It's been a much-debated topic all off-season and throughout spring training, "Should the Atlanta Braves start Jason Heyward in right field on opening day?" One of the big factors for many fans, especially fans here on Talking Chop, has been the monetary aspect of starting Heyward's arbitration clock when the season starts as opposed to calling him up a couple of weeks into the season, thus delaying by a year when he is eligible for arbitration.
AJC reporter Carroll Rogers asked Braves General Manager Frank Wren almost that exact same question, and here is his answer:
A. "If we don’t think he’s fully ready to be in the big leagues, he won’t be in the big leagues. If he’s fully ready, he will be. It’s really a somewhat simple equation. But there’s subjectivity based on all the baseball experience we have on our coaching staff and our front office as to what’s the best thing for him."
Q. That sounds like to me like it leaves finances out of it.
A. "It hasn’t come up as a part of the equation."
I'm surprised that "it hasn't come up." I mean, it really hasn't come up once? When a team like the Braves have such a tight financial margin surely something as impactful as an extra year of arbitration for a player who seems destined to have many large paydays ahead of him is not only something a team should discuss, but something that could (and in some cases should) steer the direction a team takes with that player.
Could this just be an answer that is not well thought through, and given on the fly? Really, really? If it is indeed a genuine answer and the Braves have honestly not discussed this, then they need to.
Don't get me wrong, I'm on the side of starting Heyward in the majors, especially after the spring he's had, but I also fully expect the GM and the organization to do their due diligence and explore every scenario. I must say, from everything I've been reading the past few weeks, it certainly seems as though the Braves will start the season with Heyward in right field. Maybe in the long-run that's the better financial decision.
0 recs | 81 comments
Wren is just telling the fan base what they want to hear.
If anyone seriously thinks the Braves aren’t considering the financial impact of the timing of Heyward’s call up, they’re not thinking.
PWHjort - March 25, 2010
This
Lennox - March 25, 2010
I can also understand
if they had this discussion at the beginning of ST, or before ST began, and came to the conclusion that money would not inhibit his ascension to the majors. What I am hoping is that, if he is as good as we think, that the Braves sign him up really early like the Rays did with Evan Longoria. I have to wonder if the Braves are already looking at that.
Andy Braves Fan - March 25, 2010
Right,.
But the important thing is (in this scenario) the fact that they did have the discussion. Therefore, consideration was granted.
PWHjort - March 25, 2010
Consideration is almost mandatory...
or else they aren’t doing their jobs if something such as that isn’t “in the equation”. But the difference is “consider” it, or have it “control” the decision. It should be in their heads as it’s a factor involved, I’m just glad it’s not what’s driving the decision compared to “what is the best baseball team we can put on the field”.
Mr. Sanchez - March 25, 2010
I agree. He’s likely saying it so that when and if they do keep him down, it is consistent with what he’s said earlier. “Look we said it was a baseball decision and not financial during ST and we are still saying it now.” Frank Wren is smarter than that quote would make it seem. I think.
Perrinbar - March 25, 2010
The plus side of Thurston making the team is that we wouldn’t have to worry about giving Heyward a roster spot simply so we have a black guy on the team. I think that is a plus that can’t be overlooked.
10-4 - March 25, 2010
Where’s a face palm picture when you need one.
Sparhawk - March 25, 2010
That warrants the double face palm picture…
EricGreggWasPaidOff - March 25, 2010
TonyAlmeyda - March 25, 2010
Guys, 10-4 was joking.
You would have known that if you saw and happened to recall a certain fanpost 40 or 60 days ago.
fandave - March 25, 2010
Yep, that fanpost came to mind,
as soon as I read the comment.
HEYJUDE - March 26, 2010
For your failure at grasping sarcasm.
10-4 - March 26, 2010
My bad
That’s a reply fail on my part. I intended to reply to EricGreggWasPaidOff’s post.
TonyAlmeyda - March 26, 2010
+100!!!
