Astros sign Singleton for $10 million

[nattysez]

Well, here is the new reality.  Astros just called up Jonathan Singleton from AAA and immediately signed him to a deal that guarantees him $10mm and allows him to make up to $35mm.  In return, the Astros completely control him through his arbitration eligibility and one year of FA.  The risk-reward of these deals is pretty fascinating, but I think it actually gives the players a lot of power.  They're set for life if they don't live up to expectations, but can try to hold out if they feel in a few years that the contract they signed undervalues them too much (I say that not knowing exactly what the CBA says about holding out -- maybe it's not really a viable option for some reason).  
 
http://houseofhouston.com/2014/06/02/report-jonathan-singleton-called-houston-astros-near-future/
 
Edit:  Sorry the for the messed-up thread title...
 
https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/473525383241793536

 

[MakMan44]

5 year deal with 3 club options. I'm a big fan of these deals. I think they're a win-win for both sides, in all honesty. 

 

[trekfan55]

From what I understand (and granted it's not that much) the 100% guaranteed nature of contracts in MLB means that no player is able to hold out for more money like it happens in the NFL.  Whether we agree or disagree with holdouts, there is a certain sense of logic in that a player can be cut and he stops receiving money if he sucks, so he holds out for more money when he exceeds expectations.

 

[moondog80]

35 mm over 8 years isn't that much of a ceiling.  James Loney is going to make about 30 mil over his first 8 years, and that's by 2008-2015 payroll standards.  And that 10 mil floor, he'll make that if he's just rosterable.  Of course, there's a decent chance he's Matt LaPorta and can't even hang on the roster, but even in that case he probably gets a couple of mil before the second chances run out.  This seems like more of a win for the team than the player.

 

[MakMan44]

He makes that $10 million no matter what. That's why it's a win for the player. 

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I'm not so sure the players have much power to "hold out", since teams can put them on the restricted list and fill their roster spot with someone else at no real expense (other than the acquisition cost of the new player).
 
These deals are great for players in terms of financial security, and great for the teams if they buy out what otherwise might be much more expensive years of service should the player pan out as expected.  But it's also a great risk for the team if the player flames out due to injury or just plain poor performance.  The only risk for the player, really, is losing out on a few more million had they taken the year-to-year arbitration then free agency route.  The union is probably going to be more bothered by that than the player himself.
 
I think there's a reason we don't see them that often.  The only similar, straight-out-of-the-minors deal like this I can recall is Longoria's original deal in Tampa.  That was a similar situation in that the team doing the signing is well stocked with young talent due to a period of poor play and high draft position, and expects to be entering a period of greater success due to that young, inexpensive talent.  It's not often that a team is going to be in such a position AND find a player willing to do the deal.  The Pirates reportedly attempted something like this with Gregory Polanco, but he turned them down.  Some think he'd have made the club out of spring training had he agreed.

 

[nattysez]

I'm not so sure the players have much power to "hold out", since teams can put them on the restricted list and fill their roster spot with someone else at no real expense (other than the acquisition cost of the new player).
 

 
If Singleton becomes (and I have no reason to think this, but let's just assume this for discussion purposes) a superstar, they can't just replace him with a replacement-level player and move on.  You're right that the Astros could tell him "have a nice life," and move on without him, but then they lose their superstar.  

 

[MakMan44]

I think there's a reason we don't see them that often.  The only similar, straight-out-of-the-minors deal like this I can recall is Longoria's original deal in Tampa.  That was a similar situation in that the team doing the signing is well stocked with young talent due to a period of poor play and high draft position, and expects to be entering a period of greater success due to that young, inexpensive talent.  It's not often that a team is going to be in such a position AND find a player willing to do the deal.  The Pirates reportedly attempted something like this with Gregory Polanco, but he turned them down.  Some think he'd have made the club out of spring training had he agreed.

He probably would have. The Astro's tried to do the same thing with Springer but he also turned them down. I think teams are starting to move towards doing this more frequently, we just don't hear about them unless they actually happen. Even just guaranteeing what a player will make in their pre FA years has a lot of value if you think highly enough of the player. 

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

So did the Astros actually explicitly say to Singleton that they would promote Singleton as soon as he signed a contract making his Super 2 status irrelevant or did they just let that be the unstated point of the whole negotiations?
 
