A Discussion on Carlos Correa's Free Agency (Plus Some Elaborations)

Over at The Crawfish Boxes, I participated on a site discussion about the Astros’ attempts to re-sign Carlos Correa. You should go check it out! And when you’re done, I have a few more thoughts over here, expanding on my part.


One thing that I mentioned was the idea that it’s better for team building to rely on one star rather than multiple players. It’s pretty generalized, but the example I included does a good job with it: one player worth 5 Wins Above Replacement is more valuable than two 2.5-WAR players, for the same reason those two players are better than five 1-WAR players.

Because it’s not just the one 5-WAR player you’re getting in the first scenario; you still have to fill those other roster spots that the two-player and five-player options. There’s no option to just run a 24-man or 22-man roster. And if you’ve done your job right, those other roster spots should be worth more than 0 Wins, so the actual trade-off is 2.5+2.5 versus 5+(something else).

Of course, the catch here is all hypothetical and cost-independent. When teams have managed to circumvent this, it’s been by more efficiently allocating the same resources. To provide another oversimplified example, if the team that goes for the 5-WAR player doesn’t know what they’re doing and does get a 0-Win player as back-up, while the 2.5-WAR players have higher ceilings (maybe they’re coming back from injury, or have untapped potential or something, so the 2.5 estimate is inaccurate). Of course, that’s a trade-off that will depend heavily on the specifics.

That’s part of the problem with the shortstop question here. We don’t really know the cost specifics yet. Free agent negotiations are complicated. Carlos Correa might want a Lindor-size deal, like Cody reported in the original article, but he’s not the only party deciding this. Another team has to decide to give him that, and while there are other teams trying to sign him to bid the eventual winner up, there are also plenty of other shortstop options for those other teams to consider this winter, including Corey Seager, Marcus Semien, Trevor Story, and Javier Báez. And of course, we largely aren’t going to be privy to any of these processes.

We are dealing with a lot of unknown variables here*, which is why I tend to retreat to the abstracts for now. Or, like I pose during the article itself, it’s especially easy to say “I don’t want Correa Correa at $300 million over ten years, let’s just sign Trevor Story instead” when you don’t actually know what the market for Story is. We can make guesses, like maybe Story will sign for below-market because of his 2021 season, but there might be multiple teams who have that same thought and bid him up anyway (especially if all of them think he’ll bounce back, which might in turn improve his ask).

*And none of this is even getting into whatever changes to the game’s financial structures the new CBA institutes. I’ll be working with what’s in place when necessary for lack of a better option, but the main balance I’ll be getting at is the balance of Player Value versus Dollars Spent, which should be relatively unaffected by any changes.

So, as an outside observer with few specifics, I tend to go with the broadest case; sign the best player you can. In that regard, Seager (who’s a year older) is the only one who matches Correa in peak and age, even with both of their injury concerns. Semien has matched their peaks, especially recently, but he’s four years older than Correa, so any deal for him will be missing out on his ages 27 through 30 seasons and likely comes with more risk as a result. Story and Baez are both two seasons older (so again, you’re losing two peak seasons to work with), and you need to contend with their own questions (Story’s downturn last year, Baez’s lack of a batting eye). Maybe one of them sees their price drop as a result of those issues, maybe there’s something teams see in them that make their specific risks manageable, but again it’s hard to know all of that right now.

And for my final point of the article, there really isn’t anyone like Correa or Seager for the next few years. I had to do a brief scan in real time to keep up with the discussion, but even with more time to go over it, the pickings look pretty slim. Here’s the 2022-23 Free Agent Class; the only players with recent MVP-level performance (leaving aside the players with options, since those will likely be picked up) are Trea Turner and Aaron Judge. Turner as a free agent will be three years older than Correa as a free agent, so you’re again missing out on three peak seasons in whatever deal he signs (in addition to not having a star in his spot for the 2022 season). Judge is a year older than Turner.

The next year is a stronger class, but there isn’t a clear better choice. José Ramírez and Matt Chapman are the most obvious picks, but they’ll be coming off their age thirty seasons (so again, you’re missing out on four years in your deal and forgoing a star for the next two seasons). Cody Bellinger will be 27, but has… whatever has been his issue for the last two seasons; even if he returns to MVP-form, I’d find this two-year valley much more worrisome than Correa or Seager’s injuries. Maybe Manny Machado will opt out of his deal following his age-30 season, but I certainly wouldn’t be putting all my eggs in that basket this early.