I literally LOL’d
justincredubil02 - March 25, 2010
I think Wren is speaking politically and not truthfully here.
justincredubil02 - March 25, 2010
Not to mention
the fact that the players association would be all over Wren and the Braves if he openly stated that finances played a role in keeping him down!!! NO GM anywhere will admit this for that lone reason.
scstrato - March 25, 2010
With regard to the financial side...
Perhaps the Braves front office is considering that Heyward starting on opening day will help the team sell more tickets (and we all know Atlanta is notorious for NOT having sell-out crowds) AND give the team a better shot at post season play (and we all know the financial upside to having a winning franchise). I guess what I’m saying is that maybe gondee’s final statement is correct – Heyward starting opening day could be the better financial decision in the long-run.
EricGreggWasPaidOff - March 25, 2010
I believe what Wren was saying is that it is a baseball decision. peroid.
Is he “fully ready” or not?
He is the number 1 prospect in baseball. If he is fully ready to contribute at the ML level, then – clearly – he should be on the team and hopefully making a positive contribution to the team’s success.
It is remarkable to me exactly why this is so difficult for so many to even acknowledge – much less accept – as an appropriate analysis and decision.
fandave - March 25, 2010
It is just as remarkable that you cannot, or will not, acknowledge there is a legitimate “other side of the coin”.
scstrato - March 25, 2010
I never said or implied that it would not be legitimate for the Braves to consider it or for people here to legitmately think it should be considered. I certainly have disagreed that possible long term financial implications should be a determinative factor. I have also repeatedly pointed out that there is no particular reason to believe the decision would be based on anything other than the on the field baseball merits.
fandave - March 25, 2010
My bad
I mis-read your last sentence, taking it to mean there shouldn’t be a question period.
scstrato - March 25, 2010
To me, personally, it should be a baseball decision, 100% or something pretty damn close to 100%. Wren seemingly may agree.
On the other hand, it would be severely dogmatic to maintain that for others to have a different point of view, is illegitimate.
fandave - March 25, 2010
lets show Heyward that its about team,and winning more than money.Maybe he will return the favor sometime in his career.
fatazfoot - March 25, 2010
He's ready!
acie4mvp - March 25, 2010
HA!…he was ready….he’s beyond ready by now…
Swo12bv - March 25, 2010
But it isn’t about just winning and team – MLB is a business, and by definition, it is only about the money.
justincredubil02 - March 25, 2010
How dare you?!?!
As you can see by Swo’s signature above, if fatazfoot says something, it is the Truth. Period.
buzzdeadwax - March 25, 2010
I concede.
justincredubil02 - March 25, 2010
Accepted.
buzzdeadwax - March 26, 2010
the defintion of business is far from “its only about the money”
there is a lot more involved…and to think otherwise is severely misguided…and you’re better than that
Swo12bv - March 25, 2010
Well, people start businesses (and run them) to make money. There are, as always, exceptions to the rule, but I don’t think MLB falls into that category. What once started as a recreational competition between various cities has turned into a mega-billion dollar industry where winning is just a bonus.
Of course, teams want to win, but not for the sake of winning. Having a good season means more money. Winning means more fans, which means more revenue.
I stand by the sad statement that MLB, like any other major sport, is all about the Benjamin’s now.
justincredubil02 - March 26, 2010
Or to think so simplistic in money...
money can come from ad sales, ticket sales, playoff revenue, etc and more than make up for it in the long run.
Mr. Sanchez - March 26, 2010
Since the advent of unhindered FA, the concepts of team and winning are for the fans only. If it weren’t about the almighty dollar the Yankees wouldn’t have a payroll of 387 kajillion every year with the Red Sox behind at 229 kajillion.
Jason Heyward will not finish his career where it began.
