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

I think the fact we haven’t seen Correa make comments to members of the media about the Astros’ reported offer is a good sign and could mean the team’s offers are better than the 5-year, $160M contract reported by Mark Berman. He could easily let them know that the Astros aren’t serious and that he’s turning his attention elsewhere.

 

Does signing Correa make it more likely the Astros will win next year?

Is financial flexibility or surplus value winning? How often have you heard about fans say "I don't want to sign that player because it will hurt the teams financial flexibility in 5 years?" From a GMs perspective, those are important to maximize their budget. From an owners perspective, those are ways to keep budget down. Not every fan cares about that, but owners have gotten the sports media at large and many fans to buy into not just winning, but winning as cheaply as possible. When an owner is talking about shareholders, they aren't talking about winning as the main goal...

 

Yes, it does. You win pennants and have chances to win the World Series because of elite players like Carlos Correa. That isn’t hard to understand. Correa is the best, most complete position player the Astros have. They are not better off without him.

Correa’s defense makes every Astros’ pitcher better, and he’s a middle-of-the-order bat with a track record of coming up clutch in big moments.

 

I agree with you, @DVauthrin and others here as well...my take was to paint a quasi worst case scenario of "okay if Click don't want to keep homegrown stars and Crane isn't going to commit to deals that lasts longer than 6-7 years, what do the fanbase actually have to look forward to?" and that's pretty much, imo, a team in the same mold as Oakland or Tampa Bay. From a fan perspective yea it would suck royally because, like many have stated already, Houston is too big of a market with too much resource to be playing Moneyball at the Tampa level. Tack on the fact that one of baseball's continued allure is that homegrown stars can and still exist. It's not like the NBA where free agency can occur every 3-4 years on average for a player or how player empowerment has given them enough clout to say "y'know...this team and franchise isn't working for me...i want out" in the middle of a contract. Or is it like the NFL where, for the most part, your team's legacy is tied to who's behind center.

At the end of the day it's still Crane's call. I'm not part of the group on here that thinks the 5/160 or the rumored 6/210 is an insult to Correa because who is Crane bidding against right now other than himself? Crane decided to set a baseline and put it on Correa and his reps to find a better offer elsewhere.

 

Exactly. If a fan is talking about the value of Pena relative to Correa or how not signing Correa will keep the team competitive, then they aren't rooting for the team to win anymore.

This is obviously not the case for all fans, but owners have convinced a lot of fans that not spending money is good. Crane is literally talking about share holder value in his communication to fans as if we should care about that. As fans we should be rooting for the Astros to pay Carlos 10/$300M if that's what it takes.

 

I think fans have, along with the sport, evolved their thinking. Casual fans? Yeah, they think like this. But hard(er) core fans understand the push/pull of spending/not spending and the benefits of taking a longer-term view of a team.

Casual fans are far more emotional and of the moment, demanding immediate gratification. It's why drafts, trade deadlines and free agency are so popular.

 

By then he's the Yankees problem

 

I don’t think it’s a accurate characterization to say hardcore fans are less emotional than casual fans.

Independent of emotion Correa is the opposite of instant gratification. The Astros drafted him, developed him, he is the face of the franchise and he is entering the prime of his career. He is the payoff of the long game and the reason you don’t extend Springer or try to create financial flexibility. Obviously there is risk to a big contract, but the Astros can afford that risk. Then could sign him to a contract for more than 5 years while staying competitive if they continue running a good organization elsewhere.

As a casual or hard-core fan, I think you should be disappointed when the owner responds to that by talking about shareholder responsibility.

Crane is not a bad owner and he has shown he’s willing to spend in the short term. Playing the optimization game is important for GMs since they don’t set the budget, and it’s fun to follow as well. I obviously can’t criticize the results on the field in the last 5 years.

 

Window dressing huh?

 

I'm confused. What is bad or not bad about Crane saying shareholder responsibility? In regards to what? I didn't catch the interview or article.

 

I agree with that and those models do work to some degree. But Oakland and Tampa Bay are also universally at the bottom of the attendance rankings no matter how good they are and those franchises are always threatening to leave their cities because they have no real fan base. Winning is a part of developing a fan base, but so is keeping your top players and having an identity. When no one can name any of the players on the team from year to year because they keep losing the only players anyone has heard of you, it doesn't help build fan loyalty - it simply is less fun to watch. I know winning matters more, so if keeping players comes at the expense of winning, it's a problem. But it's a key piece of the puzzle.

 

Exactly this. I feel like if you're not going to be competitive in trying to sign Correa, then there's no point about being excited about any developing of prospects, etc. The first couple of years are likely to be choppy (see Kyle Tucker) and then you'll have an elite player for maybe 3-4 years before losing them if they are awesome.

 

I am going to sound like an odd duck but to me the money means nothing. I believe Pena should be the Astros short stop next season because I expect him to be one of the few opportunities to improve this team now and into the future that will come along. We have been blessed to have a great short stop for a long time and as unlikely as it seems we may have another. He will be a slight drop off in WAR in the first half of 22 but I expect he and Correa will finish the season about equally. The good news is that after next year Pena will continue to improve over the next six years while Correa will only tread water until he begins to regress. If he holds up that long it is unlikely that he will still be playing short stop at all. Of course there is no guaranty it works out this well but I think you have to take the opportunity when you can. When you get dealt aces and eights you bet them. That is where we are with Pena. Do we need a back up plan? Of course, maybe a couple of them. Could it hurt us? You betcha. Is it the right thing to do? Damn right it is..

 

Not only that... Correa was the first prize of the Luhnow rebuild. The payoff for intentional tanking in 2012 was the #1 pick. Three years of intentional misery later, the team calls him up in 2015 and he wins ROY. Stros finally make the playoffs and the rebuild has started to pay off. Now that he's a household name and has provided tens of millions more in value than his paycheck reflected, he's finally able to pull in market rate. Can't imagine a competitive team in football or basketball not wanting to lock up their stars long term.

 

Yankees fans are going to boo him mercilessly first slump he has.

 

This seems like absurd prospect-dreaming. Correa was a top-5 type MLB player this year. Depending on the source, he led all position players in WAR (https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB-leaders.shtml ). Even if he regressing to top 15 or top 30, you think a rookie who's played a grand total of 30 games at AAA will be just maybe a little bit worse in the first half of 2022 and then be at that level? And then be better over the next several years?

 

WAR is overrated. See Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Not believe in him being the player Correa was but enough to see if he can be the answer instead of getting someone like Baez to replace him. Correa got offered what many would consider a team friendly contract, if he were to take that they’d definitely trade Pena for an upgrade or try to find a new position for him. I think they definitely give Pena to the trade deadline to see if he’s legit and if not see if you can upgrade through trade.

 

So you’re only going to give him less than half a season? Keep in mind it took Bregman and Tucker almost entire full seasons (and off seasons with additional spring training) to find their stride.

Presuming Peña eventually sticks (still an if), by the time he’s going to be expected to be a leader of this team, we will be having similar discussions as to who is Tuckers replacement. Or who is Yordan’s replacement.