I really don't think Altuve is going anywhere, I would be shocked. Springer I'm not sure, Correa feels like a foregone conclusion, but we're keeping Altuve.
I guess we will have to see what the prevailing thinking is in two years on paying guys big in their declining years. We saw some of that this past FA off-season. Certainly, if Altuve keeps having 200 hit seasons, someone will regardless. But if he regresses a bit, its not a sure bet, at least for the Astros.
So by that mindset, as a fan, wouldn't you root for them to get something done now? Even if it costs them an exorbitant amount now? I don't want them to be paying a past prime Altuve 30+ million dollars a year... and judging from your viewpoint on this matter, that's apparently what it will cost them. I would much rather pay him more now... while he's actually worth it. I know the mindset is that they should only pay him now if they get a discount... I'm of the opposite viewpoint. When I pay for something, I want to make sure i'm actually getting what I pay for. Altuve right now is worth 30+ million a year. I'd increase that amount/year if it got me more prime years, but didn't obligate me to past prime years. But it sounds like you don't agree they should pay him more now... but you do agree they should/could pay him a ton for past prime years... and that seems backwards/contradictory.
I would love to sign Altuve long term. However, I don't want a contract that gets into his mid to late 30s. His game relies a lot on speed. 18% of Altuve's hits in his career are infield or bunt hits. Altuve has played in 7 seasons in the majors. In Robinson Cano's first 7 seasons infield hits accounted for 7% of his hits. That number has stayed true for Cano's entire career. No way Altuve can maintain 18% infield/bunt hits into his mid 30s. Speed goes first. In 7 seasons Altuve's OPS was over 850 only 2 times (his last 2 seasons). Robinson Cano had 4 seasons with an OPS over 850 in his first 7 years. I see no reason to jump the gun and sign Altuve for mega money after his best season when you control him cheap for 2 more seasons. In Altuve's MVP season, infield/bunt hits accounted for 20.5% of his total hits. If Altuve loses his speed and goes down to Cano's level of 7% infield/bunt hits, but had all the other stats the same as last year he would have had these stats.... 298 average, .368 OBP , and 868 OPS. The closest players I could find in MLB last year with stats similar to those hypothetical numbers..... Josh Reddick with 314 average, .363 OBP, and 847 OPS Marwin Gonzalez 303 average, 377 OBP 907 OPS Those are good players.... but nobody will be clamoring to pay those guys 30 million a year. . I would want to see if Altuve can maintain his MVP level play the next 2 seasons. If he falls back to earth some to where he was 2-3 years ago and then loses his speed and infield/bunt hits he will not be worth anywhere near the money we are talking about. .
You may not *want* to pay him 30 million when he's in his mid 30s, but unless he has a drop in performance somebody most certainly will. Any prime years Altuve gives away will make teams less willing to give those danger years. Altuves camp isn't gonna punt on those 34-36 years to get more in the front end.
Don’t really have hard facts to back this up but I feel like if any of them would take a hometown discount it would be Springer, especially if Altuve signs a long term deal. TBH based on what they each will get paid I could also see him ending up being the best value. Edit: Also agree with you on Altuve and I think the majority of fans would be disappointed if they let him walk. This man was part of the dark times and kept busting his butt which is why he’s now one of the best players in the game. Something has to be said about loyalty and the fact he brought us our first championship. Not to mention the fact that his current contract may go down as one of the biggest bargains of all time and not once have you heard him complain...and yes I get that “he signed the contract, blah blah”. Unless it’s a completely unreasonable contract I’d be heart broken if he’s not an Astro for life...I can deal with Correa leaving and I fully expect that to happen.
The only argument I have against the infield hits/speed point you made, which I believe to be totally valid, is that the guy is such a great hitter and has consistently adjusted throughout recent years (I.e hitting for more power, taking more walks, etc). I just believe he’ll adjust as time goes on if needed. Not to mention if you took away half his IF hits last year he still would have hit for a .312 average...
I think I’m with you here, not to mention getting something done early helps manage the budget going forward as we don’t have to continually wonder/worry if we’ll get something done. Also, worse case scenario if we do the deal now as you suggest and the contract doesn’t extend into the 33-34 age range, it’s likely that worst case scenario we could always trade him as he likely would still have value and could net us something in return. On the flip side if we overpay for the years past his prime we are stuck with him or having to pay a large portion of the salary.
Next year, we ought to see Altuve surpass Jose Cruz for third place on the franchise stolen base leader board. If he gets signed up long-term, who knows, he may catch Biggio.
