This is all absolutely true - when looking at the big picture. An agent represents dozens or hundreds of players. In the grand scheme of things, on average, players will come out better by waiting. So an agent who gets to work in the aggregate will recommend all the players reject the deals - in the end, both he and his clients as a whole will net out better. But that doesn't work so well when looking at a sample size of 1. Cristian Javier might have a net career income of a couple of million dollars had he not signed his deal. LMJ might never have gotten another contract either. Both might not have actually stuck around in MLB once they hit free agency if not for their contracts. So for an individual player, it simply depends on risk vs benefit. Is your goal to maximize your potential wealth? Or is it to have a guaranteed multi-generational nest egg? The answer is different for every player. Pitchers should probably sign more than hitters, for example. And your background and family history is likely to influence your decision. I'm not saying every player should take these offers. Or that they should all reject them. I'm saying the times these extensions make sense is when a player accepts below FMV and when teams get some upside. The decision is going to be very personal - there's no right or wrong decision on an early extension for a player. But there very much is a right or wrong decision on what a team offers. Something like the Acuna contract several years back can make sense for both sides - the team is getting several extra years and the player is set for life. The recent rookie signings seem to be heavily weighted towards the player and of course they should just jump at those deals - they both get most of their upside locked in AND get lifetime wealth. But I see zero reason for a team to offer $180MM to buy out out 2-3 years of free agency in 2032 and onwards for a guy who still has a decent chance of being a bust. There's really very little upside there for the team and a whole lot of downside.
I guess if one wanted to put on their optimist hat. Burrows has pitched into some tough luck so far. A .378 BABIP despite better than average quality of contact numbers is rough. His xERA is a significantly more respectable 3.87.
I don't know what will happen with Brown long term, I don't think Crane knows. On one hand, assuming that the Astros are toast (they are), Brown has a sterling reputation for building a minor league system and identifying talent. When Crane asks around the league, he will get that response. So it is possible Brown survives and is the GM next year, and he does have some young players that could be close to breaking out. My concern with him is that I think he may be best suited as a draft/minor league system executive and not a GM. I haven't had an issue with his trades or draft picks - it has mostly been what I have seen from the coaching staff that he wanted in place. They are just below average and that is being very kind.
Looking at McGonigle’s deal - he got 8 years for $150M. They bought out three years of free agency for an average of just shy of $23M. Those three years are essentially his prime. Not even going to take inflation into account here, which provides further upside for the team… Let’s say he becomes a Kyle Tucker level player, which is a very reasonable outcome. He just got $60M annually. That’s $111M in upside for the Tigers. Further, it allows them to keep a player that they would otherwise never be able to afford as a team like the Dodgers would scoop them up if they reached their potential. I agree there’s a huge risk for the Tigers - he could become a bust. To say there’s very little upside isn’t accurate though.
When Crane hired Brown, one of the first things Crane said to the media is that he wanted Brown to sign/extend some of the younger Astros that Click and Luhnow had struggled to do. So, I don't know if Crane ever actually told Brown to go to the media, or it was a situation where Brown had been told that Crane wanted to sign everyone, and he opened his mouth saying he was optimistic because Brown has himself said that he was too honest early on with the media. Regardless, I didn't believe it was accurate at the time and I don't think it hurt anything as it likely kept questions about Tucker from being discussed. Definitely - and Lance was less interested in trying to get every penny. He wanted to stay in Houston. The Astros tried with a lot of guys. Some were very close (Pena) and others were not (Tucker). There were some glowing indicators about Javier's future. There were some concerns about his conditioning for sure, but at the time it was viewed internally as more an issue or ignorance and not laziness. He would study hard and listen to the coaches, so they believed that he would adjust. He also had a good feel for the game. The issue was injuries, and pitching through the injuries was really stupid. It is possible that Javier turns it around, but I am not sure that he will do what it takes physically. Javier is someone that Crane wanted extended based on the opinion of the coaches concerning his character and approach. It is a mixed bag, there are a lot of guys that are very good that have taken below market extensions and played well. Jose Ramirez has done it a couple of times. I think that teams have to know the personalities of the players involved and not be risk adverse. I think that Crane is too risk adverse, and that is largely fine because it is a risk either way.
You can't just look at the 3 years of FA - you also have to account for the fact you're paying way more for the 6 club-controlled years. If they bought out 3 years of FA for $69MM total, that assumes his pre-FA time is valued at $81MM. Kyle Tucker, who was pretty phenomenal, made $36MM in his pre-FA time. If you assume he would earn something similar to Tucker during his pre-FA period, you're actually paying a net of $38MM/yr for the 3 free agent years to extend him because you already had the previous 6 years locked up. That doesn't leave a lot of upside - and that assumes he's going to be a Kyle Tucker level player during his pre-FA period. If he's anything less than an MVP level player, you're losing out. And projecting an MVP level career for a guy who's been in the majors for a few weeks is pretty silly unless you're Bryce Harper or some other guy who was a top overall pick and everyone knew it from day #1 when he was drafted. Carlos Correa, who was a highly touted #1 oveall pick and was pretty damn good, made $94MM in his first 9 years. Bregman, who did the extension, was at $104MM after 9 years. Buxton, who was the other choice vs Correa, made $34MM after 9 years.
