Yeah, but JV just wasn't the same pitcher in the post season last year: 1-4 with an ERA over 6 and a WHIP of 1.753 (more than double his regular season WHIP of 0.803). 25.1 IP/17 ER/30 hits/38 Ks/14 BBs. Could have probably used some rest down the stretch, but 20 Wins, 300 K's, and another Cy Young award were there for the taking. Pitching on short rest in G4 of the ALDS probably didn't help the overall numbers either. Assuming they make another run this year, I hope he's much stronger in the playoffs. Well documented that his World Series record is not what you'd expect (0-6 in 7 GS) from a pitcher of his ilk. Hope he gets to pitch in another Series this year and get that illusive first win. The only real blemish in an otherwise tremendous 2+ seasons in Houston. Go 'stros!
At his age he wasn’t going to command big money anyway Add in a Rona economy and it won’t take enough for the money to matter. If Click wants to keep him it shouldn’t be too hard
Will be very interesting to see how his market shakes out. The small sample this season is unlikely to change his price by much, which may work in Houston’s favor. I personally think Yuli could fit in LF (or allow Jones/Toro to play LF), so re-signing him at the right price may be a good value. I’d be totally fine giving him $20M/3yrs to finish his career in Houston. I’d probably even be willing to throw in a 4th year vesting option. But that may be way underestimating his value. If a team thinks he can still play 3B and that his relatively low mileage makes him play younger than his age, and puts stock in his 2019 numbers, he might be worth more than double that amount.
Yuli is probably my favorite fielding 1B we’ve had since Baggy. Berkman was good too. Not sure what Yuli’s comp is on the market. He’s almost like an older Castellanos who just inked 4/64. It just takes one team to bite, so who knows. I’d love to bring Yuli back, but yeah, the price has to be right. I just bought his 2019 WS jersey at half price a few months ago...cmon Click, give me a good ROI!
Looking at guys who signed this offseason, I would probably put him somewhere between Todd Frazier ($5M/1yr) and Jose Abreu ($50M/3yr), with Edwin Encarnacion ($12M/1yr) also offering an interesting data point. I think had he had a really good full 2020 he might’ve had a shot at $50M/3yr but as it stands I think he will be very lucky to get more than $30M/3yr, and with a bad year or collapsed market he could be looking at a $7M/1yr deal and a year-to-year situation from here on out. My offer for now would be something like $21M/3yr with a 4th year $11M option that vests with 500 PA in year 3, otherwise being a team option with a $3M buyout. So he’s guaranteed $24M/3yr, with $32M/4yr if he plays well.
Gurriel is walking a fine line. I would not want to make a decision on him a year out. He could be great going forward, but he could also show his age at a time that Astros need to depend on FAs more. I worry about Springer re-signing. Astros are going to be booed heavily in 2021. It would not surprise me if he doesn't want a part of that. Astros are going to likely need to outbid others for Springer or devote a good chunk of money to bring in free agent OFs. Caveat: My preference for FA is to get big fish such that the farm needs to provide mostly depth instead of stars and depth.
Assuming the season is able to finish, if we were to win the World Series this year maybe that changes things for Springer...
Yep, it’s really hard to evaluate Yuli. He’s a 1B, but he might be fine at 3B or LF. He’s 36, but he has only been under the MLB grind for 3.5 seasons. He’s been roughly a league average player (6.2 fWAR in 3.5 seasons), but he’s coming off his best season ever (3.2 fWAR, 31 HR), and his value has likely been dinged by having to play 1B. I agree with you that Houston shouldn’t count on their farm to provide any stars in the next 2-3 seasons outside of Whitley. Good news is that as long as Tucker and Whitley pan out (and Bregman, Altuve, and Yordan don’t fall off too much), the Astros would only need 20-25 WAR out of about a dozen players. Resigning Correa and Verlander (assuming he continued to defy age) would account for about half of that, so having the farm provide 12 WAR spread out over 10 guys isn’t that far fetched, and even if it doesn’t they can fill in those gaps with 2nd and 3rd tier free agents (like Yuli). Losing Correa and Verlander after next season makes it a LOT harder to picture the 2022-2025 Astros as real contenders, unless they replace those guys with equally valuable (and expensive) free agents. Here’s a hypothetical 2024 roster with WAR and salary: CF Straw 1 war/$4M 3B Bregman 7.5/$30.5 DH Alvarez 5.5/$9M SS Correa 6/$40M 2B Altuve 3/$29M RF Tucker 3.5/$8M 1B Toro 2/$3M LF Leon* 2/$600k C Lee* 2/$600k Bench 2/$6M SP Verlander 4/$35M SP Whitley 3/$8M SP Urquidy 3.5/$6M SP Santos* 2/$600k SP James 1.5/$7M CL Abreu 2/$6M BP 3.5/$7M *you could sub in prospect of your choice That’s a 54 WAR roster (roughly equal to the current roster) for ~$200M.
Hard to guess his ultimate contract but assuming he has a good 2020-2021 and the teams keep spending, he could be in line for $40M/yr. And if he puts up the 6 war I project, he’d be well worth $40M. Machado got $300M/10yr and I believe Correa has a higher ceiling. Of course that all could be way off.
If Correa gets 40 million it needs to be in another uniform. Astros can't afford that risk. Bullpen is my biggest concern. If guys like Abreu, Devenski, Sneed, etc don't step up we will be in big trouble. Starters better go 7 innings if they want a W.