UMDBHIK - March 25, 2010
Unless he is the next Chipper Jones.
justincredubil02 - March 25, 2010
this team is too close to contention to worry about making a move that will only seriously impact the bottom line years down the road. As the top prospect in baseball, if he’s ready to contribute, he’s going to be a cog of this offense. A postseason appearance is worth the money that they will lose. I would bet he’ll be signed to a long-term deal before any of this matters anyway. Most top young players get extended before they can sniff free agency. Mauer, Braun, Mccann, Pujols, Longoria, Sizemore, King Felix, Hanley Ramirez, Zimmerman, Utley, Pedroia, Tulowitzki, and Verlander are all examples of this philosophy.
telemakhos - March 25, 2010
Frank Wren is just dancing around the question...
but it’s also more than simply a ‘money’ matter. They have to know Heyward is absolutely-positively ready to handle the ML level & not a flop the way Schafer was last year. If he is ready, then you offer him a reasonable contract. If not, a little more seasoning in the minors doesn’t hurt.
Doni S - March 25, 2010
FA vs. Arb
For me the issue isn’t so much about finances as much as it is about controlling his tenure. Eliminating the monetary aspect, the issue boils down to 2 weeks vs. a 170 days. Many have explained this concept in detail, and much more succinctly than I possibly could, so I won’t dig into the details. This is quite possibly over-simplified, but it basically breaks down like this:
- Let Heyward start opening day and he will be a Brave for 6 years.
- Let Heyward stay down for an estimated 2 weeks and he will be a Brave for 6 years and 170 days.
These are the only cut and dry scenarios, all the rest is just speculation and shouldn’t factor into any decision.
scstrato - March 25, 2010
get outta here with that nonsense….that actually makes sense…
Swo12bv - March 25, 2010
So if Wren were to actually make the decision based on the primary consideration of whether Heyward is “fully ready” to make a positive contribution to the team’s success on the field, that would not make sense?
Or do you concede that the objectives of putting the best players on the 25 man roster and actually winning baseball games are legitimate considerations?
fandave - March 25, 2010
Would you concede that Melky Cabrera in RF for about 9 games instead of Jason Heyward probably wouldn’t make that big of a difference?
justincredubil02 - March 25, 2010
Probably? No, on what logical basis do you suggest I should concede that?
fandave - March 25, 2010
The fact that it is only about 9 games, and an AB total of roughly 30-40 in a lineup in which Heyward will more than likely be batting 7th or 8th.
We could also throw in the fact that Heyward has looked human in ST this past week, and that he is a 20 year old kid who has never seen any significant playingtime above “AA” while Melky has been league-average as a minimum.
justincredubil02 - March 25, 2010
A probability is something that is more likely than not going to happen.
I’m not so sure at all what you mean by “that big of a difference.” But since playoff berths can and not infrequently do turn on 1 game over the course of the season, I’d say a 1 game swing over the course of the hypothetical 9 games could be highly consequential and, therefore, a substantial difference.
So, logically, since the outcome any given 9 games are impossible to predict with any accuracy and any given two players’ performance over the same 9 games are – if anything – even more impossible to accurately predict, I see no basis whatsoever – other than pure, simple wild-assed guessing and speculating – for suggesting that playing Melky over Heyward would not impact our championship season.
But if we’re guessing and speculating, maybe we should include McLouth because if Melky is in RF, then McLouth is probably in CF regardless of whether he goes 0 for 40.
fandave - March 25, 2010
Couldn’t the reverse be true then? We cannot assume that Heyward will be better than Melky over the same 9 game stretch. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
justincredubil02 - March 25, 2010
but
how can you have your cake if you’re not eating it?
JFP - March 25, 2010
i think u mean how can u eat ur cake if u dont have it…
ur way doesnt make sense…you can have cake and not eat it…like i have cake in my fridge that i am not eating.
Swo12bv - March 25, 2010
possesion vs prohibitation
The original argument is that you can’t have(eat) your cake and eat it too. Which doesn’t make sense.