Hence why you’d have to really overpay now to entice his camp. There’s a lot of contradictory viewpoints here for people looking at things from both sides: —Astros should only try to extend him now if they get a discount. —Altuve would rather wait another two years and then sign a contract that includes years that he will be overpaid for past performance. —Astros are going to have to overpay for past prime years if they want to keep him. Again, if the only way the Astros are going to keep him is to overpay... i’d rather they do it now when he’s definitely worth it (and when there’s more possible payroll flexibility with almost everybody else still being very affordable). This is also a microcosm of the broken system that we all highlighted this off-season that was possibly moving towards correction. Teams may not be as willing to pay for past performance as they once were.
I think Robinson Cano is a near perfect comp in terms of age and value. Cano got 240/10, teams are clearly not gonna give out those contracts that run until 40 anymore, they've wised up. But I find it very hard to believe that an elite player on the open market won't command a contract that runs through 37/38, that all of these teams will be that restrained. If Altuve holds out until FA, he will turn 37 in his 8th season. At 25 million per at least that's 200 million, on top of the 12 million he's gonna make this year. TLDR, I don't think Altuve signs anything that doesn't guarantee him 200 million at least.
Luhnow: Altuve, we'll give you 127.5 million dollars to sign a three year extension. Boras: Altuve, I can get you 200 million on open market in 2 years. Altuve: Luhnow, 200 million is more than 127.5 million. So I'll wait until free agency. Luhnow: We don't want to pay for past your prime. We want to get your best years even if it will make it harder for you to get a fair contract after your peak. Altuve: Well, in that case...I'll take the 127.5 million. I don't think it will go down like this. I wrote my post at the same time as this. Interesting that you used $200 million as well.
If he wants a deal that takes him through age 35-38, then he's not going to be stupid enough to take the Astros' extension offer - this goes to why Altuve wouldn't be interested in this deal. Looked at another way, you're basically committing $40MM/yr of the 2020-2022 payroll to Altuve. That's 20-25% of the annual payroll you're committing NOW for a roster that we have no idea what it will look like. Given the almost certain losses of Keuchel and Verlander, along with the uncertain health of McCullers, the pitching staff today is a bigger questionmark than the offense. Why would I, as the Astros, want to lock up that much of my payroll at sky-high prices for a player that may not even be my top priority? At best, I'd be getting market-value. At worst, if Altuve regresses, I'm getting sub-par value. So I'm basically killing my payroll flexibility while also getting a contract with 0% chance of excess value. That's why the Astros wouldn't be interested. Win-win isn't determined after the fact. It's determined at the time of the signing - both sides know they are giving up value to get something else of value. With any of those deals, someone will always come out ahead - the player does better or worse than expected. The point is, at the time, the Astros got low-risk deals that didn't harm them if they didn't work out (Singleton) and paid off huge if they did (Altuve). The players got a lifetime of security at a time when they weren't sure if they made it long-term in MLB. Singleton is set for life, and Altuve still gets to collect as a mega-free-agent in his prime. They both were absolute win-wins for both parties. This is a scenario were both parties lose. Astros can't get any excess value and lose a ton of their payroll flexibility. Altuve loses any chance to cash in on the prime-free-agent deal that the last deal was designed to give him.
Your point becomes even more magnified if/when we try to keep Correa as well. And if we go after one of Springer or Bregman, there might not be any at all left for 1st tier TOR starting pitching. How many 35-40M/year guys can the club afford? Two? And their both going to be position players? Lets go another route. If every guy on the club now made what he was due, who would we have to let go? After that, do we still look like a WS competitor? I know, lots of questions, few answers. I am going to try to avoid getting too caught up in the future. It looks like a bleak task to sustain the talent level we now have. From where we sit right now, its seems almost inevitable that another rebuild is in our future. 5 years? 7? I dont know. So I say, push in our chips now. Win now and sort the future out later. The one caveat being, dont empty the farm.
Astros are currently spending about $90 million on free agents. So, two if you want a team composed almost entirely of cost controlled players. At those prices, Astros would likely want them both to be position players. Astros are unsustainable at free agent prices, and Astros would have to do a complete tear down. As Astros would have to trade everyone, they would not be a WS competitor. If Astros have three position players under cost control that are 3-WAR or better, Astros should be able to field at least a wild card contender most years. Earliest rebuild should be needed is 4 years, but really depends on Tucker.
But yet you still criticized the possibility of the Astros offering him 42 million/year now, even though you know it makes more sense to be paying for something of prime value, vs. past performance. Again, its still a contradictory viewpoint. I'd venture to say most here are naturally pessimistic about the Astros signing anybody long term... or committing excessive money/year... which kinda goes to the minor league mindset that pervaded the forums for awhile. In the end, they're never going to have a team as uniquely constructed as this one for possibly another generation. That being said, I'd rather they continue to try and extend guys while they have exclusive rights, even if it costs them a whole lot more up front (to optimize prime year control).
