2011-2015 was plenty of costs savings. 2015-2022 has seen plenty of revenue. Crane has always promised to spend to maintain contention, and he has done that. If we consider the tax threshold as a salary cap, they could have spent more this year… but not going to complain or second guess that it would automatically be the difference between a WS ring and not.
Who is pretending that? Correa is just not having that much better a year offensively, point blank. The fact that you have to go to OPS and OPS+ shows that.
I guess these are errors? If we are going for a complete picture, you also have to say on is a rookie and the other is a Vet.
LOL. If he wanted to come to the Astros Altuve would be the 1st in line to welcome him nobody would care what he said in 2017.
If you are looking at the salary vs CBT threshold in a vacuum then yes the money was not put back into the team. However after winning 102 games with 7 left and the #1 seed in AL ( 1 more win or Yankmee loss) why spend money just to spend? However with Correa under contract for even 3 more years at $35M+ 1) Alvarez likely isn't extended. At least not until after Altuve and Bregman's current deals are off the books. 2) Pena would not be, nor ever be a regular starter on the Astros. He would be traded or rust away in AAA. 3) 2023 and 2024 HUGE arbitration classes would completely strangle any available room to improve the team for those 2 seasons. 4) if it was 3 yr: The team would have Altuve, Bregman, and Correa all FA at the same time. Imagine THAT stress and unsurety!!
You may be right. But it was 2020 not 2017 so not so far forgotten. Maybe winning and possibilities of winning cure all wounds. All I know is that if someone acted and said those things toward me it would take much reconciliation for me to work with him in the future. Then again I don't have a $20M+ contract to help salve my pride.
Salary caps do not require teams to spend up to them. Increasing the tax threshold to $24M more than Crane has ever spent (using AAV) did not give Crane $24M that he is now saving. Sure if the Astros win the World Series, the Astros revenue will likely change and maybe Crane is willing to spend enough that the tax threshold actually impacts the Astros. Right now, I think the tax threshold only affects the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox. Edit: Granted this is my POV which is based on owners set the budget for a team, and, for clarity, tax threshold only affects what teams are willing to spend when the owner is willing to spend at least as much as the tax threshold. Feel free to have a different POV. I'll disagree, but we'll both live thinking we are each right.
I think he was ready to spend more at the deadline and Click couldn't consummate a deal that was expected (if I read the tea leaves right). I just don't cheer cost savings as much as others here seem to do (unless its clear those savings were applied elsewhere). Of course Pena is a much better value than Correa right now, even with the offensive discrepancy and defensive discrepancy. If the Astros can further apply them not having to pay Correa towards paying others, even better.
Come on Dusty, play Altuve the rest of the way to try to get the record for most lead off homers. We have a day off tomorrow anyway. Be better Dusty.
This is a POV problem. My POV is that I think it is very clear that Pena providing $25M in surplus value this year is being translated into wins on the field and not money directly into Crane's wallet (i.e., Crane didn't drop the budget $25M because Click told him they have a good SS coming up, though Pena being as good as he's been may have indirectly made Crane more). The Astros are the best team over the last 6 years because they are the best at turning money into wins among Top 20 Spending Teams. My head translates your sentence to, "I just don't cheer about winning more as much as others here seem to do (unless it is clear that those wins came from spending more". You see cost savings. I see wins. Edit: I know you care about wins. What you call cost savings....I just see that as wins too. Teams get more wins by spending more and by spending more efficiently.
I get it... and yes, teams get wins by spending efficiently. Do they lose more games with Correa taking the deal Crane offered, unlikely. I don't care that JV was paid $66 million (pro-rated) for one game the last 2 years because it inevitably gave the Astros a better chance of retaining him and continuing to win. I didn't care that Crane decided to get rid of Altuve's bargain basement contract and reward him with an extension when he didn't have to (I was actually championing it) after the MVP season as it ensured he'd likely finish his illustrious career as an Astro. These were contracts that were a direct result of the increased revenue due to wins. I'm not advocating for them going crazy Padres-over-the-tax and trying to buy a title. They're doing it as they should... development, high value FA, trades as needed, retain veterans as needed. We all know the spending inefficiencies compared to production that happen in baseball post arbitration years. There are far worse examples of overpaid players than Carlos Correa (who technically is just being paid market rate for his production). Cheering for Pena's salary actually highlights the issue that younger players are truly underpaid compared to their production... that didn't really get rectified much in the CBA, but does have more owners trying to secure their services long-term at market value for some of the years vs. just paying for the arbitration raises and letting them go.
Sometimes a batter just sees some pitchers better. I hope this is the case and Tucker doesn't return to the mean.