FWIW, the details on my hypothetical was giving Correa $300M/10yrs, with the contract being $240M/6yrs with a $60M/4yr player option (via opt out) added on to get it to $300M.
Yuli could hit .400 with a .408 obp during a 60 game season. I enjoyed how he improved his speed last year.
Unless Correa puts up 2 top 5 MVP seasons his contract should look closer to what Bogaerts received than Machado.
I’d say that’s about what he’d get at this point, with all the injury plagued seasons. He could get a huge deal down the road if he plays 150+ games for 3-4 years
Spoiler The Houston Astros have deployed several legal defenses against lawsuits brought by aggrieved season-ticket holders angry over the sign-stealing scandal. But one of the team’s arguments is likely to surprise: that a First Amendment-inspired Texas law, designed in part to protect the media from lawsuits, also insulates the Astros. In fact, the team contends because it issued press releases on the scandal, which then became the subject of several news stories, the First Amendment-related law nullifies the litigation against the team. A key element of the lawsuit is the ticket holders’ contention that the team’s pre-scandal statements, press releases, and marketing that touted the club’s success and hard work, induced them to buy their ducats. The plaintiffs allege those communications are therefore fraudulent. But the team contends such messaging is protected by the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which the state passed to enable media and others to speak, write, and associate without fear of retaliatory lawsuits. These types of legislation are also known as anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) laws. Commercial speech is exempted, but the Astros maintain what they communicated is a matter of public interest. “(The plaintiffs’) claims expressly are based on Astros press releases,” the team’s outside counsel, Bryce Callahan of Yetter Coleman LLP, said at a court hearing Friday. “And of course, press releases, by definition, are designed to communicate information about events to the public and to promote journalistic works. Press releases are given to the press. So the press will cover them and write articles about it. And in fact, that’s exactly what has happened throughout the underlying issues of this case, whether that’s the sign-stealing scandal, whether that’s the specific press releases that we’ve talked about here.” In a filing made the day before Friday’s hearing, Anita Seghal, the team’s senior vice president, marketing and communications, wrote: “The Astros issued these press releases to assist journalists in gathering information for the creation and dissemination of journalistic work and also to promote press coverage in articles, newspapers, websites, magazines, social media platforms, and television or radio programs … (they) were not made by the Astros in any capacity as sellers or lessors of goods and services, did not arise out of commercial transactions for the Astros’ sale or lease of goods or services, and the intended audience of those press releases were journalists and the general public.” Counsel for the ticket holders Friday blasted the team’s position, terming it “absurd and nonsensical.” “They were promoting their own commercial venture,” said Marion Reilly of Hilliard Martinez Gonzales, LLP. “They weren’t promoting art, drama, journalism, literature, music, political, or other artistic work. Cheating to the Astros was a strategic business decision. It was designed to increase revenue, and it was designed to increase the brand value, again, simply because journalists later wrote about the Astros cheating doesn’t mean that the Astros promoted that journalist’s work.” The judge hearing the case, Harris County District Court’s Robert Schaffer, said little during the nearly hour-long argument but did at one point strongly question the Astros. When their counsel, Callahan, tried to disabuse the argument that his position would eliminate all fraud lawsuits if a company simply issued a press release, Judge Schaffer interrupted and said, “Hold on. That’s exactly my thought as well. So any kind of case would get this exemption?” And earlier, Judge Schaffer asked, “What are the communications involved here that implicate a person’s right to free speech, assemble and petition on matters of public concern? “You’re saying, you’re saying because of the way I marketed T-shirts and jerseys, that is a communication made in connection with a matter of public concern,” he quizzed the Astros. Callahan replied the Astros’ communications covered more than merchandise, but statements about sign stealing, player and manager interviews, and other releases. The Astros also contend that the plaintiffs don’t have standing to sue because their tickets are a revocable license that does not create a fiduciary duty. But the plaintiffs argue it’s fraudulent marketing and communications they are suing over, which is why the Astros invoke the TCPA. “You know, it’s hardly up for dispute that Astros baseball, specifically, the sign-stealing scandal is a matter of public concern,” Callahan said. Reilly countered that the Act protected media organizations, not baseball teams. “The Astros are not the media and the TCPA amendments protect the media,” she said. “The person or entity invoking the provision has to be part of the media, where they have to be engaged in the journalism business, such as a newspaper, magazine, news website, or broadcaster. … Again, the Astros are not engaged in the journalism business, and they’re not the media. They’re a major league baseball club that ultimately hopes that the media will generally promote their business.” But Callahan countered the TCPA does not necessarily extend just to the media. “{I}t does not apply only to traditional media companies,” he said. “The idea that the Astros themselves have to be a newspaper or a TV station to take advantage … is simply not supported by the text.” When Reilly began addressing the legislative history of the TCPA to prove it should only apply to media companies, Judge Schaffer had enough. He said he will rule on the arguments, as well as whether the plaintiffs have legal standing, by August 16. He ruled out any discovery until he decides whether to dismiss the case. Hours later, Reilly’s firm filed a motion asking the judge to allow them to depose the Astros’ Seghal, the marketing executive “Plaintiffs seek discovery in the form of depositions (or alternatively, written discovery), to determine whether the sworn statements from Anita Seghal — in her capacity as the Senior Vice President, Marketing & communications, for Houston Astros, LLC (“Astros”) — supports the Astros Defendants’ legal contentions, arguments, and positions set forth in their conflicting motions.”
