The Astros won’t leak anything, either way. If we start hearing rumors of contract offers, it’s from them… not us.
If Bregman wants market price, they will let him go just like Spring and Correa. Only way he comes back is for a home town discount. In my opinion, he is gone and after this year so are Tucker and Framber. If we are not leading the division at the deadline, Tucker and Framber will at the very least be dangled.
Again, Bregman's FA is different from the others.... because he signed the extension that bought out FA years. The Astros have already paid him $30 million/year the last 2 years, and the Astros have paid him over $100 million dollars already. It won't be a "discount", nor is Bregman looking at this as his "only chance" to break the bank. That's where mutual interest could intersect due to the Astros not having a lot of internal options to replace him. Crane isn't trading anybody while the window is open, minus the possibility of a pitcher given their perceived depth theres (and even then, we all know how fleeting that depth is).
How do you know what Bregman wants? My guess is that the Astros will offer about 5/125 and he’ll get better offers elsewhere. We will see. If we aren’t competing next year(I believe we will be) and Crane knows he can’t afford Tucker it would be stupid not to trade him, same with Framber. I personally hope they re-sign them all, but I found it extremely doubtful.
Bregman wants to be paid for his services, but based on comparative players of his age and based on what he's already made, he's not the same type of FA as Correa or Springer were. Chapman is the floor and he had to settle for a 1 year prove it year at a similar cross-roads last year, based on what the market was. And how do you know Crane can't afford Tucker? Did you say the same when he gave market rate contracts to Altuve, Hader or JV? If you want to base that presumption on his historical decisions, he also has never traded a key player before they hit FA. Crane can do whatever he wants with his money... he already has shown he will sign whoever will help extend this window.
Crane can afford Soto. It's not about being able to afford the contract. It's whether or not he's willing to commit to 8+ years which he has specifically said in the past he won't do. Maybe he is loosening up on that philosophy. We will see.
Has he actually specifically said that? Within the golden era? He's committed to Altuve beyond 8 years. He's committed to JV for more than 7+ years, with 2 years dead money (and would continue to commit to him indefinitely if he was still pitching at a high enough level). They'll explore extending Yordan within the next few years if his health/productivity continues (as they did with Altuve/JV). Giving Hader (or any relief pitcher) 5 years is riskier than most 10 year deals, where you do automatically write off the last 2 years as dead money (as the Astros may soon find out with Altuve as he ages). The only "absolute" with Crane has been not trading players when they're trying to win... and yet everybody stands by the "no long term extension" mantra, yet still proposes thousands of trades of Tucker/Framber.
He never committed to Altuve for 8 years or Verlander for 7? I don't even understand how you can twist the facts to fit that argument. Altuve signed a 7 yr contract during spring training 2018 that lasted through 2024. He was a free agent after 7 seasons, not 8. That 7 years is the longest commitment he has made. Crane was commited to Verlander for 2+ years when he traded for him. After that he signed a 2 year deal, then a 2 yr w/ opt out, then a 2 yr + option with the Mets. At no point was Crane committed to Verlander for even 3 years. Crane has stated that long-term payroll flexibility is important to his vision of keeping the window of contention open and focuses on higher AAV shorter contracts as much as possible. He has never given a strict limit to number of years he is willing to give that I have read or heard, but there has never been an 8 year deal signed, and to my knowledge, never been one offered.
Sure he did, just not all at once. You don’t need to overthink it. And it worked out for the most part, which wouldn’t prevent him from continuing that practice if the player was amenable to it. He’s never explicitly said that he wouldn’t’ commit to a player long-term… and It’s the aggregate that matters to me. Altuve has been paid market rate since 2018. Same with JV. Yordan will be an Astro for life if he continues to produce at an MVP level. The more sound argument is that Crane (like every owner) wants to get what he pays for (which he technically is not getting from LMJ, Abreu, Montero, etc.). He wants to pay market rate only for prime years… which was consistent (smart) practice till he locked in Altuve last year to 5 more years of sub-prime performance at prime rates. I’ve seen the goal-post move from nothing longer than 5 years to 6 years, now 7 years… given that he’s now extended Altuve twice (when he didn’t’ have to), and will ultimately be paying him an inflated market rate for 12 years, one wonders how much savings/flexibility there could have been if in 2017 (during his MVP year), he just signed him to a 10 year 200 million deal. It actually works out better from an AAV standpoint if they weren’t broken up in into 3, 5 or 6 year mini-deals at prime rates (and no deferred money)…. And with contracts continuing to inflate in value, one could make the argument that locking a player to a fixed rate longer term deal earlier on would be better for his ledger. Signing Hader to a 5 year deal this off-season really didn’t provide much payroll flexibility and could be looked at as a major albatross past 2026. His stance on what it takes to stay in contention, from a payroll standpoint, has evolved (organically) over time. Has have 10+ years contracts in general across baseball, as Witt and Julio Rodriguez have shown that the best time to lock guys up to that is very very early (minus the pedo in Tampa).
If it's not all at once then it doesn't matter. At no point has Crane ever been to commited to any player for more than 7 years. What does what happened before the commitment have anything to do with it?
