The Springer Saga

[MakMan44]

So apparently the Astros offered George Springer (their #2 prospect according to BA) a 7 year, $23 million dollar contract last September. link
 
He turned that down, obviously. However, as Rosenthal notes:
 

If Springer was good enough to be offered $23 million, why isn't he good enough to crack the 25-man roster of a team that has finished with the worst record in the majors in each of the past three seasons?

 
 
Where it becomes interesting is that Springer was invited to spring training, where he hit .161 in 39 PA. He was subsequently sent to MiL camp. Now it comes out that the MLBPA & his agent are pondering filing a grievance in his name. link
 
While it's obvious that service time plays a small part in the Astro's actions, as they're going nowhere this season so why waste a year of Springer's time, Springer also showed very little to prove he was even ready for the majors. He displayed a strong batting eye, .333 OPB but his power was non existent. I know that using ST stats meanings absolutely nothing but he's not on their 40 man roster and adding him to bring him up requires some sort of proof he's MLB ready IMO (though JBJ &  Aaron Hicks speak for the other side of this coin)
 
 I think that Rosenthal brings up a good point, however, that the system generally encourages teams to monkey with the system to save money and hold onto their prospect for an additional year. I don't think Springer really has a case but I'm curious to hear what others have to say.

 

[The Best Catch in 100 Years]

There was no doubt that Springer would get sent down to begin the year, no matter how well he performed this spring. I would also think that Springer's excellent performance in AAA last year and generally how he's looked in ST (scouting-wise) would be pretty much the only deciding factors if it were really about whether he were MLB ready. The actual spring numbers are all but meaningless--small sample any way you slice it, and who knows what he's been told to work on. All that said, barring something crazy, like a leak of intra-Astros-FO communications, I really doubt Springer and his agent will be able to prove conclusively that Springer's being held down for service time reasons.

 

[Montana Fan]

Sheesh, that's a lot of dough to turn down. His father, who was a childhood friend, and grandfather are extremely smart guys. If they're having him turn down this cash, I am certain they've done their due diligence and the math is not good at all for them.

 

[derekson]

Sheesh, that's a lot of dough to turn down. His father, who was a childhood friend, and grandfather are extremely smart guys. If they're having him turn down this cash, I am certain they've done their due diligence and the math is not good at all for them.

 
Looks like a foolish move from here, especially since it meant throwing away a basically guaranteed opening day lineup spot and roster spot. Now he'll be in the minors at least until May, and maybe until as late as July if the Astros want to avoid Super 2 status. He's probably looking at a hair under 2 million for his first 3 and a half controlled years making the minimum, so he'd have to beat $21M in his 3 arbitration years. That's a pretty high number, you'd have to be expecting something like 6/9/12 to think you're going to come out well ahead of the contract he turned down (it gets easier to beat it if he ends up being a Super 2 obviously). The only way I can see it making sense to turn down this offer is if it included some team option years for potential free agent years that weren't revealed in these reports.

 

[Curll]

That deal was terrible for him. By the time he hits arb, he could rake in 40M+ in his final three years. It puts him into FA at age 32/33.
 
The Astros are holding a gun to him saying they won't promote him unless he signs.
 
A grievance is coming, as well it should.

 

[derekson]

That deal was terrible for him. By the time he hits arb, he could rake in 40M+ in his final three years. It puts him into FA at age 32/33.
 
The Astros are holding a gun to him saying they won't promote him unless he signs.
 
A grievance is coming, as well it should.

 
He isn't going to reach FA before then anyway. He'll get a partial year of service time this year, and then 6 years making it the same length of control as a 7 year contract. A guarantee of that kind of money now is pretty good for a guy who could completely wash out before he even reaches arbitration. Sure in his rosiest scenarios he clears $30M+ in arbitration, but that's hardly a guarantee.
 
Again my view of this changes if there were team options taking away potential free agent years from Springer, but I haven't seen that reported anywhere.
 
