Half a billion would exceed the largest contract in history by $175M. That would be more than 50% increase. Nearly every $200M contract has worked out poorly in MLB.
Nearly every $200 million contract has been signed by a player either past prime, or by a team that couldn't afford to build much around him. The more I look at it, this is likely the best run of years this core could ever possibly ask for... and hanging on to only some of them for a high price 4-5 years down the line in no way guarantees staying in contention. There is sentimental reasons for making some of them Astros-lifers... but in no way should anybody expect to see them improve exponentially (and thus the team improve) past their first arbitration year contract. Not to say I'm against attempting to achieve extensions (and if they're going to do those, do it sooner... and only buy into 2-3 years of their impending FA time)... but a go for it all mentality now, while all the players are still cheap, and then see where the chips lie when its time to re-up could still reap huge rewards. What if, by essentially becoming the GSW of basketball, they turn into one of the most popular/profitable franchises? What if they're flush enough with cash 2-3 years from now, that they could afford more than they thought they could? None of this has to be decided this off-season...
Yup... and do you disagree that the likely cost of wrapping up Altuve and Correa together would approach close to 500 million dollars? That doesn’t include the hundred plus million for Springer. The reality is the Astros are not keeping both Altuve and Correa. There is a real possibility that Springer gets an offer of 120-130 million and he is gone too. Ultimately the reality may be that the Astros ride this group hard the next 3-4 years, spend money on pieces like Britton and bats to maximize the window. In 4-5 years the Astros could reevaluate and either go scorched earth or a soft rebuild.
You are not thinking fourth-dimensionally. When (if) Altuve and Correa are free agents, Harper will have signed for a boat load. Stanton signed for $325 and he wasn't a free agent. He had a couple of years of arbitration left IIRC. I'm guessing he would have signed for about $345 MM+ if he was a free agent. There have not been good young players reach free agency in a while as they have been signing away free agent years in/before arbitration. On the nearly every $200 MM contract working out poorly, it looks like about 1/3 have worked out/will work out. That said, a lot of them were flat out stupid signings of 32 and up players. Altuve won't get $500 MM. With inflation and Correa following current career trajectory, I'd guess he's in the $400 MM range with an outside shot at $500 MM if he starts getting more balls in the air.
Going “scorched earth” a few years from now wouldn’t be as bad as it was the first time. They’d have a MUCH better farm and way more tradeable major league assets. Let’s say they go all-in until 2020. Hypothetically they extend Altuve but all the other stars depart via free agency. Here’s how that team would look: Long term assets to build around: Altuve Bregman Fisher K Tucker Alvarez Reed Moran Whitley Bukauskas Martes Paulino Musgrove Tradable assets: Correa Devenski McCullers Peacock Giles 3 Draft picks received for QO free agents: Springer Verlander Keuchel So you’ve likely got 4 Star players (Altuve, Bregman, Tucker, Whitley), 2-3 other good SP, and 2-3 other good hitters. You’d also have a farm stacked with 3 addl 2nd rounders and a bevy of prospects that they could get for Correa, McCullers, and others. Not to mention that in this scenario, Altuve would be the only significant contract on the books, so there’d be a ton of money to go out and fill in any holes. I think the tank period would consist of maybe 1-2 really bad years, followed by 1 mediocre year. And fans would have faith since they’ve seen it all work once before.
Combined? Yes, I thought you meant individually. Disagree that they won't keep both. Ultimately depends on what the players want, but I expect the team to try and retain both. Obviously we won't keep together everybody, but the team can afford to pay 2 horses. It is just a matter of which horses take the money. Stanton wasn't a FA, but if he was he would have been older and not received the same 13 year deal.
Astros traded Laureano to the As for Brandon Bailey and added Cionel Perez and Dean Deetz to the 40 man. http://www.chron.com/sports/astros/...ielder-Ramon-Laureano-to-Oakland-12372642.php
Bay Area is a huge market... the Giants are 3 years removed from winning a WS, and have the payroll flexibility to build around him... the Giants have a huge following, and are up there on the historical/obnoxious fan base radars. So yes.... its better than Miami.
Can the Astros afford to sign both Correa and Altuve? Well I think that we are discussing north of $500,000,000 combined which is an enormous amount of money. The money would be split out over a 10-12 year span (with Altuve getting paid sooner and ending sooner), which comes to basically $50,000,000 a season. So that opens up a host of issues. The first being will they be able to sign both even if they are willing to invest over 50 million every year for a decade? Will Correa want to resign? Will he get an offer from NY or BOS or CHI that he prefers? The second issue, is does the front office and owner think it is wise to have such a large amount of money tied up in only two players? The third issue is health and performance, are the Astros willing to take the risk that one or both could get hurt badly or decline and lock the organization into a long term financial hole? The fourth question, is if the Astros keep Correa and Altuve..... and lose Springer and Kuechel and others; will they be able to field a team good enough to consistently compete? That puts a lot of pressure on the farm system to fill holes and limits the Astros free agent spending. My "guess" is the Astros try very hard to resign Altuve because he will extend the window until Correa is a free agent.
Supposedly he has a strong preference for the West Coast. Also the Giants have a history of winning. I would be concerned that group is aging but they have a good track record.
Better than Miami, sure. But WS contender? Not for several years. And only then if several things go right. Not all rebuilds lead to a WS 3-4 years later. It will interesting in the years to come to follow the success (or lack of) of those teams that tear it down.
If he wants to spend the prime of his career with a rebuilding club, that is certainly his choice. But its a big gamble that said club will rebound to WS contention.
On $50 MM a season, Astros should be willing to spend that on Altuve and Correa as they are spending $45 MM on Verlander, Reddick, and Gurriel now. Correa is so young. If he is healthy and improves to the 6+ WAR player as expected, he may be close $35-40 MM AAV over a lot of years on the open market by himself. Correa is going to be hard to keep at a rate that Astros deem a financially good decision. On the 4th question, if the Astros hoard prospects, they should be fine.
