Really expected Springer to win the award. I would say that winning that award means more pressure to produce so maybe it's a blessing in some small way. Only time will tell. Hopefully Springer becomes a star with the 'Stros as many of our top hitting prospects have wound up amounting to nothing.
Apologies for necromancing <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Why won’t <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Astros&src=hash">#Astros</a> bring George Springer to the majors when they offered him $23M last September? Story: <a href="http://t.co/uv2GLSURQV">http://t.co/uv2GLSURQV</a> *</p>— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) <a href="https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/statuses/446443642929291264">March 20, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Well Springer certainly hasn't forced the Astros hand this spring with his performance. I don't think there has ever been a lot of doubt that the reason he hasn't come to the majors now is for financial/service time reasons. It's a game played by both sides though, Springer could be in the big leagues and guaranteed big money right now but he has chosen to let it play out. I do like to see the confidence he seems to have, cause it can't be easy to turn down that kind of cash. Knowing he turned it down though, I don't blame the Astros for keeping him on the farm a little longer now . . . . As a fan, I just hope he "earns" more money than he was offered
Excellent response. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>George Springer on <a href="https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal">@Ken_Rosenthal</a> report of contract offer: “Im not going to talk about that. Im playing baseball, trying to help them win”</p>— Evan Drellich (@EvanDrellich) <a href="https://twitter.com/EvanDrellich/statuses/446452076416368640">March 20, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Agreed... and Springer has a good agent. With the way salaries are going, he's primed to make almost double that amount in his arbitration years alone. Unfortunately, if the Astros aren't "contending", he likely becomes a prime trade candidate during those very same arbitration years.
To play devil's advocate, that $23m is based solely on future performance, not current performance. It's their projection of his 3 arb years plus one FA year. Springer could hit 40hr or 4hr in his first big league season and he'd make ~500k either way. That contract offer in and of itself is not an indicator of readiness. You could offer Correa 9 years, $30mil now and it wouldn't be a bad deal for the Astros. Doesn't mean Correa is ready either. I think it's a stupid, anti-Astros premise for an article.
Completely agree As I said early, I hope he completely out earns that offer But with the K concerns, there is certainly no guarantee that he does, although his floor does seem to be relatively high with his overall athleticism
More like $21.5m for 4 years. Almost every big leaguer makes near minimum their first three seasons. Only all-star/highly productive players end up making that amount during 3 years of arbitration. Getting that FA year included is the cost of getting guaranteed money upfront for Springer. If Springer were anything less than an above-average regular, the stros lose money not going to year-to-year. That being said if Springer went year-to-year and hit his ceiling those 4 years could be worth $40+ million.
The 23M is what the Astros would "like" to pay him for the next 7 years... and if his performance exceeds that contract, the Astros save money. I actually thought it was presented pretty evenly... as the strategy clearly has the Astros trying to avoid the big arbitration raises that will come if Springer does well in ANY of his pre-arbirtration years. If he has the year you just described... unless he falls off a cliff.. he'll be making $10-12 million/year in his arbitration years alone. The Astros have the right to do that (along with stash him for whatever reason they spin to the fans besides it being "financial"), just as Springer has every reason to rather play it year by year. Hell, Trout is getting $1 million before any arbitration year... and could get $15-20 million/year in arbitration BEFORE he even gets to his big free agency contract. There's no way he's going to agree to a 5 or 6 year deal now that lessens his projected earning potential based on his current production. The teams are always going to be slaves to the players and the MLBPA... and are going to use whatever tactics they can to try to spend less.
At his current rate, he's going to get $20 million/year once he gets to arbitration... thus, the Angels are probably going to need to come up with some sort of long-term deal like the Astros were trying to do with Springer, or risk having to be forced to spend much more for the life of his club controlled years.
MLB really does have, IMO, the most messed up system in terms of paying players what they're worth, despite having no salary cap. Basically MLB is all about waiting out and making sure you can play well by the age of 30. If you don't flame out by then, you are set. You can be a mediocre pitcher and get $10mil/yr. You can be a fringe starting RF and get like $5mil. It's a ludicrous market where the best players don't get paid because the prime of their career is under team control or arbitration. But guys towards the of their prime or even past their prime get paid because they are the select few available on the market.