Evan Longoria's deal in 2008 is probably the best example of this kind of contract. He and his future kids were set for life before he ever took an MLB at bat. Do you really think Longoria is kicking himself over signing that deal now when he would've made significantly more in arbitration? And Longoria's deal was even more extreme, giving away free agency years with cheap team options too. On the flip side, Springer could rip up his shoulder in AAA in May and become the next Ryan Kalish. You think Kalish wishes the Red Sox had given him this sort of deal?
 
I think the current system is messed up; teams shouldn't have financial incentives to send down players who are, by all accounts, ready for the majors. I'm not really sure how they should change the rules to fix this, but I don't think Springer's situation is so egregious that it's going to result in a successful grievance that shakes everything up. 

 

[MakMan44]

That deal was terrible for him. By the time he hits arb, he could rake in 40M+ in his final three years. It puts him into FA at age 32/33.
 
The Astros are holding a gun to him saying they won't promote him unless he signs.
 
A grievance is coming, as well it should.

I mean, it's not necessarily terrible for him. You're right, he could make a lot of extra money in arb that put $23 million to shame. He could also get hurt or not be able to hack it in the majors. The Astro's were betting against those things and now, so is Springer. Nothing against the guy, I don't think it's a bad move, just playing devil's advocate. 

 

[Hoplite]

That deal was terrible for him. By the time he hits arb, he could rake in 40M+ in his final three years. It puts him into FA at age 32/33.
 
The Astros are holding a gun to him saying they won't promote him unless he signs.
 
A grievance is coming, as well it should.

 
Has any player ever made $40 million in their arbitration years? That seems like the 1 percentile best case scenario for him. I think it's just as likely, if not more, that he gets hurt or fails to become a Mike Trout-like superstar and he ends up wishing that he took the guaranteed $23 million. I don't think the deal would really push free agency back for him at all. By not agreeing to the deal, the Astros are likely to keep him in the minors until June so it will be seven years until he reaches free agency anyways.

 

[smastroyin]

Whether or not they are right, the MLBPA dictating when prospects should go on the major league roster, in any way, should be decided at the bargaining table, and was.  The Astros have options remaining on Springer as negotiated.
 
As for the math.  They offered $23 million guaranteed.  I would assume that if the Astros continued to say "the hell with you we are going to arb every year" and he were an good major league starting centerfielder each of those years and had a full year this year, his salaries would look something like:
 
2014:  500k
2015:  500k
2016:  $3 million (assuming Super Two - Super Two's are typically a bit lower paid, I'm using Brandon Belt as a comp)
2017:  $6 million 
2018:  $10 million
2019:  $15 million (I'm assuming some growth in salaries over this time)
2020:  $18 million on the open market.
 
Total:  $53 million
 
That is a lot more money, but he is betting against injury or performance problems.  And of course if he is awesome his top end is probably more like $20 million in the final year of arbitration and $25 on the open market.  And of course every year that he is delayed is another year of risk of injury and more importantly one less year until large money contracts.  But, again, I have to remind people that this is the way the CBA works and was negotiated.
 
Of course, if he is great in 2014 and 2015, the Astros will probably try to buy out his arb years again with a contract that is better than this 7 year/$23 million one, so it's not really a one or the other game.  Probably smart for him to turn it down.  I would say the $18 million to buy out the next 5, with a $12 million option in year 6, would be closer to the breakeven point on the risk.

 

[terrisus]

 
If Springer was good enough to be offered $23 million, why isn't he good enough to crack the 25-man roster of a team that has finished with the worst record in the majors in each of the past three seasons?

 
Maybe because they were more concerned with controlling the cost in, say, years 4-7, even if it takes a couple of years for him to get to that point?
It's not like guaranteed contracts have never been given to players in the minors or something.
 
EDIT: smas said what I was getting at better above.
 
Also, regarding the "Astros implying they won't promote him unless he signs" thing, there's no guarantee they would have him at the Major League level even if he did sign. Just because he signs a contract doesn't mean he doesn't need a few more years in the minors as well.

