Agents are not dumb. If they think Stanton won't do better in free agency, they will let him know as that would be money out of their pocket if he opts out and makes less.
Two (possible) reasons 1) before his contract locks-in (7/$208MM + an 8th year that's either $25MM or a $10MM buyout), Haper, Altuve & Machado will all hit the market and likely set fire to the current financial landscape, making $29MM/year seem quaint (it technically already si with Trout making $34MM/year); 2) while he might not be able to move on the per-year amount, he could, in theory, get 2-3 more years guaranteed - 10/$298 is better than 7/$208MM. I'm mostly with you; the likelihood of him opting in is too great to pursue him - but if he's a 4-5+ WAR player these next 3 years, someone would almost certainly be willing to overpay him after his age-30 season.
Houston can’t be sure they will be able to resign Altuve, Correa, or Springer. In fact, they may already know that those players will not resign (whether due to bad blood, desire to relocate, or extreme contract demands). Back of the envelope, Houston will be able to extend 1 and possibly 2 of those guys. So acquiring Stanton means giving up the idea of locking up that 2nd guy, which is not guaranteed anyway. It’s all about value. If Miami will eat the dollars and not require much talent in return, it makes sense. Otherwise, pass. Houston and the other 3 teams are in a position of real strength. Being the only team Stanton will accept that isn’t above or near the luxury tax threshold gives Houston perhaps the most leverage of all.
I agree. I think the proposition the agent pitches is this: Don't opt out and get $208 million ver the next seven years (quoting the $$$ amount mentioned above) Opt out and get the largest contract in MLB history, say 10 years at $30+ million.
I think teams are getting smarter about these backloaded contracts. Have any of them ever really worked out for teams? If he's a 4-5 WAR in his prime, I don't think he gets anywhere that kind of money because the assumption would be a decline from there. Cano was an 8-ish WAR player for 4 years leading up his free agency and a top-6 MVP candidate each of those years, and he got $24MM/yr, and even that deal is looking bad. I agree Harper/Machado will alter the market, but they are also going to sign deals covering their prime, like Trout - those kinds of deals are a different beast. Altuve will be an interesting one, because he'll be on the wrong side of 30 and facing all the doubters (size, etc).
He's better than most players. Assuming normal inflation, he's healthy, and has a normal aging curve, there would be about 30 million of surplus value after the opt out. That's a slam dunk opt out if that happens. I don't typically trust the guys that depend heavily on power or speed to age well.
The thing with guys like Altuve is, they never stop hitting. He'll go back to his powerless ways at some point. But we're talking about a guy that, if he stays healthy and keeps doing what he's doing, could make a run at the top 3 most hits of all time. If you figure 200 (which is the least he's had in the past 4 years) hits per year, he needs 12.5 years to catch Hank Aaron...which would put him in his age 39 season.
I genuinely look at the % of Astros fans here and on reddit, against going after Stanton with surprise. The vast majority are against it, and from what I read, it's a well informed, rational and popular opinion to have. As a newish fan of baseball, I look at it as an opportunity to be a clear favorite to be a WS champion for the next 3 years vs being top 5 team in the next 6 years, and to me the right answer is clear and not popular. Now if we had to empty our prospects stash, and completely gut our future, then I would agree with you guys, but this is an opportunity to get an elite talent, for 3 years (atleast), for a fraction of his value. The only point I feel people that are against it miss to mention, is that if we get him, we are also making the Cubs, NYY or Dodgers weaker for the next 3 years (because they don't get him lol), and this is a huge plus these teams are also stacked, meaning our stacked all re-signed team would have a harder time winning it all. Now look, I understand, we want Correa, Altuve, Breg, Springer, Dallas to be Astros for life, but I think the earlier fans understand that it most likely won't happen, the earlier we start to maximize our big window we have in front of us IMO
Harper is going to set the market and it won't be anywhere close to 10/$300+; it'll almost certainly be north of $35MM/season. BUT... Harper will be 26; Stanton would be 30. If he's '17 Stanton good these next three years, he'll opt-out. Anything short of that and I think he'd ultimately be walking away from money.
Guys with a good idea of strike zone, bat to ball skills, BB IQ, and other skills that don't rely heavily on physical gifts.
That was 3 years ago; with salary increase % (~22% since), that deal would be worth ~$29/MM year. And, btw, Cano will be the highest-paid 2B next year by ~$7MM. It was a gigantic deal given to a player after his age-30 season.
Agreed - but my point is that people are already seeing it as a long-term problem for the Mariners, even despite the 22% inflation in other salaries. I think as we see more of these failing long-term contracts, fewer teams are willing to go that route. Pujols set a similar precedent as well. GMs are probably OK with it because there's a good chance they won't be around in 6-8 years anyway, but owners I think are slowly getting smarter. I don't think, in the future, you're going to see as many of those kinds of deals.
Yeah; maybe not. Although it seems we hit these walls every few years and it never really has any permanent impact. The other issue.... Harper, Machado, Trout, eventually Correa - they're going to set such a high salary standard (I mean, Correa is probably going to nab the first $40MM/year deal - if Harper doesn;t first) that paying Stanton..... $34MM won't seem THAT bad, relatively speaking. The salary landscape is about the be scorched.
Welcome to Houston Astros fandom! I think the biggest concern is that if he doesn't opt out after three years, the Astros would be on the hook for a lot more years and a lot more money. The kind that when his production falls off a clip, could be franchise-crippling. I personally think that it is a calculated risk to project Stanton to continue to crush baseballs, especially once he is protected in our deep lineup, that he will, in fact, opt out. That outcome means you just got a very talented player at a discount (assuming that we don't have to give up our top prospects), in his prime, to help you win it all for 3 seasons.
He may continue to be a hit machine, but his defensive range, speed and power could all decrease with age.
I am starting to think that the Astros should go after Stanton. Try and get Miami to eat as much money as possible and pray that Stanton opts out after three years.
/grain of salt One of my best friends is good friends with Stanton's buddy from HS.. his former QB (hint hint). They (my friend and Stanton's friend) were playing poker last night and word was his top two preferences are NYY or LAD (or LAA) -- someone asked about the Mets and were told no. He was also told "SF might work" I made him ask why Houston wasn't in the running after the report came out -- "He doesn't know anything about Houston. LA is his hometown and he'd like to live in NY" That doesn't mean he wouldn't accept a trade to Houston, just that he'd have to be sold on it. I can't tell you with certainty that the source and Stanton talk every day and keep up with each other, but I know they always get together when Stanton comes to California.
Stanton is a great player, but honestly I'm not sure that he is worth that much money over the long haul. Plus you are hamstringing yourself financially with being able to retain the core 4. I'd much rather lock up the core 4 and rely on our up and coming prospects to fill in the gaps for the next few seasons.