And are the Pirates holding the same strong armed negotiations right now with Gregory Polanco?
 
The system is so fucked up.

 

[dylanmarsh]

5 year deal with 3 club options. I'm a big fan of these deals. I think they're a win-win for both sides, in all honesty. 

 

 
*cough* *cough*

 

[MakMan44]

That's the absolute worst case scenario DM and is actually a reason that more players should consider taking these sort of deals. But yeah, it's no guaranteed win-win in any case.  

 

[dylanmarsh]

That's the absolute worst case scenario DM and is actually a reason that more players should consider taking these sort of deals. But yeah, it's no guaranteed win-win in any case.  

 
Yeah, I know.  I just couldn't resist posting a picture of Romero choking.

 

[Average Reds]

From what I understand (and granted it's not that much) the 100% guaranteed nature of contracts in MLB means that no player is able to hold out for more money like it happens in the NFL.  Whether we agree or disagree with holdouts, there is a certain sense of logic in that a player can be cut and he stops receiving money if he sucks, so he holds out for more money when he exceeds expectations.

 
This is precisely right.  Guaranteed contracts should* eliminate hold outs.
 
*Meaning - the player with a guaranteed contract who holds out is placing their career at risk, because they will continue to be the property of the team that holds the contract.  Of course a player can always hold out and try to renegotiate anyway, but it's really a nuclear option, because ballplayers are perishable commodities and tend to lose value of they are not on the field performing.

 

[Average Reds]

 
If Singleton becomes (and I have no reason to think this, but let's just assume this for discussion purposes) a superstar, they can't just replace him with a replacement-level player and move on.  You're right that the Astros could tell him "have a nice life," and move on without him, but then they lose their superstar.  

 
But that's the risk associated with any contract.  The player could become injured or even retire at any point and the team can do nothing about it.

 

[moondog80]

Fangraphs take:
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/astros-officially-create-the-sign-and-promote-with-jon-singleton/
 

 
It goes without saying that this deal is a huge potential boon to the Astros. If Singleton turns out to be a quality player, he would have gone well beyond $35 million in his arbitration years and first free agent season, but if Singleton busts, they’re only out $7 or $8 million above and beyond what they would have paid by going year to year. Risking $7 or $8 million for a chance to save upwards of $30 million — let’s assume a high-quality slugging 1B would have earned ~$40 million in future arbitration earnings and another ~$25 million for his first free agent year — is a total no-brainer for a team like the Astros. There’s a reason they’ve been trying to get nearly every player with any modicum of talent to take deals like these. These deals lean very heavily towards the organization’s favor.

 

 
 
On the one hand, one could argue that giving a self-admitted drug addict $10 million in guaranteed money makes this deal even more of a risk for the Astros. After all, his resources available to purchase marijuana just went way up.

 

 
 
In this particular case, I find it hard to suggest that Singleton sold his risk too cheaply, because we just can’t really know what his own personal risk tolerance is, or should be. Given his past, perhaps taking $10 million now really will be better for him than going year to year would have been.

 

 
I thought MLB didn't test for marijuana?

 

[MakMan44]

They normally don't. It was a mistake on Cameron's part. 
 
I can't get the part to paste but basically, MLB can test if they have information that gives them cause to believe has taken a substance of abuse within the previous 12 months. They have to get a majority vote to commence testing though, which occurs within 48 hours of the ruling. 
 
http://mlb.mlb.com/pa/pdf/jda.pdf

 

[MakMan44]

 
Yeah, I know.  I just couldn't resist posting a picture of Romero choking.

His downfall was spectacular. 

 

[mauidano]

That kinda dough will buy you some pretty good weed there Jon...NO testing on the 40 man roster for pot.  Tread lightly young man.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10548670/jon-singleton-houston-astros-discusses-marijuana-addiction

 

[MakMan44]

https://twitter.com/BudNorris25/status/473681750216806400

 

[Paradigm]

Smart fans have become so protective of prospects and aware of the value that cost-controlled players provide that they've begun to equate financial value with success on the field.
 
