Looking towards the Astros future: To buy or not buy? Lance Berkman is the question

by Stephen Higdon on Mar 30, 2010 6:00 AM CDT in Hot Stove

Having completed my NYC/whirl-wind tour of Central Texas vacation, I'm behind on my Astros news. I don't have a feel on the pulse of how the NRI's are performing, or which players I should actually be worried about in 2010. (This subject will be discussed in my next post.)

In the interim, I have been forced to think about big picture issues facing our Houston Astros. This path has lead to me to revisit the Astros offseason, the potential injury woes for the whole of 2010 and look towards the horizon. I have done some previous postulating about what the next two offseasons might hold for the Astros, but today I want to look at it from a different angle.

My original goal was to try and determine what will be the dominant storyline for the Astros 2011 Hot Stove. While asking for a concurrence that Lance Berkman's club option would be it, David and I realized that what we think will be the dominant storyline will likely change as the season evolves. As a result, we'll chime in month by month to see if the landscape has shifted so much so that Lance Berkman's club option is no longer the storyline.

Today though, we'll stick with the Big Puma.

Perhaps Lance Berkman's club option will remain the topic du jour when we prognosticate about the 2011 Hot Stove, but my guess is that the reasons belying it might change. For now, I foresee two main issues that make Berkman's club option such a weighty subject:

To pick it up means to invest $15 million in a thirty-four year old player with what seems like a severely degenerating knee.
To not pick it up would signal a break with the Houston tradition of kowtowing to hometown heroes.

As an objective fan of baseball—one who deeply believes in the whole MORP concept—Lance Berkman's club option gives me the heeby-jeebies right now. Am I excited that swelling in his knee seems to have abated for now? Yes. Do I trust it $15 million so in 2011? No.

Obviously it remains to be seen how much his knee will limit both his performance at the plate and in the field, but the concern is real. The Astros are not in a position to casually pick up Lance Berkman's option if all signs in 2010 do not point towards sustained success for Berkman.

As a subjective fan of the game-one who has been spoiled by the loyalty Drayton McLane, Craig Biggio, and Jeff Bagwell displayed to one another-that saddens me. This is Lance Berkman we're talking about. He's a Texan, who went to Rice. To me, at times, he feels more authentic than either Bagwell or Biggio because of that.

It would be a sad day indeed if Lance Berkman ended is career as an Astro not through retirement, but through a $2 million club buyout. My guess is that if I, myself, feel a tension between the rational choice to seriously consider buying Lance Berkman out of his contract and the less rational choice of paying him $15 million dollars to sate both sentimentality and precedent, than the average Astros fan sides more with the latter than the former.

The weight a GM should give to such an issue goes far beyond my pay grade. I know that the more devout worshippers of sabermetrics might scoff at weighting it in the decision-making process, but—especially in Houston—it doesn't seem absurd.

Because I can't extricate my fandom from the equation, I'll set aside that issue. This not to say I believe it should be glossed over, just that I can't find my bearings with the subject. What I can speak to is what options the Astros would have to pursue should they buyout the Puma's option.

Internally, this season might produce worthwhile in house stand-ins: Drew Locke or Kolby Clemens could prove to be above replacement level players and a replacement level price. My personal comfort level with searching in house for a first baseman is next to zilch, though. That leaves the free agent market—most likely. The issue there is that there is not a lot to salivate over on the open market. Perhaps a bargain can be found, but Ed Wade's history with finding bargain position players is that they're usually not the bargains we want. This is even truer if the Astros don't consider Lance Berkman's $2 million buyout to be an sunk cost.

It's here that I feel it becomes truly apparent that Lance Berkman's buyout will be the dominant storyline next winter. There are so many layers and angles. I by no means have done the most thorough examination of them either, which, of course, leaves not just this storyline, but also others, up for discussion.

So what do you think about the decision facing Ed Wade on Lance Berkman at this point in 2010? And, do you think I've overlooked a storyline that will be of greater importance than Lance Berkman?

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don’t think we’ll have to wait till the winter to find out, more likely it’ll be near the end of the season or shortly after. But you may of meant the off-season not actual winter.

Obviously if Berkman spends a lot of time on the DL with knee issues it could put into question whether he’ll be back or not. Even if he did sit out the entire season though I doubt they’d buyout his option instead of picking it up. Wade has made some bad signings (see: Matsui, Lyon) so I see no reason why Berkman’s options won’t be picked up, and I’m not saying picking up Berkman’s option is a bad thing as his production is usually in-line or above his contract (according to fangraphs). Simply put if they can give Matsui and Lyon 15 mil plus, there’s no reason Berkman shouldn’t be given the same opportunity.

by Timothy De Block on Mar 30, 2010 7:31 AM CDT reply actions

Wade has made some signings that are bad

But he’s never invested more than $5 million/yer in those players. This is a different ball game.

