I don't think Crane feels like he is bound by Luhnow's promises. And this is not the same organization- on field, on the farm, or off field that Luhnow built.
The CBT is not the only limiting factor. There are some teams that do not have the money to make a competitive offer to a player they developed who became a super-star. The only way to level the field is to make the CBT an actual cap and I am not sure anybody wants that. All your plan would do is to make the rich teams richer by giving them an even greater advantage.
Fun rereading this stuff from 2018. I think my original post still holds up pretty well. In my original post I said Houston would need to rebuild after 2021 if they didn’t unearth a cheap superstar, then presented hope such as “maybe Kyle Tucker is Christian Yelich, maybe Yordan Alvarez is David Ortiz”. Well, that certainly worked out. My criteria for contending in 2018 was 6 players who project to >25 fwar that represent <50% of payroll. Houston should meet that criteria in 2024-2025, but without some very wise spending or very good player development, it’s hard to see them meeting it beyond that. Their top 6 current projected most valuable players in 2026 are Yordan Alvarez, Yainer Diaz, Chas McCormick, Jeremy Pena, Hunter Brown, and Cristian Javier; those 6 guys project for ~20 fwar and about $70M in payroll. So it’s possible if they develop one genuine star (Melton? Dezenzo? Matthews?) in that time and also spend another ~$25M on one star player, they could meet the bar.
Exactly. CBT has almost zero to do with anything other than providing owners an easy out with fans. Owners either have the money and are willing to sign guys or they do not have the money or want to keep a larger percentage of profits. NBA and NFL...sure. MLB CBT maybe has 3% of the same effect on spending as the other leagues' caps. And speaking of rooting for new players all the time....College football has the biggest problem of all right now. You have to learn a whole new team virtually each year.
I agree that revenues in MLB are not equal and financially somecteams just have advantages over others and dome simply can't pay superstars after 6 years, and frequently after 4 or 5. Both sides of this sport have been very clear that a true salary cap will not happen. Nobody outside of fans want it. I am not representing my idea as a magic solution to the entire problem. It's simply a small idea that gives teams and players incentive and reason to stay with their existing team. Teams have a financial reason to keep their homegrown players and players may be able to get a better offer to stay. Teams can keep their player below market value. Players still have the same freedom but could get a better offer from existing team by them raising AAV by up to 10%, or giving same guarantee over a shorter time.
After the 2019 season I would have bet almost anything that 20/21 would be the tail end of our run. It will be a very telling season for the future. A lot of still young players that could establish/re-establish themselves as core pieces for the next 2-3 years, at which point it just becomes about filling in the gaps. Or it could go the other way and we may see the curtain closing. If I were a betting man, I think we are a 90+win WS contender at least this season and next.
I completely disagree Regardless of how much money an owner or team has, they still use the CBT to determine how much they want to spend. You can say it's an "easy out" or an excuse, but that doesn't make it any less real. Look no further than the Angels waiving players left and right trying to get under the CBT last year as evidence. Teams run their organization based on the idea that the CBT is real and has consequences they do not want therefore giving teams a system that allows them to spend more before those consequences is a real incentive.
Players would never agree to this for the same reason they hate things like restricted free agency or draft pick compensation. Anything that distorts the free market and gives one team an advantage means other teams are, by definition, at a disadvantage. That makes it harder to create the bidding wars that drive up prices because teams would simply prefer to spend more of their money on their own free agents.
You may have a point, but I don't think so. Any team can still make the same offer they always have. This does nothing to restrict a player getting as big an offer as possible. I can't see a team not making an offer just because the former team gets a little credit. That credit won't go in the player's bank account. In fact, teams may actually bid higher to combat the home town credit and get a player if they really want him. And, of course a player may choose to leave anyway because the credit doesn't effect his contract, only the team payroll budget. Besides there still will be scenarios where several FA aren't eligible - like Soto wouldn't be, or a team simply isn't willing to match the market - like Carlos Correa leaving Houston.
