If you give him enough money/year... and you don't lock him up till he's 37... there's some flexibility there. Or on the flip-side, if you do wait 2 years to re-sign him... and then you're paying a 38 year old Altuve $25-30 million dollars/year for a fraction of what he once was... then how is that any better? You can most certainly look at deals at the time... and alert the fact... and determine the result. The Astros have come out way ahead on the Altuve deal... Altuve has not. It was not a given that he would turn into this MVP candidate at the time... and nobody can say whether or not the contract induced this (although Altuve now says, it has). Springer, on the other hand, turned down the Altuve/Springer-like deal... a huge win for him now in retrospect, although you were saying at the time that he would have been smart to sign it. Singleton was a disaster simply based on a plummet in expected potential, let alone the Astros had to pay him more to see that plummet... and I do feel that he'd probably have put more work in had he not had guaranteed money.
I guess I'm valuing dollars/year... which doesn't get too affected by inflation over short-term contracts... vs. overall dollar figures. Altuve is also making only 6 million dollars this year, and 6.5 million next year. Two years of lost earning potential to go... I know for many that may not seem like that long, but 2 years ago you were also extolling the virtues of one Chris Carter. We have come a long way...
What? You do know we have most of our contracts falling off after 2020... There's a huge misconception that "we can't afford both" or "it's unsustainable". There's nothing that states we have to hold onto Gurriel/Reddick/etc contracts (we can deal them and even then if we wanted to keep them... they aren't bad). If they leave, we get picks. Verlander/McCann/No Keuchel deal/etc. all gone or retiring. That's a TON of money falling off. If you just account for Verlander/McCann deals, that's 43 million for the two of them THIS YEAR. We could give TUVE 30 million a year and be chilling. 2-3 years to continue to build the farm system to allow some of our guys to bolt in FA while keeping the core. You are assuming we keep these aging veterans three years down the road or hold onto them. We CAN keep Correa/Altuve. Crane also states top 5 payroll one day... Yeah, you do know that's around the 200 million dollar mark?
I might be in that camp myself. While holding on to your best players seems a no-brainer, if said players cost so much as to tie your hands in the FA market and limit resigning lesser players, then overall, it becomes questionable whether you have solidified the future by signing such players or mortgaged it. Maybe not a whole generation. 5-7 years from now we go into rebuild mode again 4 years of 100+ loses and high draft picks again 3 years to get those new assets to the ML level 12-14 years. Still a long time. I may be dead by then
We already know we can't keep Altuve. Springer, Correa, and Keuchel long-term. Some are going to go - I would like it to be the ones that ask for the most money. So I would start there, add any other building block pieces the Astros identify (Bregman, maybe McCullers and/or Peacock, even going down to super-prospects like Tucker and Whitley). And then I would offer them all long-term deals at a discount to whatever the Astros think they are worth in exchange for giving them long-term security. The first several to accept them are your future building blocks. The rest, you lose to free agency. If none of the players accept them, then you take your chances and repeat the process next year. Getting fixated on needing to keep X or Y player is how you end up overpaying. The Astros have the luxury of being able to build around a $30MM Altuve or a $35MM Correa or a $20MM Springer, etc. Unlike other teams that need to keep their star free agents, the Astros know they will lose some, so they have some leverage in trying to keep some and let others go. For example, if they get Springer and Bregman and lose Altuve and Correa, so be it - in that scenario, they have more money to spend on free agency. If they get Altuve and Correa but lose the others, fine - they have less free agent money, but get the most proven of the players. But regardless, in this scenario, whoever they sign, the Astros are getting some kind of value for it - a discounted price in change for security.
Astros wouldn't offer the 127.5 million, 3 year extension as they would want more years or to wait at that price. However, if they did make the offer, it doesn't make sense for Altuve.
Lots of things can happen in 2 years: If he remains an MVP and you keep winning World Series, your revenues are probably higher and pay for that extra cost. If he remains an MVP but you're not winning World Series, maybe you let him go and invest that money where you can get more bang for the buck. If he falls off in performance, maybe you sign him cheaper or let him go. If your offense is still elite in 2020, maybe you let him go to focus on pitching. There are all sorts of scenarios that could play out. Your scenario only works if the Astros are hell-bent on keeping Altuve at any price, which they shouldn't be. If the price of Altuve is $25-$30MM/yr at age 38, you let him go - that's how you end up better off.
I took his comment to mean everyone on the Astros was paid what he was worth on free agent market. At free agent prices, Astros likely have a team worth more than $400 million, and Crane would dismantle team before paying $400 million.
Sure - you can do that. And then you have no money to fill the holes in your team like going and getting a Verlander or McCann when you need then to put you over the top. Of course they can afford to keep all their stars - they just wouldn't be able to put a team around them in that scenario.
[Premium Post] Have to keep Correa and Altuve above all else. Players this good from a hitting perspective that are playing SS and 2B are rare. The chances of finding pieces to surround them at the other positions are far greater than finding middle infielders who are over .900 OPS hitters. Springer is the most replaceable.
Based on that standard, every deal has a winner and loser. That's just stupid. Of course Altuve regrets signing the deal *knowing what he knows now*. But he doesn't have that luxury. At the time, he's a tiny mediocre second baseman that could be cut at any point. And just got the opportunity to be set for life even in the worst case scenario. Even if he believes in himself, he could always get in a car wreck that would have ended his career - and he'd have lifetime security. That first $10MM is worth far more than then next $50MM to most people. In Springer's case, he bet on himself and it worked out great. Players are free to choose the risk or the security. But saying someone lost out by picking the security simply because they could have made more 5 years later completely ignores the immense value they got from the security. If I gave you two options today: 1. Flip a coin, and if it's heads, you get $100,000,000 2. Take $30,000,000 guaranteed today The vast majority of people would take #2 and they wouldn't be stupid for doing it. Half of them are not "losing out" by this deal because that first $30MM is more far more than the next $70MM.
Wouldnt another scenario be that you trade the guys you cant keep at least a year before club control is lost for premium prospects? Keep feeding the farm, bringing guys up, and trading some of the cream?
Yeah - definitely. It's just hard to trade key players while you're in contention due to pushback from fans, but in terms of smart long-term planning, that absolutely should be on the table.
Lets indulge that hypothetical for a moment. Who on the team is near their peak value, probably cant sustain it and is most replaceable who would yield significant prospects? Marwin?
So hypothetically, you're saying we can't fill those holes via trades? Like we literally just did before our run?... I was just accounting for Verlander/McCann. Point is, it's entirely possible to keep both whilst surrounding them with a group of vets (they will be those vets as well) and our next crop of talent to have a championship contending team for at least 5-10 years.
Hard to answer. For example, I think Verlander and Keuchel are passed their peak (although still very good) and would yield a nice haul. I think the rest of the staff could yield some good prospects and they could certainly sell high on Peacock, Martin and Devsnski, but they are mostly all in a wait and see mode. I think their core position players are too young to have reached their peak. Altuve may have reached his peak season, but that doesn't mean he won't perform at a big time level for a number of years still. At this point, I just wouldn't trade any of their core (including Marwin). Too much camaraderie and potential over the next few years.
Trading core guys would be a hard pill to swallow, no doubt. But if we are to avoid another overhaul in a few years, for sustainability sake, I see no other way.
