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

The frustrating thing to me about this is that it essentially means the Astros will never keep a top player long term. It would be one thing if it was Correa specific (ie, injury risk or whatnot), but if it's an organizational philosophy, it means they could draft Trout or Acuna or whomever else, and they'd lose him after 6-8 years. It means in 2026, they'll lose Tucker and Alvarez unless either just turns out not to be a star. From a fan perspective, it sucks. From a winning perspective, it means you have to keep hitting home runs year after year to replace these elite talents. The Astros got Bregman and Tucker with high picks; they got insanely lucky with Yordan. Going forward, can they keep getting that level of talent without the top draft picks? I see why they believe in it given their success these last several years, but it ignores the fact that a key piece of their success was from high picks that they don't have going forward.

 

Unless Correa is dead set on being an Astro, I can't see this being the case. Even if he wants to be an Astro, he wants as many bidders in the marketplace as possible. Taking one out doesn't help him maximize his salary. If the Yankees offer $250MM/8, he wants to come to the Astros and say "beat that" so he can go back to the Yankees and say "beat the Astros' offer" etc etc to drive up his price. He can always choose to take the lower offer if the Astros say "this is all we can do", but there's no reason to tell the Astros upfront that there's no need to beat other offers he gets.

 

Possibly but perspectives change over time. At the end of the day it is Crane's call and we will see what he does. I think the Astros will make good faith offers to Correa but they aren't likely to match the top offer he receives unless the market is harsher than we realize. One thing I can say about the Astros so far is that they as an organization have shown to be adaptable. They changed how they did their minor league emphasis as far as scouting is concerned, they have changed how they address international free agency as well. If evidence starts to emerge that signing players to long term deals is beneficial, then they may do that.

The one area I personally am a little critical of the Astros about is not getting more of their younger players under contract extended. I know they did with Bregman and they did extend Altuve. However, they didn't with Springer or Correa and they haven't with Tucker or Alvarez or the young pitchers. The White Sox have been very successful getting their young guys signed long term and the Indians did in the past. I find it hard to believe that someone like Alvarez or Javier or Garcia or even McCormick wouldn't give up a few years of free agency for what amounts to enough money to never have to work again if an injury happens.

 

The Tampa Bay Rays aren’t the Houston Astros. The Astros can afford to have one of the top-10 payrolls in the sport annually; the Rays can’t. Also, like Major said, what does Crane think 24-year-old Tucker and 24-year-old Alvarez will want when they become free agents after the 2025 season entering their age-29 seasons? Hint: It will be an AAV near what Correa will get, provided they continue at their current pace or improve. Also, if Crane knew he wouldn’t offer more than five or six years, he should have signed George Springer to one of the four-to-six year deals he is comfortable with last offseason. Period. Once you failed to keep Springer, you had to get Correa signed. The fan base understands losing one, but losing both is a slap in the face. Also, the Astros are an elite team because they have elite position players like Correa, Altuve, Bregman pre-2020, Tucker, Alvarez and Springer before this season. Keep replacing elite players with simply above-average ones, and the team will eventually suffer. Furthermore, the Astros have nearly $60M coming off the books in the form of Greinke and Verlander’s contracts, and approximately $40-50M in free agents to be after next season. They have more than enough room in the budget to pay Correa in the short term and the long term.

Finally, Carlos Correa was the one Astro with the balls to tell the world to shut the **** up after the sign-stealing scandal punishment was announced and continues to quickly squash rumors of cheating to this day. He, along with Altuve, are the faces of this franchise, and Crane needs to wake the **** up and do what it takes to keep Correa here. The payroll flexibility is there, and Crane should want Correa to retire an Astro and have a statue outside MMP for all of his postseason accolades with the team. If Correa leaves at age 27 and never returns, that will not happen.

As for Click, he should look at what another former Rays’ executive, Andrew Friedman, is doing in Los Angeles as his template to emulate. The Astros won’t ever have the Dodgers’ payroll, but the model should be much closer to that than the Tampa Bay’ model.

 

I feel the same way as you do but, when I take a step back and look at the whole, Click's experience and training has been in an environment where the team's success isn't relied heavily on high picks and/or big free agent signings. The hope, I guess, is to have a competitive team based on their own internal scouting and evaluation like the Rays or Athletics without a bona fide superstar(s) as the worst case scenario. At best, we have enough star power that takes the team beyond the "Wild Card level" to where they are strong championship contenders. Sure Click has a bigger sandbox to play in here in Houston with an owner that's willing to spend but I'm sure that's not going to change his philosophy on team building (e.g. outspend X team).

 

Part of the problem with extending guys is the Astros have been right against or over the luxury tax since 2019.

 

The philosophy of not paying a player over a 8-10 year window of time isn't necessarily an indication that the Astros are going to be ran like the Rays. The Astros have a high payroll, they just avoid long term commitments and we can likely speculate why that is. As far as Tucker and Alvarez are concerned, the Astros have from my understanding, discussed extensions with both but I do believe the Astros should be more aggressive about it.

As for Springer, that was an organizational decision based on what the baseball people felt about the skill level of Springer going forward and what would be the best allotment of resources. Springer wanted and got more than what the Astros valued him at. I don't know how that will workout long term but Springer did get hurt and the Astros did get unexpected production from their outfield.

As for the fan base, the Astros haven't lost Correa yet so lets see what happens. However, if the Astros do lose Correa, ultimately wins and loses will matter more than whether Correa wears an Astros jersey. Also the Astros will continue to have a top 5 payroll as long as the team is seriously competitive.