He's not hit the ball hard, but he's not missing way too much either. I did not realize he had not hit a homer. He's not been so bad that it would prevent a good month from making him look okay for the season.
Agreed. And the more we discuss this, the more it seems like we're saying the same thing. I don't fault the player for taking the deal that "sets them for life"... I raise an eyebrown when its a player that on paper seems like they're leaving a lot on the table, and is there something more to it. At that point, the TEAM may end up regretting the deal moreso than the player and teams that continue to get acceptance of those offers should also have that possibility on the radar (even though big market teams won't get hurt as much, it certainly impacts the mid market teams that probably try to secure these deals the most). If Yordan hadn't signed the extension, I believe this would be his contract year... and if things continue to work in this favor, Crane will likely extend him before he gets closer to his next FA contract (similar to how he did Altuve). On the flip-side, the Astros really haven't gotten any sort of return on Javier or LMJ. At least its better than the target I thought they should have secured (Garcia). Pitchers are always the gambles... at one point the organization could predict UCL tears and make draft/financial decisions because of it (and getting Bregman was the net result). Not sure that the predictive nature has held true beyond those early 2010's (or their developmental strategy needs revamping).
Through first 23 games 01 Bonds 11 Hrs 22 rbis 17 Walks 16 k's 98 Sosa 5 Hrs 15 rbis 10 Walks 22 k's 98 McGwire 10 hrs 32 rbis 25 walks 27 k's 26 Yordan 10 hrs 21 rbis 19 walks 11 k's
Absolutely - I just think this is exactly how it should be. In the Javier case, for example, if Javier lived up to his promise and didn't get injured, that contract would have been good deal for the Astros. As it is, it's a steal for Javier. That's the risk-reward that makes these early extensions a win-win for everyone. My problem is when they get to such a valuation where there's only really one winner (the player, in the case of these ones the last few weeks). Otherwise, I think things like the Yordan, LMJ, and Javier deals are exactly what mid-market teams should go for - with the idea that you win some and lose some and its a measure of how good your front office is at identifying the right risks. The Astros just had really bad injury luck with all 3, though that seems to apply to everyone on the Astros regardless of what are paid. But Yordan still ends up positive barring future injury. If one of LMJ or Javier worked out, the net of all 3 would have been a good deal.
Hopefully Arrighetti carries over his dominance from last start. Shifting into a long term view, the following players become really important for establishing themselves as core players to build around: Cam Smith Mike Burrows Spencer Arrighetti AJ Blubaugh Joey Loperfido I want to see what Peter Lambert can do with a sustained audition in the rotation. I also want to see Taylor Trammell playing everyday for 150+ pa. If Houston sells at the deadline, I’d like to see Matthews, Cole, and Dezenzo get a good sample of big league time.
That’s fair - you are correct there. That being said, if he becomes Kyle Tucker that’s still a pretty significant upside if you also consider the significant inflation in baseball salaries. This isn’t just a “player who has been in the majors for a week”.The bust rate for #1 prospects isn’t that high. Since 2004 there’s been 23 MLB.com #1 prospects. Three of them (Griffin, Holliday, Sasaki) are too recent and haven’t played have enough to determine where they’ll fall. The players below all range from similar to Tucker to generational players. The Rays got their money back on Franco but clearly he was going to be at that level. Vlad Jr Ohtani Trout Witt Jr Mauer Price Henderson Bregman Seager Franco That’s a 50% hit rate. Don’t really know where Adley and Alvarez are going to end up. Adley has a high floor and likely not going to end up a bust. Jay Bruce, Byron Buxton, and Jason Heyward are a tier below but obviously not busts. You can live with those results. The only true busts have been Delmon Young, Matt Moore, Profar, and to a lesser extent, Benintendi. There’s four guys on that list above that are significantly better than Tucker.
Arighetti's last interview scared the **** out of me. Talking about wasting 2-3 pitches up 2 strikes to hunt strike outs. Completely selfish, and why he will never be better than what he currently is, a bottom of the rotation starter incapable of consistently getting through the 5th inning.
Strikeouts are easier to get than ever. Front offices look for Ks in pitchers more than ever. Spencer has watched poor defense cost this team and other pitchers several runs and even wins. The Astros just kept him in AAA long enough to ensure he is under control for an additional season despite injuries to the rotation, bringing up much less established guys instead. Spencer has lots of reasons to want strikeouts.
Also weird given that once you're up 0-2 or 1-2 hunting Ks has been a pitching philosophy for just about forever.
