You're right. I was addressing the other guy. However, I'm confused what your stance is when you say you never said he wouldn't pay big money for extensions, yet you then express doubt that he would in the very next paragraph. Again, based on the only opportunities he's had, he has looked to open up the wallet when needed (but not stupidly so). We shall see what happens when it is extension time.
I am not saying Crane will never spend money, but he has not shown a willingness to spend like the big boys. I don't think that it is a matter of him being cheap. I think he is leveraged out of his ass, has a lot of investors to answer to and over paid for the franchise in hind sight.[/QUOTE] I agree about not having the network deal, he obviously overpaid. (Drayton snookered Crane into thinking the TV deal was a great one.) I also agree he's leveraged to the hilt and has investors to answer too. How long will it be before the leverage issue becomes a non issue? IYO
Do we find the big boys as a top 5, 10, or 15 payroll? I don't ever expect top 5 but would hope we at least get into the top 10 in the next few years. Hopefully that comes more of a result of extending current players because they're make annual playoff runs versus buying a bunch of free agents.
^^^^ This Hopefully by the time Altuve's contract is due Crane will be out of debt with his investors and we can keep watching Springer/Altuve/Correa/Bregman etc... for years to come. Boras being the agent for most of these guys may make that impossible. If you had to let one of them leave in FA which one would you let go?
Springer because it's easier to find a bat that can play the outfield than it is in the infield, especially an up the middle defender. Still would rather all of them be like Biggio and Bagwell, just with more playoff success.
... ... 7+12 = 19. 19 > 10. So hopefully, that answers the question, "They still shed nearly $10,00,000 moving him, and what was that money spent on?" They added ~$38MM to the payroll this offseason. BTW, Doug Fister and his ho-hum $7MM salary has a 119 ERA+; Samardzija 102. And he's owed ~$80MM - guaranteed - through his age 35 season. There's more to building a team than just throwing stupid money at it.
Where does "the big boys" cut off? Because right now we are 24th out of 30 teams (bottom 20%). There is no reason they cannot be in the 7-12 range.... Which is a difference of about 50-60 million a season (Top 25%-40%). My hope is that the money being saved now is is being used to pay down the debt and eventually Crane will be in a position to pay some of the Astros long term. However as shark said, there is no proof of it at this point.
Spending huge right now on FAs, or takin on a huge contract in trade that would likely end up being bad money long term, would be incredibly stupid We should have money to add for sure, and taking on controlled players in trade would be a possibility great option But if the plan is to keep Altuve, Springer, Correa, Keuchel, Lance all together long term, that and fielding a team of MLB quality players around them will be very expensive
I'll add one more thing in addition to Hey Now and Beard on this. We all admit that the team won't be a top 5 payroll and are hoping they'll get to top 10. We also agree that the team added payroll this offseason--just not a lot long-term. Isn't that precisely the type of strategy that would enable the team to continue to lock up stars as they become free agents? Wouldn't pursuing high-dollar, long-term free agents make it infinitely harder to retain Springer, Altuve, Correa, and Keuchel if those deals are still on the books, but we know there's a budget ceiling *at some point* ? (Not to mention, how much more you'd have to spend on top of that if your high-dollar free agent is a relative bust, a la Upton, Heyward, Samardzjia, A Gordon, I Kennedy, Kazmir. Not to say they were all busts, but it's certainly not a great hit rate. And a miss would severely hamper plans to retain and/or compete.) I know you're merely saying "there's no evidence he'll add to the payroll"...but if the only evidence that qualifies is long-term large commitment, and that type of commitment may work against retaining our homegrown players..then you have a bit of a Catch 22
Until he shows that he will fork out hundreds of millions, yes I'll lean towards having some reservations (which I would have on any new owner).
I can see them settling in the $120 range in the next few years, especially once they have to start paying their own players. I think it will be surprising for them to get significantly higher than that ($140+).
The majority of the hundreds of millions of $ that it's going to take to keep the homegrown talent (guys like Altuve, Springer & Correa) isn't going to start happening until '20 (Altuve) & '21 (Springer). Keuchel, if I'm not mistaken, they have two more yrs of arbitration with him. The 'Astros will never be a top 5 in payroll. They should however have the ability to be in the 7-13 range at times. This yr the Angels are #7 with a payroll of 160 million. The Royals (yes the freakin Royals) are #13 at 137 mil. They just made the playoffs last yr. They're at # 24 in payroll this yr (89 mil). The teams below them (Reds, Oak, ATL, Mia, TB & Mil). So they have a window between this yr '16 through '19 (four yrs) where they could sign some FA (or take on payroll through trades) to try and win it all before they'll have to start ponying up crazy $. If the Royals (in that market) can get their payroll up to 137 mil there's NO reason why Crane can't reach that level in Houston (unless he's leveraged big time as others have suggested). We can go around and around on this, but until Crane shows he's willing to spend hundreds of millions on contracts I'll lean towards having doubts.
