Why Jason Heyward might not be here on Opening Day
Regarding prospects, Frank Wren has a saying: “Players will tell us when they’re ready.” Regarding Jason Heyward, Bobby Cox said over the winter: “He might be one who doesn’t have to go through the usual channels.” But even as we on the periphery seek to project the career path of the sport’s latest phenom, we cannot lose sight of one silly but sobering baseball truth:
It makes financial sense for Heyward not to start 2010 on the Opening Day roster.
Rob Neyer of ESPN.com outlines this oddity by referring to a post of Bryan Smith’s on FanGraphs. Smith likens Heyward to Evan Longoria, and it’s an apt comparison: Longoria was the No. 1 prospect of 2008, just as Heyward is the top of the class of 2010. Writes Smith:
Longoria famously waited two weeks for a call-up at the start of the 2008 season, with Joe Maddon slotting Willy Aybar into the third baseman slot until Longoria got the call on April 12. The reason was clear: Longoria would serve only 170 service days with the Rays that season. By Major League rule, a player is a free agent after six full seasons, which are constituted by 172 service days. By waiting two weeks, the Rays bought themselves another year of controlling Longoria.
On the opposite side of the coin is the Detroit Tigers, who were so enthused by Rick Porcello’s Spring Training a year ago that they started the season with the top prospect in their rotation. Porcello would post a 6.42 FIP in April, but was consistent enough to remain with the Tigers all season. As a result, Porcello will be a free agent after the 2014 season. The Texas Rangers, who waited three weeks to call up Derek Holland (for a Longoria-like 170 service days), will have control of Holland through 2015.
There is simply no argument to be made that the marginal value gained by playing Jason Heyward over Matt Diaz for three weeks in April is worth losing Heyward’s rights for the 2016 season. Yes, calling him up on April 25 will mean that Heyward will be a “Super Two”, and thus, eligible for arbitration a year early. But arbitration contracts are still discounts over free agent ones, and I can already promise you that Heyward’s first free agent contract will be a big one. Without delving into the Heyward vs. [Stephen] Strasburg argument, the Braves should certainly take note that Nats GM Mike Rizzo has already written off his right-handed star beginning the season in Washington. If you think it’s because they want some minor league seasoning for him, you’re crazy — they just want an extra year of not dealing with Scott Boras.
About here, I hear you saying: What about ticket sales? Won’t the Braves sell more seats in April if fans know they’ll have to chance to see the team’s biggest prospect since Andruw Jones play at Turner Field? Sure they would. But they wouldn’t sell nearly enough tickets — not in April, when we’re just turning back to baseball and school is in session — to offset the down-the-road benefit of keeping Heyward off the free agent market as long as possible.
(Another consideration: The Braves play only nine of their first 22 regular-season games at home; five of the nine are midweek night games.)
In a perfect world, Jason Heyward would be starting in right field against the Cubs on April 5. He’s really all any Braves fan wants to see. (Apologies to Melky Cabrera.) And Cox keeps saying that if Heyward is among the team’s 25-best players — really, how could he not be? — he’ll be on the 25-man roster when the club breaks camp.
But baseball, as Joe Garagiola noted a while back, is a funny game. Anyone who thinks the Braves — like every club except the Yankees and Red Sox — aren’t looking to save money on player contracts hasn’t been paying attention.
Jason Heyward is really good. But Tommy Hanson was really good a year ago, and he didn’t get the big-league call until June. Yes, Heyward is on an even faster track, but if he manages to outpace the service-time consideration he won’t just be the sport’s No. 1 prospect — he’ll be the world’s fastest human.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
255 comments Add your comment
All I'm Saying Is...
March 5th, 2010
11:20 am
This is a no-brainer for the General Manager who is paid to look at the big picture as compared to the Manager who is paid to win games today, tomorrow and the next day. Heyward goes to Gwinnett for two weeks at least and the Braves have additional financial flexibility. Plus this move would take pressure off the kid to perform on day one—anyone recall what happened with Jordan Schafer? He started hot, got injured, and then pushed himself instead of honestly sharing how hurt he was. Braves good enough to at least go .500 in his absence and with 162 game season, plenty of time to be in the playoff hunt.
LET’S GO BRAVES!
Blue
March 5th, 2010
11:22 am
Herschel; well said. David; QUIT YELLING, DUDE!!