Singleton just made ten million dollars without his first major league at-bat. I think Justin Smoak, Mike Moustakas, Eric Hosmer, Jesus Montero, Dustin Ackley, Travis Snider, Cameron Maybin all would have benefited from a deal like Singleton's. All were "can't-miss" hitting prospects who ranked highly on BA's Top 100. And except for Maybin (who has been injury prone) none of these players offer real defensive value that will keep them valuable to their teams if the bat fails. Some of these guys have had plenty of chances. Ackley, Smoak Snider, Moustakas -- they're all going to fight for playing time next year because of their struggles. Their parent team may not be able to trust them and hope they can develop at the major league level while they try to compete for the playoffs.
 
Of course, there are successful players like Buster Posey, Giancarlo Stanton, Freddie Freeman, Carlos Santana, Pedro Alvarez (to an extent). But just because a player is cheap doesn't mean he's what the team needs to put on the field and win. 
 
Edit: in response to the Norris tweet, the Singleton contract is a poor one by which to argue this point because of his addiction issues. He's a unique circumstance.

 

[benhogan]

This deal is a no-brainer for both parties, it sounds like the Union tries to exert influence over the players (without taking in to account each players circumstances), which is just plain wrong.
 
One side benefit to Singleton is the team has no qualms with starting his service time clock.  We've seen several of these teams (like Tampa) keep guys in the minors to get another year of control. Every player wants to be in the show and get off the minor league bus ride.
 
Also the team will be inclined to give him as many chances as possible to succeed at the Major League level. The front office will instruct the Manager to fill his name out on the line up every night. It will be in the Astros interests to give him plenty of at bats when they are eliminated from the playoffs by mid August.
 
$10MM guaranteed should provide him confidence and stability over the next several years. Thats life changing $$$.  Plus if he does well whats to say he couldn't sign a Longoria type extension.
 
 A bird in the hand is worth more then two in the bush. 

 

[moondog80]

Smart fans have become so protective of prospects and aware of the value that cost-controlled players provide that they've begun to equate financial value with success on the field.
 
Singleton just made ten million dollars without his first major league at-bat. I think Justin Smoak, Mike Moustakas, Eric Hosmer, Jesus Montero, Dustin Ackley, Travis Snider, Cameron Maybin all would have benefited from a deal like Singleton's. All were "can't-miss" hitting prospects who ranked highly on BA's Top 100. And except for Maybin (who has been injury prone) none of these players offer real defensive value that will keep them valuable to their teams if the bat fails. Some of these guys have had plenty of chances. Ackley, Smoak Snider, Moustakas -- they're all going to fight for playing time next year because of their struggles. Their parent team may not be able to trust them and hope they can develop at the major league level while they try to compete for the playoffs.
 
Of course, there are successful players like Buster Posey, Giancarlo Stanton, Freddie Freeman, Carlos Santana, Pedro Alvarez (to an extent). But just because a player is cheap doesn't mean he's what the team needs to put on the field and win. 
 
Edit: in response to the Norris tweet, the Singleton contract is a poor one by which to argue this point because of his addiction issues. He's a unique circumstance.

 
Maybin has already made close to 10 mil.  Hosmer and Smoak have both made over 4 mil already.  Even Travis Snider had made 3 mil, and he's terrible.  You don't need to be that good to make 10 mil, just hanging on a roster for 5 or 6 years will get it done.  And ever if you don't, you'll still make a few million just for trying, which is still more than most people will make in a lifetime.  An in exghange for maybe 5 extra mil in the "totally suck" scenario, you leave money on the table in virtually every other one.  If you're pretty good or better, you leave a lot of money on the table.  Adam LaRoche signed a 3 yr, 37 mil deal for his 33, 34 and 35 yr old seasons, and that was in 2013 dollars.

 

[MakMan44]

He still going to be a FA at 30. He can still make a lot of money after this contract.

 

[Paradigm]

 
Maybin has already made close to 10 mil.  Hosmer and Smoak have both made over 4 mil already.  Even Travis Snider had made 3 mil, and he's terrible.  You don't need to be that good to make 10 mil, just hanging on a roster for 5 or 6 years will get it done.  And ever if you don't, you'll still make a few million just for trying, which is still more than most people will make in a lifetime.  An in exghange for maybe 5 extra mil in the "totally suck" scenario, you leave money on the table in virtually every other one.  If you're pretty good or better, you leave a lot of money on the table.  Adam LaRoche signed a 3 yr, 37 mil deal for his 33, 34 and 35 yr old seasons, and that was in 2013 dollars.

