Jon Singleton up! Agrees to 8-year, $35 million deal.

He's not underpaid until later, during what would have been arbitration years, assuming he lives up to his potential.

And he is a highly touted prospect.

This isn't that complicated.

 

The Astros really just bought out his arbitration years. If he excels in years 3-5 those options years won't matter because the Astros will likely try to sign him to an extension to save money.

 

Along with a free agency year.

If he's excelling, why would he sign (another) cheaper extension?

It also has a lot to do on where the team is. If they're not winning, or pretty much max out their abilities with this nucleus, they would likely trade him before his free agency years.

 

I'm pretty sure there's no one here who believe the Astros screwed up. Given Singleton's prospect status(especially if you throw out 2013), he's almost certain to be worth $10mil over the next 5 years. The rest are options.

 

also if he's average and only worth $20 mil, the Astros won't exercise the options.

 

Well, go back and read all the posts, cause it's there

Fwiw, I agree with you that it's a good deal for Astros

 

Why did Evan Longoria?

 

They certainly didn't screw up because he signed.

However, this could induce a CBA change to prevent using these contracts as "ultimatums" for a call-up... which would likely impact how they deal with their future talent.

 

Of course not, and Singleton will have made more money than he would have otherwise, and he'll be a free agent rather than under team control.

 

He liked his situation... but he certainly could have gotten "more" had he not signed (and he would have been overpaid).

Singleton may not care about ever breaking the bank... but it still doesn't mean he would be "expected" to sign for less.

 

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to boozle222 again"

 

You're right - it's not. You keep making a claim that he's likely underpaid if he turns out to be even average, yet you can't point to any player in the major leagues that got paid that much by being average. You even pointed to two above-average guys that you thought got paid boatloads more. It turned out they didn't, and instead of saying "hmm, maybe players aren't getting paid as much as I thought they were", you just ignored it and continue to make an argument that has no supporting evidence. You even provided the counter-evidence yourself and it didn't phase you.

This contract wasn't an ultimatum for a callup. He was going to be called up after the Super-2 deadline anyway - so it got him up all of about 2 weeks earlier than otherwise. Springer was also offered the deal, rejected it, and was called up 2 weeks later as well. It's simply a decision for players whether they want to lock in less life-changing money or ride it out.

 

The last few pages of this thread are just painfully stupidly mindnumbingly unhappy to read.

Yall carry on, now.

 

We don't know that he would have been called up for sure after the super 2. With the way they had Springer wait, it could have dragged on to next April/may as well.

All we know is that part of the "allure" of these deals is that it guarantees a callup right away, vs a total unknown time period for callup if they don't sign it. Springer would have been up here last year with a contract signing (and while we know he rejected it in September, we don't know when initial offers/discussions were made)... He rejects the deal, and magically needs to spend more time in the minors this year working on RF.

Additionally, if you think it's just about the money for the player, why would they not wait the two weeks, or month after he starts, ensure he adjusts appropriately without his old vices creeping up, and then get him to sign the deal after a little while?

They have the most negotiating leverage BEFORE the player is called up. Also, the call up is not just about playing baseball at the next level. It's a whole new way of life... First class accomodations everywhere, chartering planes everywhere, obscene per diems on the road for "food", advertising income, he now gets to "dip" (could he possibly stuff "more" in there?). The ball club had some concerns about how much Villar "adapted" to the next level (nightlife wise).

Yes, they do get called up eventually, but the best chance they have of ensuring a callup, and the best chance the team has of using that leverage to get them to sign, is before the player gets a taste of the good life.

 

This happens with draft choices. They are offered the chance to be placed on the 40 man roster, to start their career at a specific level, to get a spring training invitation, etc.. All of those are inducements to sign their contract. What is so wrong about having an inducement to be called up immediately part of a contract?

 

Just want to post that yes, Paul Goldschmidt is awesome.

 

Because in this particular situation it might be argued that Singleton would be deprived of an opportunity for a merit based promotion if he didn't sign the contract under duress. If they brought him up first, then that argument wouldn't fly.

 

From the team standpoint, nothing. From the player's standpoint (and union standpoint), if more and more cases of this occur (where teams are giving out guaranteed deals/money without MLB service time, further pushing the agenda of money being more of a reason why players aren't up), there could be changes.

All the players union cares about is getting the most money for their players, which usually involves getting them to free agency. If its found that signing these players early is leading to less arbitration "raises" which is leading to less free agency contract "raises", or simply leading to less players getting to free agency at a time where they can make the most, they're going to find a way to "fix" it.

Hell, they could always strike again... that sure turned out better for them than the owners the last time it happened (not likely, given the vast amount of cash in the game right now, but players are going to expect salaries to continue to rise... and will fight anything that perceives to stifle that).

 

I would say the the player's union is all about getting the veteran players the most money. Singleton signed his deal because the player's union with the owners agreed to a system that does not pay players in there first few years anything close to what they would be worth on the open market.

 

That's where their "priority" is because they make the most money.

But if players are now getting paid "less" when they are younger, and salaries at the younger level don't grown in relation to increased revenues/inflation/rising salaries elsewhere... there could be a justified "concern" that this could affect the big contracts later on as well.

If these contracts, with potential extension, don't have an impact on other free agents, then the union should have zero concern about them... but my guess is that somebody is projecting that they can/will (hence the concern).