Carlos Correa to the Twins - 3 Years, $105 Million

Under this system the athletics and rays wouldn’t be able to field a major league club

 

Right and this is why AAV and valuation is of limited value because we just have no way to read the future.

The fact that Mike Trout has theoretically performed at a value of nearly 600 million so far is interesting but it means nothing going forward.

I agree with you though. If Justin Verlander could have slapped down a piece of paper that said he would lead the league in wins, winning percentage, era, era +, WAR for pitchers, be third in WHIP and make 30 starts…. There would be 5-6 teams that would give him 60 million for the season, and the Astros would likely be one of those teams.

 

Sure they would… the increased ceilings and floors are half based experience…. Having said that, if they really couldn’t field a team then they can move both clubs to where they are able to draw fans and be on close to an equal footing with other teams.

There needs to be a floor for ownership/fans in the MLB. While I love the history of the A’s when they had Reggie Jackson and Rollie Fingers and were awesome, and the Bash Brothers…. They should have been moved a long time ago. They play in a terrible stadium and don’t draw fans. The same is true for the Rays and Marlins. There are cities that can financially support teams if Oakland and Tampa and Miami cannot or will not.

 

I've always despised teams that cry about being little sisters of the poor in the MLB. These claims had some validity in the 80s and 90s, but with modern TV deals, there's only one team with a media base smaller than 4 million people in today's MLB, the Padres.

I hate the A's and their act. They're the 2nd team in a massive media market (Bay Area and Nor Cal) and have the audacity to cry "small market". Does anyone consider the Angels, Mets, or White Sox to be small market teams?

The A's themselves used to outdraw the Giants in attendance until the Giants' even year dynasty. They only have themselves to blame for their attendance struggles.

Even most other "Small Markets" are rather sizable when you factor in television deals. Tampa Bay has the entire northern 2/3rds of Florida (15 million+), The Reds when you factor in half of Ohio and most of Kentucky is north of 7 million, The Pirates aren't just shown in Pittsburgh, but half of PA and most of WV, north of 6 million people. The Royals not only own half of Missouri, but the entire state of Kansas as well, 7 million people in total.

The Padres, in comparison, represent no more than three million people by the most liberal estimates.

All of these owners of "small market" teams only complain because nobody is interested in watching their games because they refused to spend money when their teams were good. These organizations deserve no sympathy.

 

Big Contracts RARELY pay off. They are generated over CC years and production and availability almost always decline quickly.

 

While we're at it. let's outlaw all Government financed stadiums for Billionaires. At least until they have no other problems serving their citizens.

 

I applaud out of the box thinking, though Pena's value is greatly diminished anywhere other than at Shortstop. CC to 3B because of his arm and Bregman at 1B leaving Pena at SS and Altuve at 2B makes a better IF with those players.
Now I can't find a single MLB game where Bregman played 1B and it's doubtful he did in the lower levels. But that's because his D has always been worth more at other positions. But there is no reason his skill set wouldn't make him a great 1B. Maybe a little private tutoring from Bagwell while making the transition.

Maldy Manager and Yuli as his second or visa versa to retain the institutional knowledge solves 3 problems.

 

So is this a good thing or bad thing in your opinion?

Side note about editing - I make many corrections to my posts after I can see them better with the white on black background which I miss with the grey background on the original post and edit screens. Is there a fix?

 

It is true that long contracts are almost always bad, and downright terrible at the backend. Max Scherzer is a rare one that paid off. The ones that work out fine are usually extensions that cover prime years (like Altuve's and Bregman's).

I really wish that were possible. One of the downsides to local governments is teams can not only threaten complete relocation, but sometimes short trips down the road. The Braves abandoned Turner Field after only 20 years after getting Cobb County threw big dollars towards it. And don't get me wrong, Truist Park is beautiful, and Battery Park is a great area, but that should never happen. If a government is going to fund a ballpark, teams need to be in 50 year commitments.

 

This is not true, multiple players defended Altuve.

You can say the same about Gurriel, just look at his numbers in the W.S. but for some reason everyone wants to get rid of him, and he is far cheaper.

 

And this is why everyone thinks you're an idiot, you would have no sustainable plan because you don't know who you would have on your team, and you could not budget for future years.

 

No one defended Altuve like Correa. Why are you bringing up Gurriel? My appreciation for Correa’s time in Houston does not diminish my appreciation for Gurriel’s past hits and defense.

 

Players would never go for this because they have little security and players numbers can vary widely from year to year.