Your argument is that you can have(possess) a cake in your refrigerator and choose not to eat it
JFP - March 26, 2010
Uh, no.
Expending (eating) Vs possessing (having) is the entire point of the saying.
Lennox - March 26, 2010
Ok I'll accept that,
but if you can possess your cake, then why can you not eat it as well? Its your motherflippin’ cake. Who’s got the right to tell you that you can’t eat it?
JFP - March 26, 2010
I imagine that, back when the saying was coined (the 1500s), and there wasn’t a Ye Olde McDonalds on every corner, if you made the walk/ride to the baker to buy a cake or bread to have with dinner and impress your dinner guests; it would be common for people on the ride/walk back to get really hungry and tempted to just go ahead and eat the cake themselves. Which, of course, would then ruin their dinner plans.
The point is that once you eat your cake, you no longer have it to eat later. It’s another way of saying that you can’t have things both ways.
A better phrasing would probably be, “You can’t eat your cake and have it too.”
Lennox - March 26, 2010
Apparently, the federal gov’t now has the right to tell us to do a lot of things with our own stuff – I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a section in the new bill that mandates that all Americans who possess a cake must eat it or suffer a fine.
justincredubil02 - March 26, 2010
you are violating the ban on no political discussion.
fandave - March 26, 2010
And you are overreacting to a joke.
justincredubil02 - March 26, 2010
1st and foremost, eat your own cake and stay off my lawn.
2d, we can all assume and guess whatever and whenever. We can dissect out statistical projections and even pretend they are real.
The point is that in actual reality someone has to make the decision based on some criteria and analysis and weighing of what is best. Every indication is that Frank Wren and Bobby Cox will or already have made the decision based on the baseball merits.
Sorry that you do not approve.
fandave - March 26, 2010
I do approve, and I can see the legitimacy of your point. I only wish you would be willing to do the same.
justincredubil02 - March 26, 2010
I do see it as legitimate. Just disagree that it should either the primary factor or even a major factor.
fandave - March 26, 2010
So why didn't you show your crystal ball to Wren...
if what you say is so obvious.
Mr. Sanchez - March 26, 2010
I never said that they WOULD keep him down. I said what I would do, and what I perceive to be a smart move.
I don’t know why you are trying to accuse me of having a crystal ball…
justincredubil02 - March 26, 2010
Because you talk like you know what's best...
and seem so sure of yourself in the difference between the two, where they’d hit, the amount of wins it’d make, and all sorts of stuff on the issue.
Mr. Sanchez - March 26, 2010
I am just as sure that Melky would deliver that 2-out hit in the 5th inning that we hypothetically will need that will score the hypothetical run that will hypothetically win the hypothetical game that we hypothetically would be playing as you are that Heyward would.
And for what it is worth, I am extremely confident in what I think the right thing to do is, and my confidence in what I would do makes me think that it is a financially smart move to make.
I have never once said how many wins Heyward vs Melky would give us. All I have said all along is that the effect of not having Heyward in the lineup for 9 games in April is minimal when compared to the effect of possibly not having him in the lineup a few years down the road for an entire season.
justincredubil02 - March 26, 2010
Start 4-5 or 7-2...
then miss the Wild Card by 2 games, so yeah it could make a difference.
Mr. Sanchez - March 26, 2010
Assuming that Heyward is the difference maker in each of those Ws and Ls, you are correct.
justincredubil02 - March 26, 2010
first i have never said that winning games isnt a legitimate concern…actually i have proposed that winning is the most important thing, it is the truest way to bring in money…and keeping Heyward down for 2 weeks gives us one extra year of heyward thus allowing us to win more games…if his WAR is 5 thats 5 wins in the season we save…we as we lose like maybe 1/2 win (im being really generous to u with a 1/2 win here) for those 2 weeks without him.
so under ur plan we get 1/2 more wins…my plan we get 4.5 more wins…( these numbers are for illustrative purposes only..and am givign you the benefit of the doubt by shading the numbers to your side)
this is based on the idea that Heyward wont sign a long term deal through his arb years (including the year he loses if he starts from day one)…im not sayign he wont sign such a deal just that its prudent to plan for such a scenario
and to go over things that were discusses above.