 

[Tony C]

 
Has any player ever made $40 million in their arbitration years? That seems like the 1 percentile best case scenario for him. I think it's just as likely, if not more, that he gets hurt or fails to become a Mike Trout-like superstar and he ends up wishing that he took the guaranteed $23 million. I don't think the deal would really push free agency back for him at all. By not agreeing to the deal, the Astros are likely to keep him in the minors until June so it will be seven years until he reaches free agency anyways.

 
I'd just add that it's not like Springer is a Mike Trout level prospect. He's an excellent prospect but there's a lot of swing and miss there. I personally think the key is he gets on base and takes a ton of walks and the Ks won't be a problem. But, yeah, there's not reason to blithely assume a best case scenario for his career such that this is necessarily a bad deal. Most likely he'll neither be Ryan Kalish nor Mike Trout, but something in-between. Got to like the cojones in turning down 23 million, though.

 

[glennhoffmania]

I don't know if he comes from a wealthy family, but otherwise I'd have a hard time turning down $23m before stepping foot on a ML field.  He got a $2.5m signing bonus so he isn't poor though.  I guess the question is, is it worse to take the $23m when it turns out he could have earned something similar to what Smas projected, or is it worse to turn down $23m and end up with nothing?

 

[derekson]

Whether or not they are right, the MLBPA dictating when prospects should go on the major league roster, in any way, should be decided at the bargaining table, and was.  The Astros have options remaining on Springer as negotiated.
 
As for the math.  They offered $23 million guaranteed.  I would assume that if the Astros continued to say "the hell with you we are going to arb every year" and he were an good major league starting centerfielder each of those years and had a full year this year, his salaries would look something like:
 
2014:  500k
2015:  500k
2016:  $3 million (assuming Super Two - Super Two's are typically a bit lower paid, I'm using Brandon Belt as a comp)
2017:  $6 million 
2018:  $10 million
2019:  $15 million (I'm assuming some growth in salaries over this time)
2020:  $18 million on the open market.
 
Total:  $53 million
 
That is a lot more money, but he is betting against injury or performance problems.  And of course if he is awesome his top end is probably more like $20 million in the final year of arbitration and $25 on the open market.  And of course every year that he is delayed is another year of risk of injury and more importantly one less year until large money contracts.  But, again, I have to remind people that this is the way the CBA works and was negotiated.
 
Of course, if he is great in 2014 and 2015, the Astros will probably try to buy out his arb years again with a contract that is better than this 7 year/$23 million one, so it's not really a one or the other game.  Probably smart for him to turn it down.  I would say the $18 million to buy out the next 5, with a $12 million option in year 6, would be closer to the breakeven point on the risk.

 
This math isn't right. There is no scenario where he's a super 2 in 2016. The only way he'd be a free agent in 2020 would be if he was on the 25 man from Opening Day this year and ended up with exactly 6 years of service time after 2019. There is zero chance of this happening, as the only way he was on the opening day roster was if he signed the 7 year deal. Since he didn't, if they call him up in May, then he can be a Super 2 in 2017. So all of those years are pushed back one, with the free agent year not existing. So the total with this estimation is $35M and change (whatever prorated minimum he banks in 2014). And that's IF he is a Super 2. It would be significantly less if they keep him in AAA long enough to keep him from becoming a Super 2 in 2017.

 

[MakMan44]

I think Smas ultimate point is that he's likely to make a lot more money going year to year if he stays healthy and hits. That stands up IMO, regardless of Super 2 status.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

You know, you see all these Red Sox players signing below market deals to stay with the home team and you have to wonder whether teams eventually pay a price for jerking their young players around over service time. 

 

[derekson]

I think Smas ultimate point is that he's likely to make a lot more money going year to year if he stays healthy and hits. That stands up IMO, regardless of Super 2 status.

 
Sure, but $35-36M is a projection of things going nearly perfectly for Springer over the next 7 years, and he had an opportunity to bank ~64% of that right now and transfer all of the risk from him to the Astros. I don't think that's such a terrible deal as some others have painted it as.

