The Braves Extend Their New First Baseman

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.
Breakdown on Olson: $15M in 2022, $21M in ‘23, $22M from ‘24 to ‘29. This is an extension, not a free-agent deal. Olson had two years of arbitration remaining. Gets roughly $140M to $145M in free-agent years.
— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) March 15, 2022
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.
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:
| 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 |
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
That crossed my mind, too. Could it be as simple as Olson’s best years aligning better with Atlanta’s competitive window?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What levers does Albies have? Could he sit out?
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?
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.
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.
Well, it wasn’t “somehow.” They traded a load of prospects to make that happen.
AA sure is good at getting guys to take team friendly deals with Albies and Acuna being beyond even that.
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.
The Braves do not give no-trade clauses as a matter of policy.
Nice bittersweet touch closing w/ that Orson Welles quote…
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
Freeman was more identified with the Braves than Judge is with the Yankees? Altuve with the Astros? Kershaw with the Dodgers?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or Pujols. Or Helton. Plenty of legendary dudes who still flop at the back end of their careers.
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.
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 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