Brian from SC
March 5th, 2010
11:23 am
Ramblin Wrecker, the biggest thing about your point of view is that you’re depending on Heyward to make that decision. That’s what this is all about…control. The Braves want to be the ones to make the decision whether or not he’s a Brave in 2016. Precedent has shown that players tend to lean towards making the big bucks. You’re living dangerously if your banking on Heyward playing for a discount. And in exchange for 9 games in April? I’d hate to be the one making this decision.
NORRIS
March 5th, 2010
11:24 am
The Braves are on TV nightly. Most teams are not and dont have that addition to their budget. The Braves are owned by a company, Yes but there is no reason that we shouldnt have the money to pay the kid to start opening day.
I dont get it…
tom
March 5th, 2010
11:24 am
Hey Brad…..what about the Fans….Level of Interest…..Excitement…..is this the same Wren who TOLD us on Radio and TV in 09′ that Medlin was better prepared to come up before Hansen?? Lets see, is 2014,15,16 right around the corner or are we going to play some ball between now and then??
Mark Bradley
March 5th, 2010
11:24 am
Actually, Norris, most teams are on TV every night. That’s cable for you.
BravesFaninTN
March 5th, 2010
11:25 am
The indeptness of the the Braves owners continues to shine!
NORRIS
March 5th, 2010
11:26 am
I suppose you are right Mark with the addition of MLB network and MLB baseball packages.
matt r
March 5th, 2010
11:26 am
MLB just needs to close this two week loophole and make 3/5 of a season count as a season, or something like that. Under the current rules it makes sense to keep him away for those 10 days.
Mark Bradley
March 5th, 2010
11:26 am
Tom, I’m with you on that. The only reason to be really excited about the 2010 club is Jason Heyward.
I don’t envy Frank Wren. This is a tough call.
Brian from SC
March 5th, 2010
11:27 am
If Heyward starts in AAA and the Braves’ offense is clicking in April and May, it would be very hard to think of a reason to bring him up before June 1st. That’s just common financial sense.
Steven
March 5th, 2010
11:28 am
Sorry MB..but I’ll go to Turner Field to see Mccann, Esobar, JJ, Hanson, Hudson, and Chipper too. Its not just about the new kid.
shmoe
March 5th, 2010
11:29 am
MB,
Good points, but I have to say I disagree with a few. I believe fans in ATL will come out to see Heyward. I actually think this lineup is going to be very very good, and combined with the pitching staff, easily the best Braves team in 4 years.
I also think he starts the season in the bigs. This isn’t just any year. It’s Bobby’s last year, and they will need to squeeze out every possible win they can in the season’s first two months to send him out a winner. Unless Heyward tanks over the next few weeks, or gets hurt (gasp), he will start in MLB.
matt r
March 5th, 2010
11:31 am
You people wanting him here on opening day are missing a key point here. The most valuable commodity in baseball is the pre-free-agency MLB-capable player. These are the building blocks of all teams that do not have unlimited salaries like the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, etc. We have to hold onto players in this window absolutely as long as possible.
Brian from SC
March 5th, 2010
11:31 am
Worst case scenario: Heyward starts on the MLB roster, but the Braves start 2-7. Ouch…
Don
March 5th, 2010
11:32 am
I can see why we would do that (start Heyward in the minors). We really have such good outfielders already (heavy sarcasm).
Cecil34
March 5th, 2010
11:38 am
Since every decision concerning personnel for the Braves is strictly about the $$$, expect Hayward at AAA Gwinnett on opening day.
I reckon I will go there to see him.
Ramblin Wrecker
March 5th, 2010
11:38 am
Brian from SC,
You’re overlooking the fact that lots of GREAT players make the decision to buy out arbitration/free agency years.
Longoria, Lincecum, McCann, Verlander, Felix Hernandez, Chase Utley…need I go on?
Joe Mauer is considering a long term deal in Minnesota.
The fact is that for GREAT players, my scenario is more the norm than your “wait for my big pay day” scenario. Maybe a greedy kid would be more like that (uh, Jeff Francoeur), but a smart kid like Heyward is going to make a smart business decision to get some millions guaranteed now, before he risks his career and gets nothing.
Cecil34
March 5th, 2010
11:39 am
Correction: Heyward…
jeffrey d
March 5th, 2010
11:39 am
Theoretically, if Heyward was on the opening day roster and the Braves stunk it up all season and are out of the race, could they send him back down for 10 days to bump his service time down?
Omar
March 5th, 2010
11:40 am
But this is Bobby Cox’s last year, how much does that factor in DOB?