The teams you mention, like the Royals and other mid-market teams above them, have all featured organic rises in their payroll... much like how the Astros payroll will continue to rise every year between now and whenever the extensions are due to come up. The Royals didn't just go out and decide to spend on a bunch of big name free agents... but they're doing a great job extending their core. That's the expectation here as well. Teams that have tried to make the exorbitant leap from low spending to high spending in just one year (based on a flurry of overpaid signings) usually end up in a restricted position that only works out if they become instant contenders (see the Marlins after they moved into their new stadium, the Blue Jays prior to their recent surge, the 2007 Astros, this year's D'backs). They clearly have flexibility and room to move up now... but they're not going to spend just to spend. If and when a deal presents itself that is not only favorable in terms of high return on value... but also will put this team in a better position now... we should see action.
I know it's almost impossible to do mid-season, but I'm curious where the Stros rank in revenue this year. Fangraphs estimated them 8th in TV revenue before the season, Forbes has them 13th in revenue and 2nd (!?!) in operating income (I'm assuming this is for last year). They're 17th in avg attendance.
I wonder how much of this is owner-given budget constraints, and how much is simply a front office trying to find smart investments (in a league where teams don't hesitate to throw around stupid money). I don't think Crane asked Luhnow to make his "spending money like drunken sailors" comment about the Rangers. I think our analytics-driven front office will ALWAYS be averse to signing a Greinke or Price contract, and although as a fan it's fun to play the game of "what would our rotation look like if we threw a $300M contract at this guy," I also realize that it is typically not prudent to throw around those kind of players (that will more than likely see their production regress as they get older). As y'all know, Luhnow was in the front office that let Albert Pujols, the face of their franchise, walk in free agency. And it was the right move. They were also responsible for what I consider one of the few $100M+ contracts that actually worked out through the life of the contract in Matt Holiday. So in both instances, they were right. And when both decisions have $100M+ ramifications, that's kind of a big deal. There are also some developments that I think bode well for the Astros and us fans. For one, they have shown a willingness to be aggressive at times. I am referring to their surprisingly aggressive bid for Jose Abreu. It turns out that they were right about his talent, but reports indicate they finished second in the bidding. They were also in on Tanaka, but it's hard to out-sell the bright lights of New York. I'm not sure if they made it as a finalist in the bidding for him or not. We also offered Andrew Miller the most money, but you can't really blame him for picking the Yankees over us (we ironically beat him and the Yankees last year in NY to continue on into the "real" playoffs). Another trend that we just saw within the last month is the huge investments made in the international free agent pool. This is important because: we had a high draft pick (by design) for all of the Luhnow-led years before this year. This meant that we had the largest draft pool to work with, and I believe we used it effectively. We were given an inherent advantage, and we ran with it. However, picking in the middle of the pack this year, we no longer had that. What did we do to help compensate for that? This is the first year where we invested heavily in the international draft. So it seems to me that they were willing to spend a lot more money, to keep the pipeline filled with what they feel is great young talent that can eventually help the big league club. If Crane and company were truly cheap, they would not have made that extra investment in the international market like they did. They could have simply justified it by saying, "well, we spend almost every dollar (without losing future draft picks) on the draft, so we did everything we could to add talent and to keep the pipeline full." But they didn't, and they took that extra step to help compensate for not have a top 5 pick in the draft, and that rather large cash outflow on the international free agents should not be ignored.
I never suggested "spend to just spend". However the Royals got to 137 mil the point is they're at that level currently. So only time will tell if Crane is willing to let the payroll get to this level, because at some point in order to contend on a yearly basis he's more then likely going to have to.
I'd say most of the teams that do this, do it because they have some good players (usually older, but not always) with a poor future outlook (i.e. no help coming from minors soon). Owner wants to win instead of rebuild and tries to buy wins for one season. Usually, team is just too far down for extra money to get teams to playoffs. Even if a team is close enough, baseball is a fickle game and injuries, bad luck, etc can spoil a season. Owners that drastically increase the budget in one season have historically not given the GMs a second budget increase often unless the owner is old and worried about dying.