Only a select few players would turn down a 25+ million guaranteed for several years just to keep getting a bite at the apple and hoping they continue to maintain the numbers needed to get the next big deal.

You would also have guys looking more to the next contract instead of the team,

It's all about the guarantee to most of these guys, the agents and the unions would not be in favor.

 

Yes they did Correa got all the pub because he was higher profile.

I brought up Gurriel because he had some huge hits in that series and had a higher slugging percentage and a comparable ops yet it's Correa that gets all the love.

This is not about you, it's just the worshiping at the altar of Correa that I push back against.

Do you really think other guys were not defending Altuve at the same rate?

Do you think they were scared or something?

 

Correa is still good. Those of that love Correa saw him as the vocal leader of the greatest stretch in Astros history. I really felt the team missed Springer's energy last year (I think we win the WS if we brought him back), but Correa was the other guy that really felt like he brought energy to the team. A little more forced it seemed from Correa, while George was all natural in that regard, but now we have neither.

LMJ has that energy. No question JV brings that competitive fire. But Altuve, Tucker, & Alvarez are 3 quiet unassuming stars for the most part. Bregman brings that swagger, but until recently that bat was just not carrying the thump to go with it.

I'd have never given Correa the contract he wanted, but would have given him what he got all day every day. I was in favor of giving him a big extension with an opt out. I don't remember exactly, but like 7 years for $210, with it front loaded and an opt-out after 3 years. Pretty much giving him what he got with the Twins, but trying to guarantee we had him for those 3 years while giving him a much bigger safety net if he got hurt or lost the ability to play at his level.

 

I don't disagree with any of this, and I do think we miss a guy like Springer more than Correa because he had that natural swagger and enthusiasm.

I would have loved to get him back, but I think we might have seen the best of him, and I am disappointed that he never really turned into the MVP type guy we were sold on, if he had not cranked up his defense I would have been really disappointed.

 

Like I care what others think. BTW, this wasn't my plan this was 3 time World Series winner and owner of the Oakland A's plan. Charles O. Finley. You would know this if you took the time to read or had the ability to think outside the box. On the same note what did you think of Nook's plan? I liked it, but I bet you think he's an idiot too, even though you don't have the guts to type a post about it, like you did mine.

 

In hindsight they actually probably should have given Springer his $150M (assuming he would have taken the same amount to sign with Houston that he got from Toronto). My opinion is that he has been missed more than Correa (and his cost is much lower).

I was fine with letting Springer walk because I had confidence that the Astros would find a CF but it hasn’t worked out that way. That may just be because Meyers hasn’t been healthy and he may end up being a stud starting now, in which case it will just be bad luck that he wasn’t good this year due to injury, a risk Springer certainly also carries.

 

That's not the plan the A's used to win any of those World series, they have not won a WS since they have gone to that "plan".

I already responded to Nook, right after I responded to you.

Why would I not post a response to Nook?

I called you an idiot because of the totality of what you post not this one thing in particular, Nook does not have a history of idiocy even though I think his plan is a bit idiotic as well.

I say some idiotic stuff as well, so no harm being called out from time to time.

 

Long contracts must be looked at over the entire length of the deal.

It is true that many are not worth it to the teams but under the right perspective, the teams gets fair return.

These players frequently outperform the deal early but decline at the end. Over the entire contract they are fine but fans quickly forget the excess value from early in the deal and only see an old player with a huge contract playing terribly at the end.

Let's also not forget that star players HUGELY outperform their earnings before free agency.

I'm not advocating the Astros sign bad contracts but making up for under paying players their first 6 years should be considered.

For example: Correa made just over $27M in just over 6 1/2 years as an Astros and achieved 34.1 bWAR.

Let's say a player should produce 1 WAR for every $7M they are paid. (5.0 WAR average for a $35M AAV deal). I think that's a good balance between what owner and player would expect.

Let's say Jim Crane extended him 10 years and $350M but Correa only averages 3.0 WAR per season.

- 2021 earned $170.5M paid $27M +$143.5M

Each year he will get paid $14 more than he earns

During the 10 yr deal, Correa earns $210M but is paid $350M.

But during his Astros career, he earns $380.5M and is paid $377M.

So big picture, Jim Crane did not lose money.

I'm not advocating this. I'm merely giving a legitimate reason why some owner might and it's not terrible to do from his perspective.

At some point Players deserve to receive payback for playing 6 years for pennies on the dollar.