The last 2 seasons showed the impact of a $30M+/yr deal gone wrong. Paying Verlander $66M for nothing really limited Houston. It’s the reason they went into the season with the unproven rotation they did, why they had to roll the dice on Straw/Meyers/McCormick in CF, and why they had to wait until the deadline to address their bullpen. Luckily that all worked out. But if Houston had lost in the ALDS we’d all be talking about Verlander’s contract as one of the main reasons they didn’t meet expectations. Yes, Carlos Correa is one of the best players in the league and one of the 10 best players in franchise history, and he’s only 27. But even for a franchise willing/able to sustain a top 5 payroll, spending $300M on one player projects to be an inefficient allocation of resources, and one that carries risk that can cripple a contending team.
Justin Verlander is a starting pitcher. Pitchers are far more likely in MLB to suffer season-ending and career-altering injuries because of the stress they put on their pitching arm. If I’m a large market team like the Astros are at this point, I’m not afraid of paying an elite position player in his prime. Pitchers? Yes, I would be hesitant, because they can blow out their pitching arm at any time, and you don’t have them for 12-18 months. The Padres traded for Mike Clevinger last season at the trade deadline, and he blew out his arm by the end of the season. There are numerous other examples concerning elite pitchers. Stephen Strasburg is one. There are things about the Rays approach that Click should use in Houston (player development, mostly). Neglecting to re-sign elite position players the Astros develop because you are scared of the years in the contract is not one of them.
It’s all about value. If signing 3 $100M players gives the Astros a better chance to win another WS than signing 1 $300M player, I want them to do that. And the reality is that in spending $300M, the likely best value is to do something like sign a few $60M players (Reddick/Yuli/Brantley types), extend a few young players for peanuts (e.g. early Altuve), pour some more money into analysis/development (to continue pumping out Valdez/Garcia/Urquidy types), and save the rest for an emergency (like having to spend $30M on Odorizzi late in the offseason when your 2 best SP are hurt). The Astros are in the middle of their best run ever (by far), and this team was built without giving a single true free agent $100M+.
I agree with you that Brantley at $16M in AAV and Gurriel at $8M are incredible value, and those types of values along with Verlander and Greinke coming off the books and the young talent that hasn’t entered arbitration are the reason the Astros can afford to make a long-term contract offer to Correa. Furthermore, I’d rather have one Carlos Correa than two-and-a-half Josh Reddick’s (Reddick’s deal with the Astros was $13M per year in AAV, 4 years, $52M). You compete for and win championships with elite players like Carlos Correa. Josh Reddick’s of the world in their prime are nice complementary pieces on title contenders, but you need stars to truly compete. Gurriel and Brantley are anomalies because Gurriel defected from Cuba as a 32-year-old to join the Astros, and Brantley was an older player dealing with the stigma of injury-plagued seasons in 2016 and 2017 when he first signed with Houston in December 2018 (he turned 32 in May 2019). He then hit free agency again as a 33-year old before this season (he turned 34 in May). That along with COVID driving down budgets lowered the type of contract he received. I firmly believe the Astros can keep Carlos Correa at an AAV between 30-35M per season and still put a championship team on the field in the short term and the long term. They have done so this season with Verlander, Greinke, and Altuve combining for 87M this year. Greinke declined by the end of the year and Verlander never threw a single pitch. Also, if the GM of a large market team is afraid (unwilling) to give any player a contract north of $100M, they aren’t the right person for the job, long term.
If you're signing 3 $100MM players, you're not doing it over 10 years though - no one is signing a $10MM/10 yr contract. So those aren't comparable options because the 3 $100MM players would cost a lot more in the near term. The real comparison is 3 $10MM/yr players, 2 $15MM/yr players, or 1 $30MM/yr player. The answer to that depends on who's available, but elite talent is a lot harder to come by than $10MM/yr types that you can develop and jettison when they are free agents and replace with more up-and-coming players (think current-Jake Meyers types). I'd take one Carlos Correa over 3 Jake Odorizzi types.
It’s not a matter of fear. It’s a matter of value. Correa at $350M is far more likely to be a bad value than a good value. Luhnow wasn’t scared to sign a player for $100M+, as evidenced by the deals he gave Altuve and Bregman. And I’m almost certain that if Tucker or Alvarez were willing to sign those kinds of extensions, Click would offer them. But there’s a gargantuan difference between $100M and $300M (a $200M difference to be precise), and that is a big difference in risk.
