Ag_07 said:

---

Even if Correa is extended wouldn't it be smart to offer JV a QO?

---

I don't think so at all. That would be like 19mil/year. If we resign him it needs to be waaaaay lower than that

Speaking of Correa...is it possible, or likely, that we won't offer him a new deal this year bc of the luxury tax? I would rather just extend him than go through the QO process, but I'm not sure how you do it without the '21 salary pushing us over the threshold.

I posted that a few weeks back. Not looking like there will be an extension. It'll absolutely crush the luxury tax limit. I think we'll low ball him if he's injured again this year.

On the QO point, Ken Rosenthal points out that Grienke cannot be given a QO since the dodgers already did in 2015.

We are being slept on.

World Series Favorites.

Quote:

---

10. Houston Astros
Petriello: Oh thanks, this a good reminder that I still plan to pick Houston over the A's for the AL West, and so if I ought to be focusing on "paths to the World Series," going with a (potential) division winner is a good path. I do, in a lot of ways, feel like the Astros are somehow underrated right now, that they're post peak without George Springer, Justin Verlander, Charlie Morton, Gerrit Cole and so on. (And, you know ... the unpleasantness.) To be clear, those losses hurt. They hurt a lot.

But Dusty Baker also got this team to within one game of the World Series last year, and I'm pretty in on the idea that Jose Altuve and Carlos Correa were better in 2020 than you think they were. Cristian Javier, Jose Urquidy and Framber Valdez (Valdez could miss some time after X-rays performed Wednesday revealed a fractured left ring finger) aren't big names behind Zack Greinke and Lance McCullers Jr., but they're also pretty good. You don't know their relievers, but they're all interesting. Bringing back Michael Brantley was huge. It'd be nice if they could find an actual center fielder. No one wants to see the Astros win the World Series in 2021. Everyone wants to see Baker win a World Series in '21.

---

Harry Dunne said:

---

Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

Ag_07 said:

---

Even if Correa is extended wouldn't it be smart to offer JV a QO?

---

I don't think so at all. That would be like 19mil/year. If we resign him it needs to be waaaaay lower than that

---

LOL @ getting Verlander for "waaaaay lower than that".

---

His market is going to be very interesting.

Here is what I can come up with for old pitcher contracts
Wainwright got 8 M
Colon got 2yr 20 M
Lester got 2 M
CC got 10 M
Happ got 8 M
Hudson got 2 ye 23 M
Dickey got 2 yr 25 M
Clemens got 1 yr 28 M (last year with NY)

I actually think something like the QO would be fair. If not, then 2 year 40 M with the 2nd year being team option or mutual option.

I agree that the QO is probably the most reasonable offer, but someone is going to roll the dice and offer him something crazy.

Sure he's old but he's still at or near the best pitcher in the game until he proves otherwise. If you're a contender and he can be near what he was, he can make the difference like he did for us and that's worth whatever it takes to get him.

EastCoastAgNc said:

---

---

That'll motivate his ass to pitch. I wonder if this is purely because we needed to stay under the luxury tax or is Crane a little wearier after paying JV 66 M to only pitch potentially 1 game.

Harry Dunne said:

---

Lonestar_Ag09 said:

---

Ag_07 said:

---

Even if Correa is extended wouldn't it be smart to offer JV a QO?

---

I don't think so at all. That would be like 19mil/year. If we resign him it needs to be waaaaay lower than that

---

LOL @ getting Verlander for "waaaaay lower than that".

---

Then we wont be getting him back, in my opinion....We aren't paying out of the world for a 40 yr old pitcher who just had TJ, but I think if the price is right we will look to resign him for a team friendly but player respectable deal.

Honestly the QO is a pretty good deal for both sides.

It's a one year deal for below market value. Kind of like a prove it deal. JV makes a decent amount but not low balled and the team is only on the hook for 1 year.

If he walks for a bigger deal then the team gets the draft pick compensation.

I think it makes a lot of sense to offer him the QO. It's not a Rasmus situation where if he accepts it you're way overpaying for a worse than mediocre player.

Farmer1906 said:

---

I posted that a few weeks back. Not looking like there will be an extension. It'll absolutely crush the luxury tax limit. I think we'll low ball him if he's injured again this year.

---

I don't think he gets extended either but honestly the luxury tax threshold *should* only be relevant if you don't extend Correa. The tax itself is immaterial (would cost Crane an extra $3 or $4 million, roughly what he saves in not paying for a first and second round draft picks we lost). The other implications to our draft compensation and international pool would be largely irrelevant because Correa is the only Astros free agent really worth a QO and we have shown no inclination to sign anyone who has been offered one.

