He’s 26. He, Alvarez, Tucker, are the future.
ETA: and who do you trade him for? What if it’s John Singleton? Mark Appel? He’s a known quantity and a stud in every aspect of the game. I love the Bregman contract.
Bregman is due $30 million in each of 2023 and 2024. There isn’t a whole lot of overlap between the list of teams looking to take on that kind of salary and the list of teams looking to deal the pieces you want in return.
1 Like
If you trade Bregman, you might as well try to unload Altuve, Brantley, McCullers and anyone with a high dollar contract or long term deal and just tear the whole thing down. I can understand getting a prospect for Correa. Especially if we aren’t in the playoff hunt around the trade deadline for whatever reason. At this point I certainly don’t think it makes sense to trade Bregman. Don’t forget that we won a whole lot of games without Correa in the lineup from ‘17 to ‘19. Losing him sucks but it’s not the end of the world.
It’s not about what you actually pay in any given year. Crane can afford any contract.
It’s about the length of the deal and how much counts toward the luxury tax. That is what will determine how much salary the team can manage in any given year.
Bregman might make $30 mil in '23 and '24 but, unless the CBA changes, he will only count $20 mil towards the dreaded competitive balance that penalizes teams that pay to keep their star players.
1 Like
Trading a star player for younger talent frequently ends up badly.
When trading away a 3.0WAR player, it takes more than 3 1.0WAR players to replace him.
For every Bagwell for Larry Andersen deal you get:
Michael Bourn for Juan Abreu, Paul Clemens, Brett Oberholtzer, and Jordan Schafer.
The point I was making is that if you want to deal Bregman after this season (as RTB suggested), the last two years of his contract make that difficult, as there won’t be a long list of teams lining up to take on that kind of salary commitment. Yes, there is a difference between what Bregman is owed and what counts toward the luxury tax, but I see that as fairly immaterial in this context.
Clearly, at least for the next couple years, Bregman is worth far more to the Astros as an Astro than as trade bait. That may change as 2023-24 offseason or the 2024 trade deadline approaches depending on the composition of the team, but it’s way too early to speculate on that.
2 Likes
That’s true but when you have a guy like Correa who is pretty adamant about leaving now that he sees that he’s not going to get a contract of his liking in Houston, it makes more and more sense to deal him if by some crazy reason we aren’t in contention at the deadline.
I could be wrong, but I think that earlier comment was more in reference to trading Bregman while he’s still got years on his contract.
You’re probably right. I could see trading Bregman a few years down the road if things are looking bad. But definitely not now.
I’m guessing $30M+ and for 8 years+. And, the Lindor signing likely only strengthened 1) his resolve and 2) the market in his direction. Thankfully, it will not be the Astros. They’ve been plenty successful over the last 40 years never taking on those albatross long/expensive contracts that have such low success rates. When I think back to all of the most deserving players that would wear the “most highly compensated in Astros history” title, Correa is not even in the conversation. Heck, when I think of recent departures that trouble me as a fan wanting to see the best on the field, like Springer and Morton, Correa does not give me nearly as much heartburn. Slick fielding, good hitting shortstops used to be a premium. Not so much anymore.
2 Likes
(Apologies if this is a caberra.) This 1 Apr dispassionate discussion was helpful in terms of viewing our team favorites in more realistic terms.
(Insights included:)
- Springer was not Trout, did not deserve that type of money.
- Correa is not Lindor: While they have the same OPS, Lindor averages missing 6 games a year while Correa misses 50.
One way to view any LT salary offer to Correa would be to say he would be paid for being ACTUALLY being able to PLAY 2/3 of each season… Maybe, include incentives for less time on the DL?
Is it time for him to be paid based on performance rather than “potential”?
Two thoughts:
-
Incentives for less time on the DL is a bad idea. Athletes performing at the very edge of the performance envelope tend to become more injured and more severely injured if they push through the indications of injury (pain), especially for repetitive motion injuries. And, occurrences increase in number and severity with increasing age. I think it would be like pouring gas on the fire with Correa.
-
Correa is not the type to accept a performance-based contract. He’s specifically said “I am xx type of player, I know what I’ve done, I know what I am worth”. And, even if the Astros ethos is not to reward for past performance, there are plenty of teams that still do. Let them take that risk. Performance-based contracts are typically the domain of star players in decline, which would be his next contract to close out his career.
Performance based contracts are not allowed under the CBA. You can pay for past performance or expected performance, but not actual performance.
The Americans With Disabilties Act might apply to a penalty based on an injury and the IL.
What a bad idea.
I thought you could structure incentives based on the number of games/innings/at bats attained, but you can’t base it on how well you play.
Yes, you can offer those types of incentives, but you can’t base it on results. Though you can build in things like bonuses for making the All-Star team or winning awards and such. Just no direct $1MM for hitting .300 or for 100 RBIs kinds of things.
Good information, Bench & HH!
Understand how pitches thrown/balls/strikes, etc., Hits/Walks/K’s/SB/RBI, etc., & PO/Assists/Errors,etc. are viewed as “results”.
So “opportunities/indirect results” (AB, pitches, running/fielding chances, etc.,) can be negotiated as incentives in a contract? How often are they included in a contract?
The usual suspects (MVP, SS, GG, etc.,) are in Springer’s contract.
MLB allows “performance bonuses”, but they cannot be based on skill, statistical achievement, or where the club finishes in the standings. And since all MLB contracts are 100% guaranteed, salaries cannot be reduced from a pre-determined amount. Players can only add to an agree-upon salary. Days on the roster is a common bonus criteria, as are so many plate appearances, innings pitched, and of course, awards. There are also limits as to how much of a players compensation can be in the form of performance bonuses. The reason is, these performance bonuses do not count towards the contract AAV and luxury tax computation. So clubs can’t circumventing these rules by loading up contracts with easily achievable bonuses. In other words, a player cannot sign for league minimum, but get a $10MM bonus for making the Opening Day roster.
So only Correa could propose an incentive relative to increased Games and Plate Appearances…
Had never compared the stats of Lindor and Correa before.
- Both arrived at the ML in 2015 w/ 99 games/432 PA (Correa) and 99/438 (Lindor)
- 2016 - Games 153/158 & PA 660/684 (Lindor ahead by a nose)
- But Correa never had more than 110 games and 481 PA after 2016, while Lindor had only one season (2019) w/ less than 158 games and 684 AB.
I now am beginning to understand that increased Game and PA goals could push players (Correa) too far, as das referenced here:
Apparently the only protection for the club is to present a more modest offer.
Appreciate your time and help, HH & das!