(I guess if you make it to 2025, you have a shot at 26-year-old Juan Soto, but even then, you’re gambling on the Nationals not locking him up before then, on top of all other uncertainty that comes with being a free agent deal that will not be starting until four seasons from now. And for the Astros, at that point, Kyle Tucker and Yordan Álvarez’s free agencies will be looming in the next winter, although Jose Altuve and Alex Bregman’s deals will be coming off the books at that point as well.)

As I said in the piece, if it makes you feel better, you can think of it as an incentive to spend on Correa now; there are no stars like him the next few years, no one to worry about missing out on in the meantime. Absent the specifics of the negotiations (a big asterisk, to be sure), there’s no reason not to be trying hard to lock him up right now.

Can a Contract Still Be "Bad" if You Win the World Series? Examining Some High-Profile Cases

I saw an interesting discussion the other day that got me thinking about things; in this case, it was people wondering if Patrick Corbin is the worst contract in the Majors at this point.

For those who haven’t followed the Nationals outside of their trade deadline sell-off, Corbin has had an extremely rough 2021, with 14 losses and a league-worst (among qualified pitchers) 5.98 ERA in 155.0 innings. If you go by Baseball-Reference’s Wins Above Replacement, Corbin has cost his team 1.5 Wins this season, the fourth-worst mark for a pitcher behind only Jake Arrieta, J.A. Happ, and Matt Shoemaker. Of course, Arrieta, Happ, and Shoemaker are only making a combined $16 million this year; Corbin, meanwhile, is signed through 2024 and will make roughly $108 million from 2021 through then.

Of course, position players Eugenio Suarez (-2.7 WAR) and Hunter Dozier (-2.9) have been even worse, and both are signed to longer term deals, albeit still for less than Corbin (and Cody Bellinger and Jarred Kelenic have also been slightly worse, although neither made it beyond arbitration). And another complicating factor is that it’s debatable if Corbin is even that bad, as Fangraphs’ version of WAR places Corbin at a much better 0.0 WAR, thanks in part to a much better FIP (5.47) and xFIP (4.34) rates. And none of this is getting into whether Corbin can rebound, as it wasn’t that long ago that he was making All-Star Teams and picking up Cy Young votes.

Of course, I think the single biggest argument against Corbin being the worst contract is his key role in winning the 2019 World Series. He finished eleventh in Cy Young voting that year, finishing with 202 innings of 135 ERA+ (or a 77 FIP-*, if you prefer) before becoming a key cog on the eventual champs as they leaned heavily on their rotation to avoid exposing a weakened bullpen. Even if he never returns to that form, Corbin played a key role in bringing home a flag that will fly forever (and for a franchise and a city that were both in long World Series droughts, at that).

*A reminder, since I don’t always use it; FIP- works like ERA+, but inverted; so a 77 mark would mean a FIP 23% better than league average, since 77 is 23 points lower than the 100-average.

I’m not sure if there’s a set quantity of “value” that a World Series championship brings in evaluating how good a contract is, but my gut says that if a player played a crucial role in bringing home a title, at the very least, any “WAR shortfall” over the course of their contract should be forgiven. For a long time, my test case for this idea was Barry Zito and his seven-year, $126 million deal* with the Giants, which ran from 2007 to 2013.

The Orioles Should Offer Chris Davis an Extension, Despite His Lackluster 2014

As an Orioles fan, it’s been a bit of a source of concern for me that Chris Davis isn’t repeating last year’s breakout numbers. Granted, I wasn’t expecting him to repeat those, since they were probably the extreme end of what he could produce. At the same time, though, I don’t think anyone expected him to post a .206/.327/.401 slash line half way through the season. The 28-year old first baseman was supposed to be a contributor going forward, not posting a 98 weighted Runs Created+ (wRC+, meaning he’s hitting 3% below league average).

Which is why what I’m about to say might sound crazy, but just here me out: if I were the Orioles, I’d be making every effort to resign Chris Davis right now.

The Jonathan Singleton Deal, and the Rebuilding, Finances, and Future of the Houston Astros

With Jon Singleton’s home run yesterday, it seems that a new era is officially under way for the Houston Astros. Although maybe it more accurately started two months ago with the call-up of George Springer. Or maybe a month ago, since that was when he took off (his first month was quite the opposite).