I call bullshit on that… unless you don’t understand these concepts well enough to discuss it in depth then. Dynamic offers are just that. If tomorrow he gives Tucker an 8 year deal, the new goalpost will be “8 years”…. Crane has continued to raise payroll and continued to offer more higher money deals, and longer deals, as the window of contention has continued, despite pre-conceived notions as to what the “limits” would be. At one point, however, I agree that it won’t be sustianable to be having a $200 million payroll for a team winning less than 90 games. Then we will see things like the new network ownership, the new naming rights deal for the stadium, the new hotel/entertainment complex, and attendance continue to be the driving forces in payroll. (With all of these future income sources likely impacting current payroll decisions… beyond just the “window” already).
The point of a commitment is to take out risk. Unless you're Trevor Bauer, no one wants short-term contracts. Jim Crane will happily pay players in the short-term, but he has no interest in committing to them long-term. If they keep performing, he'll sign them again - but those are all independent short-term commitments. I'm sure he'd happily pay Tucker or Bregman 2 or 3 years at time - but that's not making a 7 or 8 year commitment. The issue is that they don't want and have no pressing need to take those deals. We saw that with Cole, Correa, Springer, and others. Even someone like Charlie Morton who the Astros would only offer a 1-yr deal to. However many years the Astros are willing to commit to top players, someone else will offer more. The only longer-term or expensive deals the Astros have done were extensions (when there were no competing offers) or Abreu and Hader, neither of which are encouraging. So I'm not saying it's the wrong strategy at all. But saying Crane committed to JV for 7 years is silly. If JV hadn't performed in any of those years, Crane had a way out and he was gone. That's the opposite of a commitment.
But do you believe an owner who starts out with one certain strategy continues on that path no matter what? Especially when the shorter deals start to prove to cost more in aggregate than a longer term deal (along with the higher AAV penalties)? JV was never going to command a longer term deal at his age, so he’s probably a poor example. Then again, in Crane’s love-fest for him, he’s given him a 2 year max extension (only threw one pitch), another 1 year post TJ deal with an option that JV pitched his ass off to make sure he didn’t have to consider, then given up 2 more prospects for 1.5 more years of sub-par/injured him. When you look at what Crane has committed in money and years to certain players during this era, we’ve now seen him relinquish some previously held notions… hence why contract offer have gone from a 3, 5, or 6 year commitment… to the 7 year versions (or 5 years for a relief pitcher, or 5 years for an oft-injured starter, etc.). Dealing in absolutes, and saying he “won’t” do this, that or the other based on the past… while also calling for trades (which he also hasn’t done in the past), is my sticking point when it comes to predicting what he will or will not do. In practice, I do think the shorter term deals make perfect sense for pitchers and players past the age of 30. In hindsight, not giving Morton a 2 year deal was a mistake that also likely influenced future actions. And as I said in the last post, if Crane’s increasing net worth or the Astros increasing revenue streams (as the Astros overall franchise value continues to go up) are driving some of the increasing payroll decisions… along with trying to extend the window… then I would not be surprised one bit if he offered Tucker an 8+ year deal. Lastly Springer was an older call-up and they knew Correa’s medicals better than anybody (and still offered a now likely would have been a mistake 5 year deal). Locking up Bregman early, like Yordan, was a calculated decision based on potential…. And the possibility that they’d be first in line for an extension (much like they did with Altuve). In hindsight, Altuve would have been cheaper as a 10 year deal (with better AAV metrics as well). Tucker was a HS draftee and if we don’t believe he has a chronic medical condition, he is their first potential FA during this window that is unlike the others. If we’re conitnuing the “absolutes”… he won’t extend him, but he won’t trade him either. Given that Crane has changed as an owner in the last 10 years (some for the better, some for the worse), I’m not going to be surprised either way.
Signing three different three year contracts is not the same as one nine year contract. Unless you are suggesting there were under the table deals when the first contract was signed (which would violate all sorts of rules), then the longest free agent contract the Astros have signed under Crane is 5 years. Altuve had a 7 year extension and Yordan a 6 year, but neither were free agents.
The Padres trading Soto is exhibit 1 why you don't trade Tucker a year early. Rings matter more than being merely in contention.
Exactly. A series of 1 to 3 year deals is a 1 to 3 year commitment unless you are violating the CBA Les Alexander-style.
I gave up on this discussion But it's time for one of two things: 1) start offering stars longer deals in line with other teams so you have a legitimate chance to keep/get them. 2) Trade Framber AND Tucker and reload for 2026. You MUST stop playing the middle. The worse thing this team can do is sign 1 good player to a biggish contract and a few Ben Gamel type journeymen. That was fine when the system had Jeremy Pena, Yainer Diaz, and Hunter Brown, with Altuve, Yordan, Tucker, Bregman, Framber, etc still in their primes. But this team no longer has the depth of talent for a single Michael Brantley type signing to extend the wiindow open 3-4 more years.
As a fan I think those number are more than fair. Though I think Tucker knows that if he stays healthy for a whole year, he can throw his name in the hat for a 300+ million dollar contract. He was playing at an MVP level before his bone bruise injury - that cut his season by 2-3 month. Tucker doesn’t have to settle for the market value right now, because if he plays the season he can get a much richer contract; and knows that if he falters a bit, he’s still going to get the contact he’d of gotten this offseason. As for Framber, pitching is in such need around baseball, someone will overpay for a workhorse like Framber. But I would 100% agree these projections of what those two players are worth is on par to my opinion of the market.
