They will spend when Singleton, Correa, Springer and others are contributing. They are sort of where the Blue Jays were when AA took over. The farm needed to be rebuilt first, which they are quickly doing it seems.
I believe Altuve is the only player locked in for the long term. (through 2017) The majority of the staff is signed to year long deals with some “more notable” players available for arbitration starting as soon as 2014.
Thanks, but unclear as to the very last sentence. Those other teams show what Houston’s doing isn’t particularly unique, but how might they be used as a “marker” for how Houston progresses from here on out? I don’t understand that at all.
I think one statement has to be parsed: “Crane hasn’t stripped the major-league payroll down to $13 million as a means to make quick cash, but as part of a system-wide rebuilding process.”
One must ask how the payroll reduction was used and how much of that repurposing contributes to rebuilding.
Are they rebuilding faster with a $13M payroll vs. $17M payroll? vs. $21M payroll?
How much fan goodwill are they burning through with such a low payroll, just based on the public perception of the payroll $ amount itself?
How much fan goodwill are they burning through with such a low payroll, assuming that payrolls this low mean worse w-l record?
How much will it cost to get those fans back on the bandwagon?
I think there is a case to be made that some of the payroll reduction is viewed as “quick cash”, long-term impacts be damned.
Comment by Slacker George — August 30, 2013 @ 12:42 pm
I agree. Wendy has become my favorite writer of any site, for her topics are always very interesting, her research thorough, and insights well thought out. I always look forward to her articles. Keep up the good work Wendy!
Does winning 70-75 games draw in more revenue than winning a mere 60-65 for Houston? As in, does spending a few extra million on cost-effective players (Schierholtz, etc.) draw in more revenue?
I don’t understand how punting a team’s most valuable asset, a MLB season, is a good thing. Nor do I understand how deliberately ignoring the MLB team benefits the overall franchise, as signing players can be shipped to acquire more lower level assets.
This offseason will be more telling of what the Astro’s are attempting to accomplish. I’m confused as of now.
150 team-years, one World Series. Bud’s boys can spin the parity web all they want, but this is the reality of baseball: low payroll teams are fodder. Even the ‘smart’ clubs (Tampa, Oakland) that ‘do it the right way’ are only teasing. No, the only way to win in baseball is to outspend your competition, particularly the competition in your division. If your team doesn’t have one of the top two payrolls in its division they are unlikely to even make the playoffs. Think about the teams that consistently outspent their division average – San Francisco, St.Louis, Boston, New York. That’s where the World Series titles end up. And sometimes I get the feeling the players know it, too. Talented players and solid teams defer to the high-payroll clubs, knowing that keeping the system intact is their best chance at big paydays. Thus endeth my Friday rant.
I think this is a fair question. Its not like they can spend whatever they want on amateur player acquisition, its quite limited. If their budget is say 100 million, paring payroll to 50 million would free up more money than they can spend on the minors. So, is it really justified to drop all the way to $13 million and put out a ridiculously poor MLB product under this guise?
Comment by Pirates Hurdles — August 30, 2013 @ 3:53 pm
A high MLB payroll and a rebuilding farm system are not mutually exclusive. Worry more about rushing guys to the bigs than blocking young talent, I’d say. The Red Sox seem to be doing well with short-term FA contracts and it doesn’t mean they can’t have a great farm, too.
As always, nice work Wendy! I was slowly scrolling down in anticipation of that Marlins graph!
Comment by JuanPierreDoesSteroids — August 30, 2013 @ 4:17 pm
Spending money on MLB players (the right ones) can also be an effective method for adding minor league talent. If amateur spending is capped then signing MLB players with the intent to trade is a pretty good approach. The Cubs have been on this path the last two years.
There are certainly legitimate reasons to question what Houston is doing right now.
Comment by Pirates Hurdles — August 30, 2013 @ 4:18 pm
To some extent, I can see how punting wins is a good thing. If the Nats won a few more games several years ago, they might not have Strasburg or Harper. If the Mets play .500 in September, they’ll lose their first pick if they sign a good free agent. When you have no chance of the playoffs, a few extra losses can help your future.
Comment by vivalajeter — August 30, 2013 @ 4:27 pm
It seems to a lot of us old fans that Canes will spend only when the guys we have in the minor leagues come up an start winning. That everyone counting on all those so called top prospects to be really great players. When,in two, three, four years or more? And then when and if they do start wining Crane will open up and spend? Doesn’t Major League history show that only a handful turn out great. That history has tons and tons of one year wonders. The guys can’t play now, they have no veteran leadership. The coaches sure don’t provide that. So where does the leadership come from?