I would like to keep Correa as well, and I agree that he is arguably the face of the franchise... he was the #1 pick, has only been an Astro, has been with the team as a "star" since the draft and may end up in the Hall of Fame..... but I don't know if that is enough in 2021 for the current ownership group to pay him over 250 million dollars.

 

Yeah and this is where Crane needs to be more transparent. We have been told publicly and even some privately, that the Astros are willing to go over the tax year after year. My response is then do it. I think Crane has been an excellent owner, but no one is perfect.

 

If James Click isn’t willing to use his significantly bigger financial sandbox to his advantage to keep the Astros’ homegrown, elite players, he was the wrong person for the job. Oh, and if the Astros keep winning like this, they will not only own Houston from a sports perspective, but they can get a better media rights deal and revenue continues to rise.

 

I believe it's his preference, yes. I have no inside information; just a hunch - the way he talks about the organization, its coaches, his teammates. He's way too smart to think what they have here is easily replicable elsewhere.

I doubt that's how it works for guys of Correa's caliber. He's not going to dick around teams offering several hundred million dollars so he can squeeze a few million more out of the deal - especially when the Yankees can easily catch wind of that and move on to Seager, or whomever. The negotiations are likely to accelerate immediately, each side knowing the other's ceiling.

 

Click is a HUGE believer in targeting star players in the international draft/market.

Luhnow was a believer in the US draft being where a team can be aggressive and in the international market, spread the money out.

Click is the opposite. He strongly believes in spending your entire budget on one player if you really believe in them internationally. He was the same way with the Rays and pushed very hard on some guys the Rays missed out on like Vlad Guerrero and others.

 

They've also couched many of their larger financial decisions (Keuchel, Springer, Cole) around the idea of bigger paydays (ie Correa) coming - so to kick the can down the line one more time...

 

I believe Luhnow would've been far more inclined to keep Correa, too - not in a LUHNOW IS BETTER!!! way but in what Correa would've represented to Luhnow's tenure here (had it not been derailed, etc).

 

This is a good point and you are right they have been very Machiavellian in their approach. I haven't heard this, but it would not shock me to see the Astros either sign a replacement for Correa almost immediately after he leaves OR announce an extension of an existing player.

 

I have zero doubt Jim Crane wants to win and will spend to do so. I’m also not worried about how good the Astros will be in 2022. But, if he continues to let the Astros’ elite players hit free agency and leave, the product will eventually start to significantly decline.

You win with elite players on your roster, not by signing a bunch of average-to-above average players to short-term deals in free agency. I value guys like Brantley and Yuli, but without the Correa’s, Springer’s, Altuve’s, Alvarez’s, Tucker’s, and Bregman’s of the world, the Astros aren’t a World Series’ contender year in and year out.

If the Astros are willing to give Correa 7 years for 250M, I think it’s a deal he stands a decent chance of accepting, factoring in no state income tax and the state of the Astros’ roster. We already know from Randy McIlvoy that they were willing to offer 6 for 210M. One or two extra years that end when Correa turns 34 or 35 on September 22 (the very end of the season that year) should not cause this much consternation from ownership/the front office.

Finally, there is not a young, elite position player going forward that is going to accept anything less than an 7-10 year deal once they get to free agency. Jim Crane needs to accept that and either offer big extensions to buy out a few years of free agency like he did with Bregman or be willing to give that type of contract. Mookie Betts, Francisco Lindor, Manny Machado, Nolan Arenado, Bryce Harper and Fernando Tatis all got one, and that trend isn’t going away.

 

Winning does keeps people in the seats, eyes on TVs, and merchandise being sold. Popular players do that as well and the two are many times correlated. Neither one alone works as well as both together.

When an owner starts talking about shareholders though, the value of the franchise has much more to do with baseball overall and the size of a team's media market than decisions about a specific player, that one player's on the field performance, or even the day to day operations of that specific team. When an owner is getting fans to talk about the potential to be good in the future or surplus value they've really done what's best for the shareholders. Fans are rooting for the bottom line, and not the quality of the product on the field.

 

The nerd cave definitely turned the big league roster into a Darwinian experiment, but I think for the most part it’s a good plan. Right now they think Pena and Meyers have a chance to replace some production lost my Springer and Correa and they can upgrade other parts of the team with cost savings. If at some point the talent pool dries up, which will happen, they will probably make a free agent or trade move like Cole or Brantley. As long as Crane stays top 5 in payroll, I’m fine with the plan. I’d rather be winning the division yearly than witness Trouts career. Still have Altuve as a lifelong Astro generational player, McCullers for his prime, its very rare for a player to stay with one team his entire career.

 

I think you accidentally flipped this around. Fans care whether their team wins. They don’t care how much money a billionaire owner or millionaire players make.

 

The holy grail is winning... AND having that generational player at the same time, for the majority (or all) of their career.

Rockets had almost all of Hakeem. Astros had all of Biggio/Bagwell. Texans.. blech. Oilers had almost all of Earl.

That's how you get legends/legacies... and real history... and fans do appreciate that.

Even if Tampa wins a WS one of these years, who are they going to build a statue of? Who's jersey gets retired? In 50 years time even WS teams get forgotten if there are no lasting landmarks to commemorate those players.

If somebody says would you rather have winning... or would you rather have long-term stars... my answer will almost always be, why can't it be both.

 

I don't think you can say they really believe in Pena when they're still offering Correa 5 or 6 year deals. They'll settle for him... and maybe he turns into an all-star caliber player in 2-3 years (ironically when he'll be Correa's age now), but there are no guarantees with prospects, and eventually the team will start regressing after talent continues to leave year after year.