There is inherent risk in every long-term contract you give. However, that doesn’t mean you shy away from giving them if you have the revenue stream and payroll flexibility to make it work. The Astros are in a position to make it work. Also, very few, if any, very good to elite free agents in their prime are taking 5-or 6-year, 100M deals with MLB being a multi-billion dollar industry in 2021. All that type of contract gets you is the ability to buy out a young player’s arbitration years and receive one or two years extra of control afterwards before they become free agents. (What the Astros did with Bregman, the Braves with Acuna and Albies, the White Sox with Robert and Jimenez, etc.) In 2021, that type of free-agent contract offer might get you two players in Anthony Rizzo’s tier. One Carlos Correa is more impactful than two Rizzo’s. Players like Javier Baez, Corey Seager, Freddie Freeman, Marcus Semien, Kris Bryant and Carlos Correa are all exceeding that contract value this offseason. Trea Turner exceeds it next year, and so on. Brandon Crawford didn’t because he is an older player that wanted to remain a Giant and came out of nowhere to become an elite hitter this season. Also, I’m far more concerned with the AAV of the contract and how it works with the Astros’ current and near future payroll obligations ( 2022-2025 or 2026). I’m not that worried about the impact on payroll in 2028-2031 because so much will change. By that time, Jose Altuve will be retired and the Astros’ roster will have turned over.
We got leverage with Tucker and Alvarez going off. Bergman just came off injury and is due for a big season. If Astros win series, I see mgmt throwing him like 30-35. He might stay to be with this dynasty. It’s a special window.
This is especially true for next year. If you lose Correa at SS, there's not really anywhere to upgrade the offense outside of CF and C, and it seems the Astros are happy with Maldanado regardless of his hitting. So unless you want to give up on Meyers/McCormick at minimum wage, all you can do is replace Correa with another lesser SS or sign pitching. All your other offensive positions are set.
I could see Click letting Correa walk and trading for Contreras. I might feel differently if Pena wasn't waiting in the wings. BTW, how many teams that have signed guys to 300 million contracts have won World Series? Pitching wins and Click needs that money to re-sign Graveman and sign, trade for an ace.
I don't see Contreras happening. Astros value Maldonado too much. Castro will likely get more starts as Maldy will be a year older and in 2022 Castro's salary is set and doesn't have escalators like he had in the 2021 season that determined his 2022 salary. It doesn't matter how bad Maldy hits. His skills in developing the young pitching staff and calling games makes him too valuable to the Astros. Dodgers won with Betts last year and his plus 300 mil contract.
At some point Maldy will become a backup catcher. You need to be able to hit more than your weight. Teams that win with 300 million dollar contracts are outliers. In fact last year's championship was an outlier.
Dodgers won last season with Betts. I believe that’s the first team to win a WS with a $300M+ contract player on their roster. Nats won with Scherzer on a $210M contract. $300M contracts are relatively new, so it’s hard to say how they will impact their various teams. But certainly the general track record of 9 figure free agent deals is not good. Scherzer’s contract shows that a mega deal can work out really well for the team; he was totally dominant and healthy for the entire deal and put over 40 fwar, which even time adjusted makes that a steal for the Nats. On the flip side, there are far more examples of deals going sour; Pujols’ contract with the Angels is probably the biggest, but Miggy Cabrera, Chris Davis, and Giancarlo Stanton all look pretty bad (and those are just off the top of my head). The risk is two fold: first, the player may not produce (whether thru slump/decline or due to injury), and second, even if the player produces, his contract may still be a net negative if it occupies too much payroll space such that it prevents the team from supplementing the roster surrounding that star player. I agree the presence of Pena and the general state of the game (and specifically Houston’s roster) would indicate Click should focus the bulk of his offseason resources on adding an elite SP and an elite RP.
one more thing to note is that if we keep correa , we obviously can try to move Pena for a cost-controlled starter . Think , like part of a package we used to get Cole .
A $300 million deal for Correa is a bad deal. He's had 1 completely healthy season and 1 mostly healthy. The rest were 110 games or less. He's got a .850 OPS. $300 million is for 1.000+ guys. Caveated with the fact he's a shortstop, but that's countered by the number of games he misses.
The Yankees did alright with ARod. His contract wasn't 300million but it was worth more than 300 million now.
This is true. If other teams value Pena like an MLB Top 25 prospect, then all of a sudden it makes more sense to drop big money on a SS. If Pena could headline a deal for somebody like Shane Bieber, that would be great. I don’t expect that’s the case, but I agree it’s worth acknowledging that signing Correa creates a big trade chip in Pena.
