That is the way I read it as well.
This Correa contract (as well as a few others this off-season, and many that expire/expired recently) only bothers me on one front. I am ecstatic that our ownership team has taken the path that they have, even in the face of letting high profile players testing their value in the open market. Also, I am equally happy to see players who think they are not getting their value rewarded by other teams. A healthy balance between the two.
The part that I really despise, and it is more than okay if I am on an island of my own belief here, is that I am not sure that Correa gets all of that contract if Judge agrees to SF’s offer. in other words, my problem with the sport has to do with SF feeling like they had to keep up with the Jones’ (SD/LA/Philly/ATL) and had to get someone in/overpay because of poor decision-making in other areas (development, draft, missing out on FAs). They are going to be the bearer of 14 year contract - which is really batshit insane in this economic environment. If he goes to Minnesota, he gets 50-70 Million less on his new contract, I surmised from (MLB Radio).
So one could speculate (that’s what I am doing with zero insider knowledge), that turning Correa into the third highest contract in the sport, with a back-injury history and a 14 year mortgage is a recipe for long term instability within the organization and possibly knock-on effects for MLB. At some point, there will be a reckoning with this. I could be wrong as well — and this is just another brick in the wall, but man this is an indicator (like the 2008 financial/housing crisis) that people are doing insane things.
Again, glad for Houston to have Pena. And glad for Carlos and family. Shaking my head at baseball atm.
3 Likes
I’m not a rich owner, a skilled GM or a crafty manager, so all I really care about is having a World Series contender on the field and if the Astros do that I don’t give a rats how they do it, I’m happy.
3 Likes
Just looking at the comparing winning now vs. avoiding long-term expense. What in the history of Crane’s ownership makes you think winning isn’t his number one priority? Serious question.
Winning is obviously his number one priority. But with his first moves as owner he declared himself free of the need to do so right away. He quite consciously put into the field one of the worst teams in baseball history. He took a long view, and seems to be doing so again now.
Not that there’s anything wrong with having heterodox opinions about ownership, or about difference of opinion re: management strategy to begin with, but I didn’t see any undue criticism in Spleen’s post. Just thoughtful sidelines observation/worrying.
Without those horrible seasons to begin Crane’s ownership, we would not have drafted Springer, Correa, Bregman, and Tucker. I viewed what Crane did early on as wiping the slate clean and building the team his way. No one here can argue the results.
4 Likes
I read “serious pain down the road” to refer not to Crane’s pocketbook but to the team being stuck with deadweight players in their late thirties and early forties. As Devin and Waldo stated very well, Crane takes a long view and has consciously avoided these contracts. Instead he’s prioritized shorter-term deals that create flexibility to remake the team as necessary down the road. The free agent market up to this point has allowed the Astros to get very valuable players on deals of 5 years or less—Reddick, Brantley, Abreu, etc. But if the market continues to move toward longer deals, that type of player may be less available (either because teams are willing to offer more years to free agents, or these guys never hit free agency anyway because they already got a 10-year contract). So Crane may have to adjust.
Well said, D Ward. This is a significant source of pride we should celebrate with the Stros.
His ownership (for all its tumult) was not about keeping up with competition, but day by day finding all of the ways to get better. This is what I feel most people miss about this organization, exhaustive in efforts to get better (not all at once, but on every level).
Grateful for this.
3 Likes
Not sure about this one.
I think the entire point of Crane’s ownership style is not to be reactive to the market place, but to exploit the inefficiencies that other teams overlook (scouting in Cuba, or international drafts). Probably some evidence for following the crowd at times too, but in this economic environment where the cost of money is higher than its been since 1970’s (inflation, interest rates, and massive frauds embedded/hidden inside the economy), playing the escalation game of long contracts is suicidal for an organization imo (unless they “FU” money and do not really care one way or another — and even then its irresponsible).
Development is arguably more important now than ever, especially for a good organization (Houston) that can add timely signings when needed. But, it’s wasted when the club develops good players and serves as a de facto farm team for the haves.
Again, I don’t think the original post was questioning Crane’s commitment to winning, and I certainly wasn’t. It’s a question of whether he’s willing to pay the current market prices for established players or not. The answer seems to be that he has faith in his system to provide the necessary players or to find and obtain good players on other teams whose potential isn’t recognized yet (Yordan being the most obvious example), and that will allow him to stay out the current price wars. (And maybe be in a stronger position for free agents in the future when other owners are hamstrung by the contracts they’re handing out today.) It’s hard to argue with his record.
Point of order: Springer was a Wade pick, in his last draft (and outside of Springer, it was a very, very bad draft)
You guys must have been really pissed off every time you got a raise at work or a better salary at a new job.
6 Likes
Maybe. The cost of $$ is high now but these long term contracts have inflation on their side. The value of his $27M per in year 1 will be 40% less than that in year 13. I see this the same way that accountants will structure a capital investment on a 15 year amortization schedule, even for assets that will be on the books that last 5 years but no longer being used beyond year 10. I don’t think anyone in their right mind thinks Correa will be a producing member of the team in 2036.
3 Likes
You are correct. Wade drafted/signed Altuve and Keuchel as well. My point was we had to be really bad before we could be really good for an extended amount of time. Crane has done a great job putting people in place to make sure we are competitive without screwing up our future.
Altuve was signed under Purpura, believe it or not. Always shocks me.
2 Likes
Fair point.
Here’s a fairer one: I’ve never had a job that gave me generational wealth then left it for a job that created even more generational wealth.
4 Likes
Slacker
4 Likes
I didn’t know that. I’m shocked as well. I think that was the only good move Purpura made during his time in Houston.
Altuve was such a minor signing at the time, I doubt it was on his radar
3 Likes