Or maybe it was Monday, when the team inked Singleton to a new contract. And not just any contract, but the largest contract in history for someone without a game of Major League experience. On one hand, a guaranteed $10 million for five years (or, if the options are exercised, $35 million/eight years) seems like a steal for the Astros. One Win Above Replacement is going for about $6 million on the free agent market, meaning that Singleton could match that without even making it to 2 WAR. On the other hand, there was no way Singleton would have cost that much as a pre-arbitration, then arbitration-eligible player. On the other-other hand, that’s still not an unreasonable total, and if Singleton is good, he almost certainly would have been worth that and more. On the other hand, Singleton still hasn’t even played a game at the Major League level. On the other hand, he’s only giving up one year of free agency, worst-case scenario, so he’ll still be paid in good time if he is worth it. All I can figure out from all of that is that the deal sounds about right in balancing risk and reward for both parties (and also that I apparently have five hands).

But this does bring up an interesting question: is this the new Astros, a small-market team? After all, they do have a rather meager $50 million payroll this season, with only two players making more than even $5 million this season (Dexter Fowler and Scott Feldman). This is a team that carried a $102 million payroll as recently as 2009; what’s going on here?

Knee-Jerk Reactions: More Mega Deals, This Time with Buster Posey

And the massive contracts continue to roll in. Following in the steps of Adam Wainwright and Justin Verlander, Buster Posey has signed a $167 million, nine-year deal (Andrew Baggarly). Verlander remains the largest deal signed on today, but those two deals are still a combined total of $347 million guaranteed (not counting Posey or Verlander’s $22 million options, or the sorta-less-than-mega $32 million deal Paul Goldschmidt also signed today).

Knee-Jerk Reactions: Justin Verlander Tops Adam Wainwright's Mega-Extension

Adam Wainwright isn’t the only ace to sign a massive extension this week; he’s not even the one with the biggest deal now. Justin Verlander just signed the largest deal for a pitcher in history, signing through 2019 for $180 million. He was already under contract through 2014 with $40 million left on his deal, so this is more a $140 million over 5 year set up (with an $22 million option for 2020). How does it compare to Wainwright’s, or the rest of the league?

Knee-Jerk Reactions: Cardinals Extend Adam Wainwright

With less than a week until opening day, the Cardinals finished a last-minute extension with Adam Wainwright, according to Ken Rosenthal. And not just any extension; a massive 5 year, $97.5 million deal. My first instinct was more or less “that’s a lot of money for a 31-year old”, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad deal. But a 31-year old a year removed from Tommy John surgery? Could Wainwright still live up to that deal?

Rays Lock Up Evan Longoria Forever (Pretty Much)

The Tampa Bay Rays have done something very un-Rays-like today, handing Evan Longoria a $100 million, six-year contract.

Now, a $100 million deal in general would seem odd for the Rays, but what makes this one odd no matter who it’s from is the years. Specifically, the Rays already had Longoria signed through 2016. The six years in this deal run from 2017 to 2022 (with an option for 2023).

On a side note, I would like to add that it blows my mind that we have contracts running into 2023. 2020 still seems far away, but into the mid-2020s? That just seems ridiculous.

Anyway, Longoria just finished his age-26 season, meaning that this deal also covers him until he’s 37. Normally, that would be a bad thing, right? Locking up a player for a large sum of money until they’re in their late 30s? Aren't the Rays supposed to be smarter than your average front office?

Actually, I would say this deal fits in with the Rays normal moves. Despite the general aversion to long-term, $100 million deals, this one looks like the Rays might come out on top.

The Andre Ethier Extension: Or, Ned Coletti Baffles Me

Well, another outfielder has signed a rather large extension; this time, it’s Andre Ethier. And, just like I did last time, I figured this was a good time to review it and predict how it would go, because what good is a contract if we don’t know how he’s going to do ahead of time?*

*Yes, that was a little sarcastic.
So, first, the details. The contract officially starts next season, and runs through 2017. There’s a vesting option worth $17.5 million and a $2.5 million buyout, meaning that the Dodgers are more or less only going to pay an additional $15 million to drop him if the contract vests.

Let’s just work with the basic contract though for now. $85 million translates to about 17 wins above replacement over the contract (the current value of 1 WAR on the open market is approximately $5 million), or 3.4 per season. And this is the first curiosity of the contract: going by Fangraphs, Ethier has only once surpassed that mark, back in 2008 when he was 26. Actually, that’s the second curiosity; Ethier was 26 four years ago. This contract runs through his age 31 through 35 seasons, never a great sign. Essentially, Ethier will likely be declining at these ages. Add in his similar players and the age factor looks rather worrisome.

