a Braves fan.

The Cubs didn’t win 3 straight titles or anything, but to scoff at the Cubs window is silly.

CousinNicky
4 years ago

Agreed not every window is going to be the late 90’s yankees, typically only 1 team a decade wins multiple rings with the same core. The difference between this braves team and that cubs team is the age of their stars both pitching and hitting. The 4 best cubs starters were age 32-Lester, 30-Arrieta, 37-Lackey, and 26-Hendricks. The braves top 3 are 27 Fried, Morton 37 and Anderson 23(LOL). The 4th could be soroka 23, ynoa 23 or mueller 23. They also have 3* of their 4 best pos players entering their prime albies, acuna, and maybe riley at all age 24 or younger(the 4th is freeman now olson). The cubs 4 best players in 2016 only bryant was entering his prime(rizzo was in his prime at 26) fowler and zobrist were both in their 30’s.

Chaise Kahlenbeck
4 years ago

It had to have been January 2015, but Tom Ricketts spoke at IU and since my brother was at IU at the time, we got tickets.

A majority of his talk was centered around competitive windows. His presentation was complete with charts and graphs illustrating the crapshoot that is the playoffs. He reiterated many times just how hard it is to win the World Series on a yearly basis, let alone multiple times in a short span. The whole premise was to create a roster that got into the playoffs – get in and you have a shot.

Looking back on it now, it’s exactly what they did. They were completely successful executing their plan. As much as people (mostly Cubs fans) dismiss their run, the roster gave them a shot every single year during that run.

Say what you want about that man and the family (I don’t see eye to eye with him on almost anything), but he did exactly what he said he was going to do on that day in January 2015.

ThomasMember since 2017
4 years ago

Cubs fan here, and I agree wholeheartedly with what you’ve said. We actually got to a World Series and won it – things that I never expected to see. And we got a fun, exciting team to root for (save for a couple of shit heels) for a good half decade.

Should they behave more like a major market team? Sure, because that’s what they are. But that’s hard to do consistently – just ask a Yankees fan how they feel.

EltnegMember since 2020
4 years ago

That’s a great deal for the Braves. Losing Freddie hurts but unless he completely defies the aging curve Olson is gonna be a better player on a better contract.

Also starting to suspect that Freeman might not blow past the Goldschmidt contract like was reportedly asking.

KenMember since 2016
4 years ago

The Braves should give Ozzie Albies a raise, similar to what the Royals did for Salvador Perez. They took advantage of his poverty in getting him to sign that ludicrous contract.

Antonio BananasMember since 2026
4 years ago
Reply to  Ken

What levers does Albies have? Could he sit out?

Dmjn53
4 years ago

such a crazy turn of events. They somehow lost Freddie Freeman and replaced him with someone better, younger, and for less money. How many times does a team lose their best player and replace him with an upgrade?

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  Dmjn53

Might not be less money overall but very likely will be AAV. The Braves offer to Freeman was about 5/$140M, for a $28M AAV. Olson’s AAV is $21M.

Of course, it’s possible that he’ll blow past both, but I suspect he’ll at least top the AAV.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

That might have been the Braves best offer but it wasn’t going to get Freeman. He wants 6 /180 which is more than the Braves signed Olson for. It looks like Dmjn has nailed it which I completely agree with.

Last edited 4 years ago by bosoxforlife
TKDCMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  Dmjn53

Well, it wasn’t “somehow.” They traded a load of prospects to make that happen.

David Klein
4 years ago

AA sure is good at getting guys to take team friendly deals with Albies and Acuna being beyond even that.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  David Klein

Yeah, this one doesn’t seem like quite as big a steal.

Worth noting that Olson also grew up not that far from where the Braves play. Which I wouldn’t have remembered except Franceourstein played high school ball against him. Hopefully he got a no-trade clause.

hughduffy
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

The Braves do not give no-trade clauses as a matter of policy.

TheUncool
4 years ago

Nice bittersweet touch closing w/ that Orson Welles quote…

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
4 years ago

Quoting from Dan’s article, “Regardless of whether it was the right decision for the team, moving on from Freeman, the franchise player that the Braves chose to keep throughout their whole rebuilding cycle, was never going to be easy.” You are darn right! It never should have happened! There is no player in baseball who has been more identified as his team’s franchise player for the past several years than Freddie Freeman, even Mike Trout. He should have been a Brave for life, yet the irony of this is that the Braves appear to be the beneficiaries of this. It just doesn’t seem right

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

Freeman was more identified with the Braves than Judge is with the Yankees? Altuve with the Astros? Kershaw with the Dodgers?

hughduffy
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

To be clear, Judge isn’t anywhere near that category yet with only 6 years with the Yankees.

Here’s a list of players who are still on the same team after…
11 years: Jose Altuve (Astros), Brandon Belt (Giants), Charlie Blackmon (Rockies), Matt Carpenter (Cardinals), Mike Trout (Angels).
12 years: Freddie Freeman (Braves), Stephen Strasburg (Nationals).
14 years: Brett Gardner (Yankees), Clayton Kershaw (Dodgers), Miguel Cabrera (Tigers).
15 years: Joey Votto (Reds).
16 years: Adam Wainwright (Cardinals).
18 years: Yadier Molina (Cardinals)

Long tenure doesn’t identify a player with a team. Elvis Andrus spent 12 years with the Texas Rangers, but I don’t remember a ton of Rangers fans crying when he was traded to Oakland.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Judge, he has only played more than 112 games twice? Altuve, don’t take off my shirt, and Kershaw, while both are tremendous players, were victims of being surrounded by other stars which made it difficult to stand alone as Freeman did for many years in Atlanta and continued to after the arrival of Acuna. Trout is hampered by the complete fiasco that is the Angels and zero post-season wins during his entire career.

The Ancient Mariner
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I suspect the point is more that no one had less *competition* to be seen that way. I don’t think that’s actually true in comparison w/Trout (until Ohtani), but it arguably is w/r/t the others you mention.

synco
4 years ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

Miguel Cabrera is the cautionary tale every team should be aware of when sportswriters (and some fans) are in histrionics about how they MUST re-sign this guy because he’s a franchise legend.

MichaelProcton
4 years ago
Reply to  synco

Or Pujols. Or Helton. Plenty of legendary dudes who still flop at the back end of their careers.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  synco

Both Pujols and Cabrera are very big men who tend to lose the required quickness more rapidly than different body types. Freeman is more likely to age a bit less quickly, but age he will.

dodgerbleu
4 years ago
Reply to  synco

I don’t think that’s necessarily it. He (and Ryan Howard) are cautionary tales to be aware of when teams unnecessarily extend aging 1B YEARS before they need to, when they’re already on long term contracts that keep them with the team through their prime.

Neither of those deals were necessary and in fact were perplexing. No one should judge against these two silly extensions..

The Duke
4 years ago

The prospects cost something like $60 million in value so the decision to move on from Freddie wasn’t about money (value) really. They could have kept those prospects and monetized them in some other way.

So, I think this is more about aligning the window for the team. A very tricky two-step which worked out well. Gave up some value to get there but they should be rewarded