Players (even the young ones earning nothing) are most definitely NOT complaining. If anything, the owners/teams always get screwed. Because of the lack of a cap, a great young player will eventually get paid as much (if not more) than he's worth, determined by an independent arbiter, and the team HAS to pay it... regardless of their financial situation or overall team makeup (i.e. - teams "rebuilding"). But yes, agreed that you're getting the most production/value out of a player during their club controlled years only... and beyond that, a player is likely always "overpaid" relative to the amount of elite years they have left.
Unless I'm mistaken, the MLB players union is made up of only big leaguers. Meaning minor league players don't make up the union despite the fact that teams generally control them for the first 3-5+ years of their career there. This is the same reason why NBAPU never complained when the owners kept making the rookie contracts so ridiculously cheap. You're missing the point. If a team wants to spend money, what kind of players can they get? The answer is simple. They can sign FAs. Who are FAs? Players that have gone through years in the minors and then 6 years as a major leaguer. If that's your pool of available talent, how could they NOT be overpaid relative to those who are in the minors, making minimums, or only eligible for arbitration?
Those same players not complaining have agents who have told them what they'll be getting eventually, based on a CBA that the MLBPA gets in their favor nearly every single time. Don't really understand what you're complaining about. Yes, free agents almost never live up to their entire contracts. Doesn't mean they're "useless" players or over the hill when they sign. Pujols did very well throughout his first free agent deal. Same with Berkman. Cabrerra seems to be holding his own. Sure, A-rod probably wasn't worth it... But it didn't stop him from getting a huge extension after his first big deal. Additionally, teams that "spend" don't just do so in free agency. They draft more expensive players. They add more payroll at the deadlines. They don't fret about arbitration raises when deciding promotions. They spend more internationally. In the end, you need to do both...develop the good young cheap players, and sign the expensive ones to fill areas of need that they are proven to fill well.
I doubt that's the number they'd 'like' to pay Springer. Based on what I know of the Astros front office and decision science department, that number is most likely actuarially based. I'd imagine the figure incorporates his ceiling, his past performance, his risk and other precedent cases. It's very unlikely Springer provides value equal to that contract offer; I think he either exceeds or shorts the value. You can look at it either way: a) Astros are cheap and are trying to void large salary raises b) Astros are assuming x amount of risk and factored that into the number. I say the article is anti-Astro in the sense that they are clearly not giving the Astros the benefit of the doubt with their decision-making. Its the same 'cheap, cheap, cheap' cries that the media has been harping all off-season. TB didn't get that kind of grief with the Longoria deal. Anaheim giving Trout $1m this year is nothing but preemptive butt kissing. They could pay him 500k again this year if they wanted. Trout's not a good comparison either; he's had a historic start to his career.
Anti-Astro article? Oh, this guy goes all-out on the anti-Astro trail... The Astros are playing dirty pool with a top prospect Matthew Pouliot Mar 19, 2014, 10:04 PM EDT We know this is how it works. Phenoms get fewer September callups than they used to, and they rarely debut on Opening Day. Instead, it’s June that’s become the popular time for debuts, all in the name of delaying arbitration and free agency eligibility. On the one hand, it kind of sucks: much of the fun in each new season comes from watching players burst on to the scene. On the other, it’s really hard to blame teams for playing in this way when the rewards are so obvious. Sometimes, though, it’s a lot easier to blame teams. Take the Houston Astros and center fielder George Springer. Springer, the 11th overall pick in the 2011 draft out of the University of Connecticut, hit .302/.383/.526 with 24 homers and 32 steals in his first full pro season in 2012, with the big caveats that he struck out 156 times in 581 plate appearances and 80 percent of his season was spent at Single-A Lancaster, annually one of or the most explosive environments for offense in the minors. So, there was still some reason for skepticism last year. Springer, though, answered all doubters in hitting .297/.399/.579 in 73 games in Double-A and then .311/.425/.626 in 62 games in Triple-A. In all, he hit 37 homers, drove in 108 runs and swiped 45 bases in 53 attempts. He was the first 30 HR-30 SB player in the minors since Oakland’s Grant Desme in 2009. He did strike out 161 times in 589 plate appearances, so he’s not exactly the perfect prospect. But it was the kind of performance that certainly should have earned him a major league audition. Except, of course, he never got one. While Springer was dominating the PCL, the Astros were going 51-111 and posting the worst record in baseball for the third