Mark Berman: Astros offering Carlos Correa a 5 year/160 million dollar contract

There’s no way to gauge anything “catastrophic” in 2032.

Pena is also almost guaranteed to have a shorter prime and quite possibly a shorter overall career than Correa is… simply based on his age now. The Astros need production from “somebody” over the next 3-5 years that can make Crane spending near CBT absolutely worth it towards the expectations.

Hence why Pena could very well be a trade target if they’re able to retain Correa.

 

Of course it probably will be an over pay - that's part of the intentional design of those contracts. Catastrophic? You'd have to know what kind of a player he is and the economics of baseball 10 years from now. If salaries keep inflating, it might not be that unusual to have $30MM/yr players.

But the design is that you underpay now and overpay later, which gives you a better chance to compete in those early years. There's no one who would argue that if Correa was willing to sign a 1 yr deal, he'd "only" get $30-$35MM for 1 year either. That was Trevor Bauer's whole thing - by not signing a long term deal, he could maximize his year to year income if he stayed healthy. That's how he managed to get an $80MM/2 yr contract before his legal problems.

 

The mlb needs a cap. The Astros can’t pay their pitchers while they leave. Can only pay 2 of those 5. It’s a miracle they have done as well as they have with the way the leave is currently set up.

 

While there are a lot of things besides the $350M that matter, if the Astros don't re-sign Correa, I expect it will be the total commitment (i.e., $350M or whatever it ends up being), and not the 2022 salary, whatever the CBT is for this year, or the AAV that stops Crane. Those other things seem like it would be something Click could handle and it would be worth Click's time to handle.

 

A cap wouldn't help the Astros - their problem is too much talent to pay. If there was a cap, they'd still be forced to get rid of them. Astros have a top 5-10 payroll and are pretty close to everyone not named the Dodgers - unless the cap only limits the Dodgers, the Astros would likely be one of the teams hurt by it.

 

I think they would rather not have to be in the position to trade depreciating assets in 7 years when they’re trying to either rebuild or reload, hence the hard-line stance on no long term deals.

If they do get him on a shorter deal, I could also fully see them extending him if the team is still in prime contention (much like they’ve now done twice with JV), which could bring the total years and aggregate dollars close to the total amount… they just don’t want to have to make that decision now and would rather make it in 5-6 years when its more clear where the team will be going at that point.

 

Agree with the above. Cap would hurt the Astros more than help.

The 1993 Oilers were one of the most talented teams in NFL history… and this was after the Buffalo collapse. They were, however, never prepared for the new salary cap and ended up having to get rid of 27 free agents and trade guys who still had quality years left…. And this almost single-handedly led to the chain of events that ultimately had the team moving.

Not really sure why that stuck in my mind, but it will go to show you that most baseball teams would have to vastly re-structure the way they construct teams if something as drastic as a salary cap happens, and it won’t merely be the biggest spenders who are hindered the most.

Its not a miracle the Astros have done well. They’ve done everything any good organization should do. Develop young stars, both highly drafted as well as unexpected, sign key free agents, trade for key players, and raise the payroll near the top of the league when the team is in contention.

 

We will contend for 10 years before we have to make some really hard choices. That's a miracle for any team not named the Yankees. A lot of fans have really taken winning for granted. That we can maintain this success forever. Winning is really hard unless you blow money like the Yankees and the Dodgers. I say lets go all in and win a World series before we have to blow this team up

 

That’s exactly what they’re doing. $50 million for JV. Willing to commit $35 million/year for Correa for 5-6 years. Still have to pay Altuve/Bregman $30 million/year for the rest of their deals.

If they can afford these types of deals when in win-now mode, I’m really not that concerned about what happens 8-10 years from now if they still have Correa. Either they’re still a contender and have moved on from the other big deals to new ones…. Or they’re not a contender (because all runs must end) and they’re either like Detroit now continuing to pay Cabrera while rebuilding… or they figure out how to trade him.

But alas, Crane thinks otherwise… again, not because he can’t afford a 10 year deal but because he would rather not commit big money towards a time where this team’s chances for contending are relatively unknown.

 

I'm still optimistic that he stays based on some insider info posted here and the fact he hadn't signed. I'm guessing it's up to what the salary cap will be. Maybe a shorter contract with a record AAV and opt out.

 

Anyone else annoyed by Correa claiming the 10 year deal for him is different for him than other past 10 year deals because he's 3 years younger?

1) I don't recall those other players getting serious injuries from a message

2) Most of those guys were try to be dumped only 4 or 5 years in, not 7 or 8...

 

I don't think anyone should be annoyed at a player for playing the game trying to get as much as he can.

Correa has made $27 million his entire career in 7 years.

Elvis Andrus has made $106 million in the same time.

Who has been better? Who has made his owner more money?

Why would any fan begrudge him wanting to get paid?

 

What exactly did he say on this topic? I was under the impression he hasn't said anything publicly about his contract demands except being annoyed with the Astros offer last offseason.

Not sure the relevance here - everyone knows a player is overpaid in the latter end of the deal in exchange for taking a discount in the front end of the deal. So of course once a team has gotten all of the best years of a player, they'll try to move him if they can. That's how the deal is designed.

 

Who is begrudging him wanting to get paid?

 

It's not the wanting money, it's the excuse that's annoying...

Lile those Colorado schools for Daryl Kile...

 

Sorry. I don't follow.

I don't understand what excuse you are talking about.

I selling yourself an excuse? Giving potential teams your reasoning why you are worth 10 years. Is that what you are talking about?

 

Again, can you point to what he's said?

 

I've said he signs with the Cubs since the start of last year and I'm still sticking to that.

 

Weird idea: every team is allowed to have one player that was drafted by the team (and with them continuously) or signed internationally by the club not count against the luxury tax sum.

 

Or something similar to NBA Where a team can pay its own former players more than other teams can to keep them when they are free agents.

That would require a cap or at least salary slots and the players union is very against that.