It's not that teams can't make the same offer - it's that each team's money is more valuable signing their own players. So over time, teams would rather shift their money to resigning their own people as opposed to free agents. That's what makes it "more expensive", so to speak. It's similar to QO's and how draft pick compensation makes a player less valuable in free agency even though the dollar cost would be the same. If Houston signs Carlos Correa to the same $ contract they sign random FA shortstop, they get an extra benefit. That means they are more likely to try to spend their money on CC, Bregman, Tucker, Javier, Framber, etc than other free agents, meaning one less bidder for random FA's out there. The QO has the same effect, which is part of what drives these longer-term deals for star FAs - to make the loss of draft pick worth it, you have to get lots of years out of the free agent. But in your system, the longer the deal, the bigger the "penalty" since that money can't go to your own free agents, so it actually encourages the shorter term FA deals. I think it's good for the game, but bad for free agents, and thus something the MLBPA would oppose.
Love the idea, and so would the players Owners would never go for it though because it will lead to increased spending. They already agreed to raising the cap over the objection of several owners, so doing anything that would give teams the ability to spend more before the tax won't go over with them It's an outstanding idea though
If Whitley had developed like his comp, we likely have at least 1 more Ring and would be overwhelming favorites right now for 2024
Except if Crane places strong financial restraints on him we might never truly know how good he could be at his job
I actually think Crane's strong financial restraint is completely about 2025 and 2026. This team was built on obtaining and developing young talent. Luhnow went even further by using methods others weren't to identify the talent. But Brown's job is to restock the system and team. That's why HE was chosen over others. I am sure Crane will stick to his guns on contract length. I don't see any 9+ contracts as long as he's the majority owner and calling the shots. I can see younger players getting 6 or maybe even 7 and the rare possibility of MAYBE 8? (That's where my hope of resigning Bregman comes in). I think the team fully expects Bregman to be gone, but will offer a very high AAV 6 yr deal and then could possibly up it to 7. 8 will be based on details and maybe even options but I don't think it's 100% off the table. I also think they expect Tucker and Framber to be gone after 2025. They may resign Framber because he's older and may be willing to accept 5 yrs or less. No way Tucker signs for less than 8 and probably 10 so he's gone. Back to my point. . . I expect Crane to mandate this team remain under CBT in 2024 and get under it in 2025 if possible, but then open the checkbook to restock at the MLB level. The point is to get better comp picks for losing the star players to speed to rebuilding of the minor leagues. Then in 2026 after determining if any current prospects are MLB starter ready/capable, subsidize at the MLB level by signing aging semi-star and star players for 2-5 year deals to fill the holes and continue winning. Guys like Kyle Schwarber, Frankie Montas, Lourdes Gurriel Jr, Zach Eflin, etc would be 32 and probably looking for that kind of deal. How good the team can be will be determined by the development and success of high ceiling prospects and pre-arb players the next 2-3 seasons and whether that is good enough, or the team needs actual stars. But I don't see any true star players under age 32 signing with the Astros so they will need to be developed or traded for. *I hate to think of it, but if the team falls out of the race in 2025, trading Framber, Tucker, and maybe even Pressly and/or Verlander could kick start this process. Unlikely with 6 playoff spots and this roster.
The CBT exists as a price control mechanism letting the owners know what they shouldn't spend over without the owners needing for collusion. In other words, it is basically the 1980s MLB collusion scandal, but legal since the players agreed to it.
The one thing both the owners and the players agree on is their own interest is far more important than the fans.
That's not surprising. Fans also are more interested in themselves than they are owners' or players' interest as well. MLB is a business.
On another Astros message board, a poster said "I don't see any way Tucker doesn't hit the open market." I responded by saying "and I don't see any way he doesn't get a 10 year offer" And some yahoo said the way is if he repeats his 2023 season. What am I missing?