The weird part is if we don't extend Correa then we have a bunch of extra cash burning a hole in our budget. However, if we spend big on a free agent (who likely gets a QO) then we come out worse draft wise than if we extended Correa. The penalties for signing a QO guy are worse than the reward for losing one.

Part of my take however is that if we will get hammered by offering and him accepting then I dont want it. And personally I just still think 19/year is high. I think id rather atleast see 2/35 or so maybe a little lower with some really good options and bonus'

MaxPower said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

I posted that a few weeks back. Not looking like there will be an extension. It'll absolutely crush the luxury tax limit. I think we'll low ball him if he's injured again this year.

---

I don't think he gets extended either but honestly the luxury tax threshold *should* only be relevant if you don't extend Correa. The tax itself is immaterial (would cost Crane an extra $3 or $4 million, roughly what he saves in not paying for a first and second round draft picks we lost). The other implications to our draft compensation and international pool would be largely irrelevant because Correa is the only Astros free agent really worth a QO and we have shown no inclination to sign anyone who has been offered one.

The weird part is if we don't extend Correa then we have a bunch of extra cash burning a hole in our budget. However, if we spend big on a free agent (who likely gets a QO) then we come out worse draft wise than if we extended Correa. The penalties for signing a QO guy are worse than the reward for losing one.

---

Could you explain to me how it isnt a big deal to lose those picks when we are already down picks because of the BS penalties. We need to be restocking the farm not dismissing a year with what 3-4 lost picks and decreased international money

What picks are we losing? If you extend Correa and don't sign anyone who has a QO then you lose no picks, regardless of whether you go over the luxury tax this year. You don't get the extra picks from losing Correa after extending the QO but would you rather have Correa or what amounts to an extra 3rd round pick?

What he's trying to say is if we extend Correa we lose the picks for being over the tax.

But if we let him walk then turn around and use all that money for say Lindor, Story, or Seager then we'll lose picks because they will have been offered the QO from their former teams.

At that point are we really better off for avoiding the tax?

Ag_07 said:

---

What he's trying to say is if we extend Correa we lose the picks for being over the tax.

But if we let him walk then turn around and use all that money for say Lindor, Story, or Seager then we'll lose picks because they will have been offered the QO from their former teams.

At that point are we really better off for avoiding the tax?

---

But we'd also gain the picks from letting Correa walk.

So letting someone go with has a QO and signing one should offset.

Ah that's right because Correa would have a QO.

Disregard then

But if we extend Correa where it doesn't go into effect until next year, it wouldn't affect our cap standing for this year, correct?

Yea that was my point. Going over the tax only matters if we DON'T extend Correa. We shouldn't really care if extending Correa now puts us over the 2021 luxury tax because it's unlikely we will be involved in any other transactions with a QO player that could either help or harm our draft or international bonus pool.

It will still increase his average annual value.

MaxPower said:

---

What picks are we losing? If you extend Correa and don't sign anyone who has a QO then you lose no picks, regardless of whether you go over the luxury tax this year. You don't get the extra picks from losing Correa after extending the QO but would you rather have Correa or what amounts to an extra 3rd round pick?

---

My comments were on your post about if we extended a QO to JV and signed him...those kick in multiple hits when 19mil isnt even a favorable contract. I wasnt commenting about Correa at all

Bulldog73 said:

---

But if we extend Correa where it doesn't go into effect until next year, it wouldn't affect our cap standing for this year, correct?

---

The cap is based off of his total contract broken up over the years. So if he wasnt getting anything this year but a major bump in the future is would still adjust his average and effect this seasons tax level "cap"

I see what your saying. I think the main issue would be paying an extra 30-42% for the amount we go over. Then if we were to do it again the % are even higher. Plus I think the organization wants to wait Correa out. See if he can put together a healthy year.

According to the newest Athletic article (read a tweet, not paying for the article), we only have 1.3M left in cap space. Spotrac shows 6M. I read 3M elsewhere. Not sure what to believe, but that basically Souza & Cishek are screwed when it comes to making the roster now if it truly is only 1.3 M.

Well I would say that is exactly why "yes we really are going with Straw in CF" as someone said a few pages ago

That may be their approach but seems a poor choice. Paying $3-4 million in tax now is better than waiting to see if he gets $50 million more in the open market. Seems more likely if we don't extend now it's because we don't think we can match the market. If that's the case then staying under the tax threshold has value, though it certainly doesn't bode well for our on field product in 2022.

If they wanted to keep JV they should work out a contract now. Why? Because it will certainly be less than the $33m AAV he has now, which means we can decrease our luxury tax payroll to give more 2021 flexibility. I can't recall a guy coming off tommy John without having pitched getting offered $19m before, more the less one who is going to be 39. I find it doubtful we will be the first to join that list.