The similar players aren’t really a deal-killer, for me though. It doesn’t help my view on the contract, but Ethier is his own player. What does give me some pause, though, is the ballplayer that Ethier is currently. As mentioned, he’s only passed 3.4 WAR in a season once (and Baseball-Reference’s version of WAR, or bWAR, is even less favorable, only giving Ethier a peak of 2.7). However, Ethier is set to pass that mark again this year. He’s already at 2.1 fWAR and 2.2 bWAR on the year already, and Fangraphs is predicting a 4.3 Win season when 2012 is over. Is this a sign of a new Ethier?

Well, the usual indicators of luck (Batting Average on Balls in Play and Home Run/Fly Ball rates) are a little high, but nothing too outrageous. He has a slash line this season of .287/.348/.509 (batting average/on-base percentage/slugging percentage), compared to his career line of .291/.363/.481. The batting averages are pretty close, but the .015 drop in OBP is a little worrisome. Looking deeper, his walk rate (7.4%) would represent a career low, and his strikeout rate (23.0%) would be a career high, neither of which is a good sign.

His slugging did jump a little, but it’s nothing too out-of-line with his past seasons (he posted a .367 mark in 2010, and a .370 mark in 2009). So where is all the extra value coming from? It would appear his fielding. From 2008 through 2010, Ethier was a similar hitter to now. However, his fielding those years cost him 8.3, 13.5, and 16.5 runs those seasons (10 runs equal 1 win). This year, Ethier doesn’t have any fielding data (likely due to a lack of data so far). He posted a slight positive last year in the field (+5.3 runs), but fielding data can be inconsistent from year to year; it’s more likely a random jump than a sign that he suddenly became a much better fielder. Even if he did, it’s unlikely it holds up as his body ages. Speaking of a body holding up, Ethier hasn’t played more than 140 games in a season since 2009, and has only played in more than 150 games twice in his career (2007 and 2009). This also does not bode well.

And really, that’s more or less a summary of the Ethier deal. He can hit at an above average rate and he can’t field well, historically. He’s an above average part on a good team, but not a franchise centerpiece or anything. At his best, this is a slight overpay. However, the Dodgers also paid for his age 31 through 35 season, which are firmly in the “decline” phase for most players, not a good sign for a player already showing signs of decline in less plate discipline. Andre Ethier will probably be useful for the next few years, but it’s not clear he’ll even be worth the contract then. I’m not really seeing whatever inspired the Dodgers to jump at this deal.

The Adam Jones Extension: Better Than I Thought

I’m going to be honest; for a long time, I wasn’t sure about whether the Orioles should extend Adam Jones. I mean, he has been impressive so far this year. But how much of his performance would be repeatable? Would he be worth locking up long term if he regressed back to his pre-2012 numbers? If there was someone willing to buy high on him, I would have probably considered it depending on the offer.

Meandering Thoughts On David Wright and Franchise Players

Recently, Hardball Talk ran a story mentioning that the Mets want to sign David Wright long term, making him a franchise player more or less. That got me thinking about several different things, in an order.

The first is the most obvious: should the Mets try and lock Wright up long-term? He’s a free agent after this season, and he’ll be 30 next season. It seems fair to say he’ll have a few productive seasons left, especially after his hot start (it’s early in the season, so obvious small sample size issues, but he has a 345 OPS+). However, his past few seasons have been worrisome. After posting 8.9 fWAR in 2007 (when he probably should have been MVP) and 7.1 fWAR in 2008, he has since posted values of 3.6, 4.0, and 1.9. Granted, that last one was only in 102 games, but that still is not a promising trend. He’s already up to .7 fWAR in 2012, so he may return to All-Star level, but this doesn’t seem like the type of player the Mets should hold on to if they can move him for pieces that might help the team win their next World Series.

Ryan Zimmerman: The Contract Extension, and Other Thoughts

So, there are a lot of things that I’ve wanted to write about as of late, but general, all-around business has kept me busy (go figure). So, I’ll try and condense some of them into a single meandering post.

One of the two stories I really want to address is the big extension that Ryan Zimmerman just signed with the Nationals. I really care about both the Nationals and Ryan Zimmerman, for some reason. Neither is on par with my actual fandom for the Cardinals or Orioles, but if I had to construct a hierarchy of favorite teams, the Nationals would probably be a solid bronze medal winner. I really don’t have any clear explanations for this. Part of it might be that I used to live in the D.C. area (granted, it was before the Nationals were a thing, which is why I’m an Orioles fan instead; but maybe some residual feelings for the area?). Part of it might have been sympathy for the Expos that carried over and multiplied when they were moved. Part of it might be because Peter Angelos didn’t like them. But I think Ryan Zimmerman is also a large part of it.