As we sit back and watch the latter part of this Astros season unfold, there are plenty of things to debate about the direction of the organization.
You can criticize Jim Crane for some of the decisions he has made in recent years. You can question Dana Brown and some of his personnel moves. You can point to mistakes in free agency, trades that haven’t worked out, or decisions that have contributed to the Astros finding themselves fighting their way back into contention.
But there is one area where
this organization deserves a tremendous amount of credit: knowing when to say no.
More specifically, knowing when not to hand out massive, long-term contracts to players approaching or entering free agency.
For years, Astros fans have watched some of their favorite players leave Houston because Crane and the organization weren’t willing to match the enormous contracts being offered elsewhere. At the time, those decisions were often unpopular. Fans become attached to players. They remember the home runs, playoff performances and championships and understandably want to keep the band together.
But baseball can’t be run on emotion.
And once again, Kyle Tucker appears to be providing another example of why.
Watching Tucker struggle mightily in a Dodgers uniform is difficult for some Astros fans because he was one of their own. He developed in the organization, became an All-Star-caliber player and was an important part of Houston’s success.
But he also wanted to be paid like a superstar.
He got his money, a boatload of it. And once you sign that type of contract, the expectations change. You’re no longer simply a really good player who came through the Astros’ system. You’re being paid to be one of the faces of a franchise and one of the best players in baseball.
That means you have to perform like it.
Right now, Tucker is falling well short of those expectations.
Even during his best seasons in Houston, I remained steadfast in my belief that Tucker was never going to be the type of superstar player worthy of one of baseball’s biggest contracts. He was an excellent player. He could be an outstanding complementary piece on a championship team and perform at a very high level.
But there’s a difference between being a great player and being the player an organization builds around while paying him superstar money.
I never saw Tucker as the latter.
He never appeared to embrace the responsibility or personality that comes with being the highest-paid, and presumably best player on a team. That’s not necessarily a criticism of who he is as a person or teammate. It’s simply part of the equation when you’re deciding whether to commit hundreds of millions of dollars to a player for the better part of a decade.
The Astros decided he wasn’t worth that commitment.
We’ve seen this movie before.
George Springer left. Gerrit Cole left. Justin Verlander eventually left. Framber Valdez left. Tucker left via trade because they knew they weren’t going to pay him. There have been others, and while every situation was different, the philosophy behind many of those decisions has remained remarkably consistent.
Houston has generally refused to allow sentimentality or fan pressure to dictate massive long-term contracts.
More often than not, history has vindicated that approach.
That’s why I don’t understand the people who feel sorry for Tucker.
He made his choice. The Dodgers made theirs. Tucker received the financial security and enormous contract he wanted, and with that comes the responsibility of performing at the level that contract demands.
That’s professional sports.
And I’m certainly not shedding any tears for the Dodgers.
For years, Los Angeles has operated with financial advantages almost no other organization could match, aggressively spending while using deferred money to assemble a roster filled with some of the most expensive players in baseball.
Eventually, those bills come due.
Now the Dodgers are dealing with the long-term consequences of enormous contractual commitments, including deferred money that will remain on the books for years to come.
There’s a certain irony to it.
While other organizations, including Houston,have been criticized for refusing to hand out decade-long contracts and seemingly unlimited amounts of money to keep their stars, the Dodgers have largely taken the opposite approach.
Spend the money. Keep adding stars. Worry about tomorrow when tomorrow arrives.
Well, eventually tomorrow arrives.
And that’s where Jim Crane’s philosophy deserves some appreciation.
You don’t have to agree with everything Crane has done. You don’t have to defend every decision Dana Brown and the Astros’ front office have made. There are legitimate criticisms to be made about how this organization has operated in recent seasons.
But refusing to allow emotion to dictate long-term contracts has been one of Houston’s greatest organizational strengths.
It’s incredibly difficult to watch a homegrown star leave. It’s even harder when that player is still productive and fans believe ownership should simply “pay the man.”
Sometimes the best contract in baseball is the one you don’t sign.
The Astros have understood that better than most.
Kyle Tucker may ultimately turn things around. He’s talented enough to do it, and one difficult stretch doesn’t erase everything he has accomplished.
But the larger point remains.
When you’re handing out superstar money, you need superstar production, not just this year, but for years to come.
Houston decided that wasn’t a gamble worth taking.
And as we watch another former Astro attempt to live up to the enormous contract he received somewhere else, Jim Crane’s willingness to say goodbye rather than overpay is looking pretty smart once again.
Nobody needs to feel sorry for Kyle Tucker. He got exactly what he wanted.
Nobody needs to feel sorry for the Dodgers, either. They knew exactly what they were buying.
And Astros fans shouldn’t apologize for recognizing that sometimes letting a star walk isn’t being cheap.
Sometimes it’s just good business. What do you think Astros fans? Let me know your thoughts.