Boneyard Randy
March 5th, 2010
11:40 am
You have to send him to the minors for the first few weeks. If you have any sense that is what you do. If they keep him on the opening day roster I wonder about the Braves management. Every fan will understand and those that don’t, well, too bad. Just have a “Jason Heyward” call-up promotional game the day he comes up and promote the hell out of Tommy Hanson, “McCann’s Cans” and Bobby Cox’s final year in the meantime. I’m a big fan of the “Chipper Jones” injury night too, where everyone gets a toy doll of Chip that shows every injury he’s had over his career.
Ramblin Wrecker
March 5th, 2010
11:41 am
Some other names who bought out arb years, Matt Kemp, Andre Ethier…
Ramblin Wrecker
March 5th, 2010
11:42 am
more names…Ryan Braun, David Wright…
matt r
March 5th, 2010
11:43 am
jeff d: That is less likely, because then they can’t play the “he needs some seasoning” card, that is they are trying to fool us a little.
RW: Do you want to take a chance on a 20-year-old making a smart decision? Why take a chance one way or the other?
Ramblin Wrecker
March 5th, 2010
11:43 am
more names…Hanley Ramirez, Josh Johnson…
Ramblin Wrecker
March 5th, 2010
11:44 am
Brian from SC,
Cots Baseball Contracts. You should check it out and see for yourself.
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/
What the fudge
March 5th, 2010
11:45 am
Mark – “It makes financial sense for Heyward not to start 2010 on the Opening Day roster”
.Yeah and Dean Smith needs to retire.
jeffrey d
March 5th, 2010
11:45 am
jeff d: That is less likely, because then they can’t play the “he needs some seasoning” card, that is they are trying to fool us a little.
Oh I know it would go over horribly with the fans, but theoretically…could it happen?
Jason
March 5th, 2010
11:46 am
Why do we play the game? To win. How do we win? We put the best players available on the field.
If Heyward is one of the best players, NOT playing him sends the absolute wrong message to the fan base. Recent Example: The extra five or six starts that Hanson could have gotten last year might have made the second half of the season a lot more exciting.
Plus, we’re talking about what might happen six years from now. We can see from failures like Jeff Francoeur that there is no guarantee that anyone will be here, or worthy of a huge contract, in six years time.
Moreover, how can we be sure that today’s ownership will even be here in six years? It’s entirely possible that a new group (or person) comes in and takes control of the team and has the cash to keep our good players.
Play Heyward now, if he’s ready. The economics of what happens six years from now is unknowable and therefore meaningless.
Ramblin Wrecker
March 5th, 2010
11:46 am
The more I research about the best young players and whether they bought out arbitration years, the more convinced I am that this whole discussion about holding Heyward down two weeks or two months is pretty stupid and a waste of time.
He’s going to be very good and he’s going to sign a multi year deal two years from now and it will be a moo point (like a cow’s opinion, nobody cares).
Ramblin Wrecker
March 5th, 2010
11:49 am
Jason is absolutely right. Hanson went 11-4 last year. If he had been starting all along the Braves could have won 6 or 7 more games if he had started 13 more games. That’s the division or wild card right there. Heyward might not have as direct an impact on wins and losses as Hanson could, but why piddle around with backup and platoon players when you can have Jason Heyward in RF? Just a moronic argument in my opinion.
Brian from SC
March 5th, 2010
11:49 am
Ramblin, we are not talking about buying out arbitration years. The Braves will most certainly do that. What I am saying is that if the Braves do not delay his free agency, the deal you are wanting them to make will have to be much more expensive.
And yes, I am quite aware of Cot’s. It’s has been a bookmark for me for almost two years.
Ramblin Wrecker
March 5th, 2010
11:53 am
And another thing…CNNSI had a great column about the BA top 10 prospects and how they don’t pan out a lot. But more specifically that pitching prospects are much more likely to flop than hitters, significantly more likely. So it does make since to be cautious with a pitcher like Tommy Hanson, because you want to be paying him after he’s proven himself more successful than you would worry about a hitter. Heyward is much more likely to pan out than Hanson. And it’s ok to take a less money conscious approach to his promotion.
Brian from SC
March 5th, 2010
11:54 am
Ramblin, two thing:
Hanson was only worth about 2.5 wins all last year according to fangraphs (and 2.5 is fantastic). So there’s no way he would be worth anywhere close to 6 or 7 more wins over the two months you’re talking about. 2 additional wins is a stretch.