 

[Rudi Fingers]

You know, you see all these Red Sox players signing below market deals to stay with the home team and you have to wonder whether teams eventually pay a price for jerking their young players around over service time. 

 
The Rays seem to be able to both jerk their young players around over service time and get their prime young players to sign below market deals to stay with the home team...
 
That being said, the Rays, nor any other team to my knowledge, have ever offered a long term lockup contract *before the prime player ever hits the majors*, then held back major league service time as "punishment for not taking the deal".

 

[uncannymanny]

Being able to put those tens of millions to work with investments years earlier changes the math though, does it not?

 

[Hoplite]

We're all assuming that Springer would have been called up immediately if he signed the extension because the Astros aren't competitive and they have nothing to lose. And that very well may be the case, but unless the Astros are completely incompetent and they told Springer that they would call him up if he signed the extension, I don't see how there's grounds for a grievance. 
 
I agree with Derekson that this contract offer isn't as bad as some people are suggesting. Most of the projection systems I've looked at have Springer as a .225/.333/.455 type hitter who strikes out 40% of the time and has 30 HR and 30 SB in 600 AB. If he lives up to that, he'd probably make more money through the arbitration system. But he's yet to play a game in the majors and a .225 hitter who strikes out 40% of the time is on the cusp of not having a good enough hit tool to utilize his power or speed at the major league level.

 

[OttoC]

 
The Rays seem to be able to both jerk their young players around over service time and get their prime young players to sign below market deals to stay with the home team...
 
That being said, the Rays, nor any other team to my knowledge, have ever offered a long term lockup contract *before the prime player ever hits the majors*, then held back major league service time as "punishment for not taking the deal".

 
"Punishment for not taking the deal"? He flops in in spring training and he's not even on their 40-man roster. I seriously doubt that the $23 million was going to be divided evenly from year 1 through year 7, most probably they were offering around the MLB minimum for this season with no guarantee of major league service. Maybe the club was trying to be nice to him (and themselves) when they offered him a long-term contract just before sending him down.
 
500K, 750K, 1.5M, 3M, 4.25M, 6M, 7M = $23M

 

[smastroyin]

Noone is calling it bad like an insult.
 
There is a risk/reward to every scenario.  Springer may think more of himself than you do.  I hate the idea of "I have perfect information therefore xyz"  Not only is the information imperfect to Springer himself, we then have to view it through a lens from afar.  Then, you have to process this as a risk-reward not a black and white.  As well, if he performs well he will get another pre-arb offer from the Astros if they are smart.  He believes he can perform well and exceed those numbers.  The Astros also obviously believe it because they wouldn't offer that kind of security to a player who hasn't started hitting in the majors yet unless they thought he would get more in arbitration (there is some benefit to being able to plan their budget specifically but it is not huge).
 
Regardless, as I've said above, I don't think there is a case for the MLBPA.  And I don't think there should be.  If they want young players breaking into the league to have more rights they should negotiate them.  They don't.  They have always been about veterans right from 1974.  The Astros have been acting within their rights even if they are holding him back simply as "punitive" action - though I suppose if there is an actual record of "keep this kid in the minors because he didn't sign that deal" there could be some kind of action, even still, I'm not sure they are out of their rights.  The CBA gives clubs almost complete control of players until their 6th year in the pros.  

 

[Montana Fan]

He did OPS 1.010 in 589 PA between AA & AAA last season. It's the Astros, he deserves to be up to begin the season but I doubt he will be. They want to control him for the next 7 years.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

If Springer got a $2.5M signing bonus, it's a lot easier to see why he'd bet on himself.  He's already made what takes the average family about 50 years to earn.  Assuming he's not stupid financially, he's well set to shoot for the upside.  As others have said, all t will take is one good year at the MLB level for the Astros to up their offer significantly.

 

[Montana Fan]

Not sure how passing up the $23 million will work out for George Jr. and family but he's certainly warmed up over the last week. After a slow start he's OPS'ing .882. Kid's a stud.