straight season. Their center fielders ended up hitting .218/.270/.314 with eight homers on the season. The were successful on just 10 of 24 steal attempts. They struck out 187 times. And it’s not like the team had much going on in left field or right field, either. Springer, though, was denied a September callup as Brandon Barnes and Trevor Crowe (both now departed) finished up the season in center. GM Jeff Luhnow lied through his teeth in November, saying Springer wasn’t called up because of 40-man roster issues. In the offseason, the Astros acquired Dexter Fowler to play center. The official word entering this spring was that Springer could still win a job. However, everyone knew that was exceedingly unlikely. The plan all along has been to keep in the minors until June, delaying his free agency for a year. Now, all of this is pretty typical. It’s no secret what the Astros were doing, and we’re all kind of used to this kind of thing. Personally, I had more of a problem with it than the typical delayed callup for two reasons. First, because Springer was simply so outstanding in the minors last season that he obviously earned his promotion; there would have been absolutely no question about it if not for the service time issues. Second, Springer turned 24 last September. It’s one thing to play this game with 20- and 21-year-olds. Springer, though, wouldn’t have been eligible for free agency for the first time until age 30 even had the Astros called him up in September. Now he won’t get to choose his own path until age 31. Still, that’s the way it’s done. So, even though the thought crossed my mind and my twitter feed a few times, I never did voice my displeasure on the blog. At least not until FOXSports.com’s Ken Rosenthal dropped a bombshell on Wednesday. Sources told Rosenthal that the Astros offered Springer a seven-year, $23 million contract last September. The obvious, obvious implication being “you sign this and we’ll give you your callup.” After all, once the Astros have Springer signed to the bargain deal, there’s no longer any reason to play games with his service time. This isn’t the first time something like this has happened. In 2008, Evan Longoria was sent down by the Rays prior to Opening Day, even though it seemed obvious that he was the team’s best option at third base. Just a couple of weeks later, though, on April 12, he got a surprise callup. Six days later, his six-year, $17.5 million contract with the Rays was officially announced. Unofficially, agreeing to the deal meant he got to spend the rest of the season in the majors. It made him pretty much the biggest bargain in baseball until Mike Trout came along Springer wasn’t interested in playing ball with the Astros, even though it would have gotten him to the majors three months earlier. And it was absolutely the right call, given that the Astros not only wanted him to give up all three arbitration years but also a year of free agency. Jacoby Ellsbury is about to make $21 million this year in his seventh big-league season. The Astros wanted to pay Springer barely more than that for seven seasons combined. Even though it’s $23 million guaranteed for a player who hasn’t set foot in the majors yet, it simply wasn’t a competitive offer. I might even consider it extortion. Thankfully, Rosenthal is taking the Astros to task over this, wondering how Springer is worth $23 million but not a spot on Houston’s still lackluster roster. The Astros declined to comment. I’m not going to be as polite about it as Rosenthal (I rarely am). What the Astros are doing here is shameful. I know there are a lot of good people in that organization. They’ve hired a number of stathead favorites and other people I respect. And they’re certainly doing a lot of things right to turn their organization around. But they’re doing this very, very wrong. If nothing else, they’re sending a terrible message to the rest of their prospects. Why should Carlos Correa and Mark Appel bother trying their hardest this year if they feel the Astros won’t promote them before June 2015 anyway? And Springer certainly deserves better. It’s possible he’ll come up in June and struggle, and the team will start talking about how he wasn’t ready previously. And maybe he wasn’t. Maybe he isn’t. Heck, maybe he’ll be a bust and it’ll turn out that the Astros needlessly delayed a useless player’s free agency. Springer, though, earned his opportunity. And he would have gotten it, if only he’d been willing to sellout. Good for him that he wasn’t. Shame on Luhnow and company for putting him in that position.
He's not gonna make $30-36m during his arb years based on one good pre-arb season. He'd need a bigger body of work and more importantly a dominant platform year to come close to that. AND he'd have to go year-to year every year which rarely happens. Here are three reasonable ceiling comparisons and their 3 arb year salary totals: Jason Heyward: $16m Andrew Mccutchen: $21.75m Hunter Pence: $20.8m All three signed multi-year deals that over-lapped their arb years but my point is that the average three-year total is considerably less than $30-36m. He's not getting Mike Trout or Ryan Howard ($44m/3) money.
Ugh, that's the height of anti-Astro bandwagoning. All inflammatory bluster but doesn't add anything to Rosenthal's article.