Comment by Billy Bennett — August 30, 2013 @ 5:02 pm
This is already going to be said, but what the ‘stros are doing is fairly obvious. They had little tradable major league talent when they started, so they traded what they could but didn’t get any star talent in return. Much of what they traded for was strike throwers, OBP guys, fallen first rounders and toolsey low minors guys. Their star power will likely come via the draft, and I could see them having an early 2014 draft pick whilst returning a close to winning season. At the moment, they are seeing who of whom they traded for can contribute at the major league level, and the stars will fit in around that foundation.
What has been lost in the astros season has been that there have been some really solid contributions from the starting pitchers that have been lost in a few blowouts. In addition to this, there have been some really interesting performances from some of their outfielders that won’t be stars, but project to be members of a good supportive cast. They have had a very interesting season, and it has not been an ineffective as their record suggests.
The Astros are only just now starting to get guys at the MLB level who you would even potentially want to lock up (Altuve, Cosart, Peacock, Grossman, Hoes). Most guys, while young, don’t have the kind of upside that would make them good candidates to be signed to guaranteed, long-term deals (take a Matt Dominguez, for example; young, but you can’t really build around that kind of bat at 3B). Once the guys like Singleton, Springer, Foltynewicz and others start coming up in 2014 and 2015, then we might see more of those deals…IF they perform well out of the gate.
@Pirates Hurdles, they did do this in the off-season signing Veras, who they flipped and Bedard, who didn’t work out. But you can’t fill out your whole bull-pen/rotation with one year deals to flip for prospects or else you have nowhere to play the big league ready guys and see what you have.
Doing something like this is an awful risk. Sure, there will always be diehard, life-long fans who’ll attend games win or lose, but they’re the minority. The majority of fans aren’t diehards; they’re casual fans. Then there’s the bandwagon crowd. When the team starts winning, they return.
Also, there’s no reason for a fanbase to trust a new(er) owner who comes in and one of his first moves is to slash payroll. To many of us without sufficient info, it looks like nothing more than a cash grab. It’s counter-intuitive, and many (most?) won’t catch on for years, i.e. usually when the teams starts to win.
What makes it such a big gamble is that it stands a pretty good chance of misfiring. Instead of a rebuild taking 3-6 years, it may take years and years. A bad GM, bad decisions, injuries, etc., all play a role.
Jays’ fans have seen this first-hand: some bad GMs making bad decisions, injuries to key prospects handcuffing and crippling (literally and figuratively) the ML roster/product. This is why I question the Jays being included in the comment, “The Orioles, Indians and Blue Jays saw their payrolls drop substantially after sustained runs of success came to an end”. They haven’t had a sustained run of success (8 winning season in 20 years, as mentioned) unless 1984-93 is intended, though I agree that they dialed back their spending after the Ricciardi era.
Then they spent last off season like Jamie McCourt, but it’s been disastrous. Core prospects that they kept like Hutchison, Drabek, Gose, Arencibia and others have either been injured or haven’t performed well, injuries have been a factor, and ML players have disappointed.
I applaud the Astros–particularly Crane and Luhnow–for taking the hard road. I hope it works out better for them.
If you believe in leadership is important, I would say that it will likely come from George Springer and Carlos Correa. They both reportedly have plus-plus makeup and are natural leaders on and off the field.
If the Astros have the next Biggio and Bagwell in their farm system, it’s these two.
Didn’t say you can’t lose with a high payroll, just that you can’t win with a low one.
There is only one positive outcome of a low payroll: higher profits. I love profit; don’t love owners who jerk the fans around with empty promises and outright lies. The truth wouldn’t sell as many tickets and jerseys, though.
Last winter everyone was asking for Jeffrey Loria’s head on a plate. I’d say that he and the Marlins don’t look like the losers in their trades at this point.
As far as the Astros go, I think it’s hard to say right now whether their approach is right or not. A $13MM payroll seems kind of extreme. Being a Pirates fan I have lots of great examples of how a combination of low payroll, poor drafting and silly free agent signings can fail to work out. But it should never take 20 years to fix a franchise. That’s just nuts.
With the way the Astros sale went, the terms of it requiring them to move to the AL, and the overall state of the franchise after former owner Drayton McLane’s mismanagement, the Astros were essentially an expansion team this year.
I think of them as a brand new team with the name of the old team that used to play in Minute Maid Park.
All that considered, Jim Crane has had to build this team from scratch, and if the Rays and A’s are models of what a small market team can do to be competitive, why not take those same principles and expedite the process?