 
How is Travis Snider going to make the rest of Singleton's contract at this point? It's not easy to hang around a roster if you can't play premium defensive positions. 

 

[moondog80]

 
How is Travis Snider going to make the rest of Singleton's contract at this point? It's not easy to hang around a roster if you can't play premium defensive positions. 

He probably won't. The point is, Travis Snider is close to worst case scenario, and he still made a lot of money (albiet not 10 mil, even after we adjust for inflation). Pretty much anything better that Snider and he's selling himself short.

 

[Toe Nash]

I think a reason you don't see more of these deals is that the prospect is essentially betting against himself, and part of what got them this far is the opposite of that. Sure, your average Joe would take the guaranteed money over a smaller probability of making more, but this Joe hasn't spent his whole life being the best athlete on all his teams.

 

[Jaylach]

This deal is a no-brainer for both parties, it sounds like the Union tries to exert influence over the players (without taking in to account each players circumstances), which is just plain wrong.
 
One side benefit to Singleton is the team has no qualms with starting his service time clock.  We've seen several of these teams (like Tampa) keep guys in the minors to get another year of control. Every player wants to be in the show and get off the minor league bus ride.
 
Also the team will be inclined to give him as many chances as possible to succeed at the Major League level. The front office will instruct the Manager to fill his name out on the line up every night. It will be in the Astros interests to give him plenty of at bats when they are eliminated from the playoffs by mid August.
 
$10MM guaranteed should provide him confidence and stability over the next several years. Thats life changing $$$.  Plus if he does well whats to say he couldn't sign a Longoria type extension.
 
 A bird in the hand is worth more then two in the bush. 

 
This all stems from my ignorance of the Minor League and Player Control systems, but how does stashing a guy in the minor leagues benefit a team at all if their plan is to get MLB production out of the player? That extra time of control is spent in the minors (or, half a season anyways) and not with the big league roster.. 
 
Asked differently, how does a MLB team benefit from an extra year of control when that player isn't playing with the big league club during that "extra time"?

 

[MakMan44]

 
This all stems from my ignorance of the Minor League and Player Control systems, but how does stashing a guy in the minor leagues benefit a team at all if their plan is to get MLB production out of the player? That extra time of control is spent in the minors (or, half a season anyways) and not with the big league roster.. 
 
Asked differently, how does a MLB team benefit from an extra year of control when that player isn't playing with the big league club during that "extra time"?

Because if you leave them down long enough, you gain a full 7th year of team control. Normally teams have 6 years of control (3 pre arb and 3 arb) but if you leave them down in the minors, usually sometime in June IIRC, they won't earn enough service time in that year for it to count as a full MLB season, which is all that matters and they effectively get a 7th year of control from the player. 
 
EDIT: Someone can probably explain that better but that's the idea behind leaving them down.

 

[epraz]

If you call a 21-year old up, you get his age 21-26 years cost-controlled.  If you wait a year, you get his age 22-27 years.  Many argue that the latter years are more valuable, though I'm sure it doesn't always work that way. 

 

[Jaylach]

Because if you leave them down long enough, you gain a full 7th year of team control. Normally teams have 6 years of control (3 pre arb and 3 arb) but if you leave them down in the minors, usually sometime in June IIRC, they won't earn enough service time in that year for it to count as a full MLB season, which is all that matters and they effectively get a 7th year of control from the player. 
 
EDIT: Someone can probably explain that better but that's the idea behind leaving them down.

 
But isn't half of that 7th year effectively spent in the minors? Isn't it more like 6.5 years control (the half year the first year ,and then 6 years after that)?
 
If a player can help you win now, why wait half a season just so you can get those 6 months back later (at which point he may be injured or not panned out)? That's the part I guess I never understood.

 

[MakMan44]

 
But isn't half of that 7th year effectively spent in the minors? Isn't it more like 6.5 years control (the half year the first year ,and then 6 years after that)?
 
If a player can help you win now, why wait half a season just so you can get those 6 months back later (at which point he may be injured or not panned out)? That's the part I guess I never understood.

Well, I may have been wrong on the date. It's pretty early on the season, but you are correct it's not 7 full seasons. 
 
It's pretty much always been about money, or at least that's the reason you always hear.