The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.

by Stephen Higdon on Mar 30, 2010 7:39 AM CDT up reply actions

and that’s my point if they’re going to throw these kind of contracts at average players they better pony up when it’s time to pay your elite franchise player.

by Timothy De Block on Mar 30, 2010 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions

But my overall point

Is that there’s a very real possibility that health will prevent the Puma from remaining an elite, franchise player. So why pony up?

by Stephen Higdon on Mar 30, 2010 9:18 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

With his injury history though I just don’t see that happening in 2005 when he missed 27 games do to a knee injury he came back and still dialed up a OPS+ of 143.

Maybe I’m under playing his current knee situation but If he’s not going to be an elite player anymore than I think we’re talking about an injury that’s a lot more serious than what he’s currently dealing with.

by Timothy De Block on Mar 30, 2010 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions

Setting aside the knee issues—and I think everyone realizes that it takes some time to see how that works out—I would still work toward a multi-year deal which provides salary relief in 2011 (compared to accepting the one year option), but provides Berkman with some certainty for 3 or 4 years. The Rockies recently extended Todd Helton’s contract through his age 40 season in order to keep him in a Rockies’ uniform until he retires. That deal involves extensive deferral of what he would have been owed in 2011 prior to the extension. I’m not saying that is the idea template, but it provides the general idea (assuming Berkman would agree to it). An example might be 7 M X 4 year, which can re-stated in a way which doesn’t disrespect Berkman by rejecting the option (it can be viewed as similar to accepting the option and 3 more years at $4 M). Berkman has offered to defer salary in the past if it would help the team improve; so other variations are possible to defer part of the $15 M over a longer period, as the Rockies did with Helton.

by clack on Mar 30, 2010 8:15 AM CDT reply actions

I like that idea

But I get the feeling from the body of Lance’s quotes over the years that he doesn’t want to be playing for another 3-4 years. Maybe seeing the light at the end of the tunnel will make him reevaluate his position in the game’s history, his proximity to career marks, etc., though.

by Stephen Higdon on Mar 30, 2010 8:22 AM CDT up reply actions

I’ve always wondered whether he cares about getting into the HoF, or how much he values is at as compared to the amount of playing time he’d need to get there. Given that it might take a half decade to reach that point, I could understand if he wanted to retire before then.

by OremLK on Mar 30, 2010 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions

He’s already in the Texas Sports Hall of Fame. What else can he want?

by David Coleman on Mar 30, 2010 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions

A change in attitude

It’s great to see your best player retire with the team, it really is. But it may be time for Astros fans to acknowledge that we have been brainwashed and spoiled by the Drayton/Biggio/Bagwell trinity, and that we need to move on.

Berkman as an Astro through retirement: it’s a wonderful thing if it works out. But it’s the desire for this eclipsing all other goals that has left the rest of our team and organization so utterly deflated.

It’s time for us to let the baseball make the decision, rather than the sentiment. Let new heroes emerge and take the mantle, instead of clinging to the faded stars. If Berkman is a 15 million dollar player next year, I’m all for it. If he isn’t, let’s sign him to a market value deal without worrying about his feelings. He’s a grown up. It’s a new age, where players have to earn their value this year, rather than getting paid for the past.

I’m saying this as a huge Berkman fan. I think the last few years have really whittled away at my single-minded desire to see Berkman in black pinstripes.

The biggest problem is that none of us trust the Astros leadership to find the new crop of Oswal’s and Berkmans, so we’re gripping the two all that much tighter.

by alamosweet on Mar 30, 2010 1:17 PM CDT reply actions

Well said

And I agree completely, but the reality is the vast majority the fan base, in my opinion is—and will continue to be—brainwashed by the Trinity. And that’s a legitimate consideration from a PR perspective.

by Stephen Higdon on Mar 30, 2010 2:31 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

If we’re going to pay him market value does that not also mean he should be compensated for the year he was getting paid half a million and put up $16.5 million in production, or 2008 when he was making $14.5 and put up production worth around $31.1 million.

by Timothy De Block on Mar 30, 2010 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions

Market value

I think that’s a bit of a rabbit hole, as the market value is based on what other teams are willing to pay him, rather than what he was worth a few years ago according to a FanGraphs chart. Billy Beane doesn’t give a damn what that chart says, and neither does Theo Epstein or John Mozeliak or any other GM.

I feel your point, I really do, but you wouldn’t say the same thing about a garbage man or a schoolteacher (though we all should pay so much attention to them), so why would you say it about a mega-millionaire?

by alamosweet on Apr 6, 2010 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Current Series

3 game series vs Rockies @ Minute Maid Park

Colorado Rockies Purple Row @ Houston Astros The Crawfish Boxes Friday, Apr 6, 2012, 6:05 PM CDT Minute Maid Park Complete Coverage >
Sat 04/07		6:05 PM CDT
Sun 04/08		1:05 PM CDT

NL Central Standings

	PCT	STRK
Chicago Bleed Cubbie Blue	.000	Lost 0
Cincinnati Red Reporter	.000	Lost 0
Houston The Crawfish Boxes	.000	Lost 0
Milwaukee Brew Crew Ball	.000	Lost 0
Pittsburgh Bucs Dugout	.000	Lost 0
St. Louis Viva El Birdos	.000	Lost 0