Now, I know Houston isn’t a small market, but with Crane being the successful businessman that he is, I’m sure he is thinking long-term and investing in a pipeline of talent that can be cultivated for perennial contention.
When the Astros start to win again, Houston and the rest of Texas will love them again, and those small market operational standards mixed with large market revenues will make Jim Crane look like a genius when this is all said and done.
Because the Astro’s aren’t a small team, which is why they shouldn’t operate like one. “Invest in core talent” is still possible while spending money moderately.
And, the Rays didn’t intentionally throw seasons when they sucked. And, Oakland NEVER threw a season, ever. They haven’t lost under 74 games since ’97. Never have the A’s done what Houston is doing, and Oakland has had success.
This stigma of withholding payroll to better the team is an oxy moron.
Comment by Brendan J. — August 31, 2013 @ 12:42 pm
If by “intentionally throwing seasons”, you mean” not spending money just to be mediocre.”
If you have to rebuild, why not reap the benefits of the new collective bargaining agreement as much as you possibly can? Jeff Luhnow helped write the thing for crip’s sake.
Picking up Correa, McCullers, Appel, and from the looks of it, Rodon in a three year span will make this team a consistent winner much quicker than spending 30 million over three years for someone like Nick Swisher.
I’ve said it before and ill say it again, if your going to be bad, you might as well be the best at being bad, because the hard slotting system of the draft gives the most leverage to the worst teams.
That’s under the assumption that draft picks, protected picks, are stone-cold locks to be productive players. While they are the most talented, again, ignoring the MLB team as a means to attain these types of players is absolutely foolish on a revenue standpoint and, potentially, talent standpoint. If Swisher is capable of fitting into the Astro’s payroll, maximizing win potential, and not hindering any future moves, then the Astros absolutely should’ve entertained the idea.
Oakland has had talent to continuously flip for younger talent, and has taken wonderful advantage of that. Houston doesn’t yet have that luxury.
Comment by Feeding the Abscess — August 31, 2013 @ 11:49 pm
MLB allowed Crane to make money hand over fist this year (and probably next 2 years) for agreeing to move the Astros to the AL to help service his debt level since it was a pretty highly leveraged deal.
Its embarrassing that MLB owners are allowed to do this and I would argue that one thing MLB needs more than anything is a threshold for annual spending on payroll at the MLB level for competitive reasons.
The $100M depends on revenues as Crane said. They may or may not be able to go up all the way to $50M with the 50% of revs constraint, but they almost certainly could have done more than $13M, and gotten some tradable FA and/or relief pitchers.
Comment by Ivan Grushenko — September 1, 2013 @ 12:41 pm
Signing 12 Penas and Bedards could be beneficial if 4 work out and could be traded for younger players.
Comment by Ivan Grushenko — September 1, 2013 @ 12:43 pm
It’d also block young players from playing, and cost much more than going that route.
Comment by Feeding the Abscess — September 1, 2013 @ 9:43 pm
Wendy, this article would have been great even without the cool graphs.
Because they have made a decision to basically dump the last 2 seasons,2013 particularly. And nothing any one here can say will change mine,and quite a few other fan’s minds on that point.
Comment by Leo Walter — September 3, 2013 @ 10:34 am
The major differences between the A’s and Rays compared to the Astros is that those two other teams never had a minor league system as depleted as the Astros system was when Jim Crane bought the team. The other primary difference is the Astros have a ballpark that can generate revenue while the A’s and Rays play in outdated football stadiums. Also, the Astros play in a larger media market than both Oakland and Tampa. Thus, I believe spending $20-30M more would not have been prudent as the free agents they would have signed would not have returned prospects the quality of Correa, Appel, McCullers or, possibly, Rodon.
The Rays play in a baseball only stadium, granted one that was built in 1986 and was outdated then, but still.
The Astros do need to spend some money, as it would help there younger players. Maybe a Beltran or Garrett Jones or Feldman or some others would help for next year. Does not have to be huge, but you need some veterans around to help the young kids.
Not too many people suggested they lost those trades, we all knew they got decent talent back. The problem with Loria was the fact that he used the taxpayers to build a stadium and is now pocketing revenue sharing again by dumping all of his previous FA acquisitions.
That’s assuming the #1 pick has substantial added value compared to the #2.
Many times it does, many it doesn’t. Tampa’s last 2 such picks in 2007 and 2008 are illustrative.
Price #1 in ’07 was – Wieters at #5, Jarrod Parker at #9 and Bumgarner at #10 are certainly solid as well. But look at ’08 – when your #1 pick isn’t even the best selection with the same last name in the top 10, not so much.
Comment by Nyyfaninlaaland — September 3, 2013 @ 5:49 pm