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

Also, speaking of MVP, they need to move to a universal MVP assuming the universal DH passes. Tradition be damned. Only one MVP in the NFL, NBA, and NHL.

 

Carlos reportedly wants 10 yrs/$350mil.

Alex Bregman signed a 5yr/$100 mil extension covering his 26-30 age seasons, 3 arb and 2 FA years.

This was after a 7.9 WAR season ( .286, .926 ops, 31hr, 51 2b, +100 runs and rbi) and 5th in MVP voting as a 24 year old.

Neither Tucker nor Alvarez have quite hit that level, though either or both have the potential.

Bregman also played excellent defense at a priority position of 3b and as the #2 shortstop.

This is more valuable than OF and OF/DH

All this makes a 5yr/$100 mil contract for both of them a good offer and one they could realistically take.

That leaves Framber, Luis Garcia, and/or Urquidy.

Let's talk about Framber: coming off 3 14ERA in 134.2IP good for 2.4WAR and eligible for arb first time.

Sandy Alcantara of the Marlins just finished a 3 19ERA season in 205 2IP for 3.8WAR.

He signed 5 yr $56 mil w 6th yr $21 club option to avoid arbitration.

I think that's too much for Framber based on age( 2 years older) and career performance to date, but let's go with it for my argument: 6yrs $77 mil.

That leaves $73 mil.


German Marquez the year before Arb signed a 6yr/$59 mil ( including option) in 2019. That is a great comp for Urquidy although, again Marquez had a longer track record at the time.

So there you go: Tucker, Alvarez, Framber, and Urquidy all signed thru 2027 for less than Correa is asking thru 2031.

 

Except all of these guys were already signed through 2025. You wanted to extend them for 6-7 years but actually extended them for 2 years.

So you got 4 guys for a combined 8 extra years at less than you'd pay Correa for 10 years. Is that a good deal? Maybe, maybe not, depending on how they do. In the meantime, you didn't improve the team at all during the known elite contention window over next 2-3 years. Instead, you spent all that money to keep the players in 2026 and 2027.

 

We essentially paid him over 70 million for an extra 2 years of control.

Bregman is making 30 million a year the next 2 years. You think he is going to take less when his contract is up.

 

I am confused.

What does Bregman's free agency have to do with my post?

To answer though, I do not expect him to take any kind of a discount but I hope he can be resigned at a fair price for him and the organization and he is a life long Astro.

 

My point is that you can only afford to pay two players out of Correa, Bregman, Alverez, Tucker, and Altuve long term. I choose to pay Correa as one of those 2 because SS is the hardest position to fill without spending a boat load of money; and two, it keeps the band completely in tact for 2 more seasons. Finding outfielders that can hit is easy. Finding Plus defenders at the most important fielding position that can hit is really difficult.

 

Correa is a very good short stop. He is indeed a plus defender who can also hit but why would you choose to pay him over 30 mllion a year when you have a prospect ready to promote who is also a plus defender who can hit but will cost a tiny fraction of the money. Of the names you listed of players would be willing to pay only Tucker and Alverez have a good chance to maintain their value for more than a few short years. Correa, Bregman, and Altuve all got extension offers at about the same point in their careers. Bregman and Altuve accepted, Correa declined. All three have been great players but their best years are probably behind them. They have been very good players but none warrant another long contract. Altuve is looking closer to retirement than a new contract. Bregman and Correa both have injury histories that make any new contracts, particularly long ones, quite risky.

 

The simple argument would be that the prospect is a prospect and has never played in the majors (and only 30 games at AAA, if I remember right) and would be trying to replace the best and most valuable player on the Astros last year in a year (or couple of years) where the Astros are largely primed for a World Series run. If you sign the guy who you know will produce, you maintain your World-Series caliber team and you can then trade the "prospect who could have replaced Correa" to address any other position of need on the team.

 

I think I saw elsewhere that Pena’s comp is Willy Adames? Good ball player for sure, but no where near CC. I would love to bring CC back on something that makes sense for both sides, but if that’s not feasible then HOU will surely pivot to whatever scenario gives us the best chance moving forward. I think we all can at least take solace in knowing our organization is pretty damn good at their approach. So hopefully we can put together a competitive team given the vast amount of talent already on the ML squad. Having Adames as a fall back isn’t the worst thing in the world…now, like all prospects, he needs to go out there and prove it at the ML level, clearly easier said than done. The fact that our future is bright with or without CC is a testament to how well this team is currently constructed…most teams losing a player like CC likely see their path to contention evaporate.

 

When Crane signed JV for $50 million, all p***y-footing around what their intentions are for the next 2-3 years, or playing the “value over pricey” game went out the window.

They’re built to be optimized now. These runs and how the core has meshed together can never be taken for granted.