Its rational to assume the loss of Heyward for 9 games in inconsequential. Assume that Heyward is worth 6 WAR (the same as Pujols rookie year). and Assume that Melky is only a 2 WAR player and he is the guy who replaces Heyward for the 9 games. (Melky was worth 1.7 WAR last year in a tougher division) Assume these numbers are both based off the same number of ABs. 4 WAR (which is based off a full season) over 9 games is essentially .2 wins. Thats assuming that Heyward is a 6 WAR player from day one (a big assumption) and that Melky wont improve at all hardly with a move to the NL (although he may not improve and i will concede 2 WAR might be high, even though Chone has him for over 3 WAR)
In summation if i calculated correctly.. Heyward in the minors for 9 games gives us one full year of control of his prime producing age and costs us .2 wins…
if you think this amount s determinative, there’s no point debating anymore
Swo12bv - March 25, 2010
Yes, it is pointless to further debate this issue.
fandave - March 26, 2010
How dare you keep the horse in front of the cart???
ORHow dare you be able to see the forrest in spite of the trees???
ORHow dare you think long-term??? (ok, that one isn’t cliche’ but it fits)
justincredubil02 - March 26, 2010
great math...
now prove it in real life. We can debate with numbers and stats and probabilities all day. But the guy who have to put rubber to the road see things differently. It’s like you’re telling a hall of fame slugger he sees more first pitch balls than anyone else on the team, therefore should lay off the first pitch more often. So in response to your well postulated theory kind sir, I respond with a simple
Mr. Sanchez - March 26, 2010
No, we really can’t, since, you know, those things haven’t happened yet.
justincredubil02 - March 26, 2010
This to that!
justincredubil02 - March 25, 2010
Which is why I seriously don’t want to see him for at least 2 weeks to start the season.
Perrinbar - March 25, 2010
16 year contract, $240 million… plus a uni number below 50. Then ignore the 1st 2 weeks.
:P
carpengui - March 25, 2010
Maybe Ted Turner is down with the J-Hey.
Chief Noc-A-Homa - March 25, 2010
Team interests
Wren is saying this is going to be a baseball decision and not a financial decision.
That being said, he will make the team. The baseball decision is that he is as ready as any 20 year old has ever been. He is the best option for Right Field, offensively and defensively.
Everyone knows this, including his teammates who would be upset if he didn’t make the team out of ST, because they would know it was just to delay his clock, and that is not the way to treat your players. They did it with Hanson last year and they no in the end it was a mistake.
They need to keep the momentum going from a good spring and this is the best way.
JFP - March 25, 2010
Bryce Harper is as ready as any 17 year old has ever been, does he deserve a starting job right now?
Swo12bv - March 25, 2010
No,
because he is not a member of any professional organization.
JFP - March 26, 2010
if the Braves don’t start Heyward on opening day, he’s going to walk away later down the line.
BronxBraveFan - March 26, 2010
Not necessarily,
he is a home grown kid, and being near his family and friends, may take a priority over being upset about not starting as a 20 yr old. If he does not start opening day, it is obvious he will be called up in a few weeks. The kid I’ve heard being interviewed, has a great head on his shoulders, and is not going to let a few extra weeks in the minors, control the rest of his life.
HEYJUDE - March 26, 2010
Just like Longoria did when the Rays didn’t start him opening day?
Lennox - March 26, 2010
And Hanson…and Andruw…and Chipper….and McCann….and just about every other MLB player?
justincredubil02 - March 26, 2010
Not Pujols
Mr. Sanchez - March 26, 2010
That’s why I threw that “just about” part in there.
justincredubil02 - March 26, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Talking Chop to post a comment.