And with Heyward, we’re talking about his impact in 9 games. How much impact can any one player have over 9 games?
Scoots
March 5th, 2010
11:54 am
Mark – informative piece. Might this being Bobby’s last year play into the considerations, i.e. they would want Bobby to be able to field the best team possible for the first 2-3 weeks of the season? After all, I know everyone wants to see him go out on top, and while the season is certainly not won during the first month of play, it can certainly set the course.
What are your thoughts Mark?
I think for the Braves to have any chance at taking down the Phillies, they’ve got to have their 100% best roster possible all year – and that will probably mean Heyward in the lineup.
Ramblin Wrecker
March 5th, 2010
11:55 am
Brian from SC,
Go look at these contracts. Most of them DO but out the first one or two years of free agency, either guaranteed or with player/club options.
Skeezix
March 5th, 2010
11:55 am
Holy smokes—can’t we wait until he actually does something before we start talking about him as a great MLB player? When he is brought up he may struggle a little at first (which is normal), so we fans need to be ready for that. I don’t think the Braves managed Frenchy’s situation well and now in 2010 Frenchy is poised for a break out year; but for the Mutts. I want to see him play as much as anyone, but see no need to rush things. If a few weeks of seasoning in AAA will help prepare him and it also lenthens the time the Braves will have control, that’s the right decision for both the player and the Braves.
Ramblin Wrecker
March 5th, 2010
11:55 am
meant to say “buy out” not “but out”
lefty fielder
March 5th, 2010
11:56 am
MB
I think you missed a perfectly great opportunity to insert a picture of EVA Longoria.
Scoots
March 5th, 2010
11:56 am
The Nats are playing for the future, whereas the Braves have a realistic chance to be in the playoffs this year. That makes a big difference between the handling of Strasburg vs. Heyward, does in not?
Daniel #12
March 5th, 2010
11:58 am
I am assuming that post season time doesn;t count toward the 172 serviice days. Otherwise, if they hope to make the playoffs, they need to wait a while longer to stay under 172. But doesn’t that decrease thier chances of making the playoffs? Yep and there is the bite.
Brian from SC
March 5th, 2010
11:59 am
Yes, and they are making upwards of 15-16 million dollars in those free agent years. Don’t you think the Braves would rather pay 10 million dollars to Heyward in 2016 than 15 million? The Braves may need that 5 million dollars to get a closer or a power hitter. Is it worth 9 games in April in 2010?
todd grantham
March 5th, 2010
12:01 pm
Do you “sacrifice” the month of April (ticket sales, hopefully run production and a not so subliminal message to the fans that saving money is more important than putting the best 9 on the field) plus probably earning Heyward’s enmity when he does have some leverage?
Too many minuses not to start him if he earns it.
Ramo
March 5th, 2010
12:01 pm
Mr. Bradley will Bobby Cox have a say on this. If so I think Heyward will be there opening day.
Reid Adair
March 5th, 2010
12:02 pm
I had not really considered that, but if a couple of weeks gives another year down the road, I would understand. The fact that only nine of the first 22 games are at home is a consideration in that aspect too.
However, expecting Frank Wren to be able to do such simple math may be asking entirely too much.
todd grantham
March 5th, 2010
12:03 pm
MB, you dont think Braves’ fans can be excited about Tommy Hanson?
Some Guy
March 5th, 2010
12:06 pm
If Wren and the Braves brass are smart, they will quickly sign Heyward to a long-term deal to buy out his arb years and even some of his free agency years, similar to what Longoria and McCann received.
Brian from SC
March 5th, 2010
12:06 pm
FYI, of the 9 games Heyward would need to miss, only 3 are at home.
Andrew
March 5th, 2010
12:07 pm
And here we go, I can see it a year from now, Heyward huge bust, AJC headlines reads, “Frank Wren Brought up Heyward to soon!” Do we really think Wren is going to hold Heyward back if we really think hes ready to contribute now? What does Wren get paid for? Again, think about that last question. He can’t play 6 years in advance, hes has to play for now because he might not be around in 3 years, much less 6. If hes got a franchise type player that can contribute and also bring alot of excitement around the franchise, then Frank is going to do it in a heartbeat, its a no brainer. Do clubs try to save money and do stuff like what your suggesting, sure its done to an extent but not to purposely hold back a franchise type player back that can potentially. Whats more important to Wren right now, winning now when he hasn’t put the Braves in the playoffs yet since he took over or is it thinking 6 years in advance when Frank might not even be a here?