 

Tucker is the one guy still in prearb I'd be willing to extend long-term.
He strikes me as a guy more willing to take a deal like that to guarantee long-term financial security. IDK why but he just does.

Y'all aren't going to like hearing this, but between Correa, Altuve, Tucker, Gurriel, Alvarez, Bregman, Brantley, and Springer (who obviously left in FA), IMO, Correa is the worst "pure hitter" of them all. He's a defensive wizard, but his inconsistencies at the plate will probably play some role in what contract he gets and what the most Houston will offer him is (along with the back issues).

This will probably be even more unpopular, but I think he was a top beneficiary of the trash cans. He hit .315 that year, his only season average above .289.
By month, he hit at least 294 every month except April (233). I always recalled Correa being the most streaky of our core hitters. This is not a hate post by any means, I'm just highlighting the risks of a 7+ year big money deal.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=correca01&year=2017&t=b

 

The more complicated argument is that Correa will make ~$350M more than Pena while the Astros have several older players. For future results, there is never a "guy who you know will produce". If Astros have the money, I think Correa is probably the best bet.

Though, if the Astros go with Pena and spend elsewhere, Pena being a complete bust should be much less of a concern than Verlander not bouncing back well, Bregman not being able to stay relatively healthy, Gurriel and Brantley not showing their age, Alvarez knees not holding up, and/or Altuve not staying healthy.

It is much easier to replace Pena at the trade deadline if necessary than it will be to address a player actually being counted on to produce a lot of value. If the Astros can't keep Correa, they should probably use their money elsewhere unless they get a sweetheart deal.

 

A prospect is a prospect to you and me. To the Astros he is an amalgam of a child an athlete and an investment. They drafted him, nurtured him, developed him, and paid for it all. They do this a hundred times for every one that pans out the way that Pena looks like he is going to. They are aware of how much they have poured into this kid and are consumed by the potential return they see in him. After all of that there is no way that they will allow this opportunity to slip away.

 

You could say the same about Correa... How often do you get a Correa and develop him and turn him into one of the best players in baseball? Correa was the one of the hundred that panned out to an extreme. After all that work, do you just want him for 7 years?

 

I'm not sure what you mean here. If Correa makes ~$350MM more than Pena over 10 years, that means Pena flopped early and never even made it to arbitration years. Or if we're talking about the years the Astros control Pena, they wouldn't be paying Correa $350MM. And we have no idea if the Astros will have older players in 2028 or whatnot when they are paying part of Correa's contract. Maybe at that point, the Astros are like the 2017 Astros with mostly club-controlled players and Correa is their Verlander-type expensive dude.

Sorry - yes, I was a little simplistic there. But relative to a prospect with 30 games of AAA experience, you have a much better idea that Correa will be a legit high-quality MLB hitter over the next several years.

 

Astros have to make a $350M decision on Correa this offseason. Pena...the decision is all intents and purposes a zero dollar amount in comparison this offseason. Though, the decision on how to spend $350M, if the Astros have it, isn't Pena vs. Correa. The decision is can the Astros use $350M, if they have it, better on Correa or on other players.

Correa will likely be better than Pena. If Crane is willing to pay Correa $350M, I'm all for it. I expect Crane isn't willing to pay Correa that much, and the next best option is Story.

Story is likely better than Pena, but I'm expecting Pena to be good enough at short to be at least half as good for at least 20M cheaper in 2022.

 

The Astros will not do 10/350.

 

As far as the Story question goes, it's more than just "do you want to spend money for a SS or go cheap." It also makes at least one of Pena/Leon (who I think is not a MLB SS) expendable for a guy like Mullins or Reynolds. Would not be against that. I'm not going to say this post is for or against any position, but I'm elaborating on why the Astros may consider it (other than the fact he provides instant plug-and-play production) and the domino effect of a hypothetical Story signing.

 

I did say the same about Correa 8 or 9 years ago. That was then, this is now. We were looking for a promising young short stop when Correa came up. Now he is demanding a price for himself that is greater than his value, and we are again looking for a promising young short stop. In all the arguments for re signing Correa I have not heard anyone denying that he will be a catastrophic overpay in the later years of that interminable contract.

 

Its also not simply $350 million. It’s the yearly contract number as it relates to the percentage of the total payroll, and how close they are to whatever the new CBT will be, and of course where the team is in its ability to contend.

We all know they’re right there for at least the next 3 years, and Crane is willing to pay Correa top dollar for 6 of those years. Even if Crane were willing to offer contracts for 10 years, they would readily admit they have no clue where the team will be at that point (or in the 2-3 years preceding it… the real risky current Pujols-like years).

There’s also a high probability that a $350 million total contract, or simply $35 million/year salaries aren’t necessarily the same 10 years from now that they are now.