As the clock ticked toward 11 Saturday night, even the most jaded fan probably still held onto a glimmer of hope that Sunday morning would arrive with a belated $105-million present under the Astros’ collective Christmas tree. Not 15 minutes after that deadline passed, any such optimism lay shattered among the dead needles that have steadily dropped off that tree this off-season.
Winter of Discontent
Little if anything has gone well for the Astros since their amazing roller-coaster 2004 campaign screeched to a halt in St. Louis on Oct. 21. Wizardly general manager Gerry Hunsicker stepped down. Lance Berkman tore up his knee playing church flag football, putting him on the shelf at least through May. After passing on Jeff Kent’s $9-million option, the Astros were unable to reach a cheaper deal with the aging second baseman.
The Astros declined to offer Wade Miller a contract rather than face the risk involved with his recovery from rotator-cuff surgery. Miller was 58-39 (.598) with a 3.87 ERA in six seasons with Houston. The only bright spot was the announcement of Roger Clemens’ unprecedented seventh Cy Young Award. But even that highlight was bittersweet, since Clemens says he’s leaning toward retirement.
All of that would have been but trifling discomforts had Sunday morning’s paper announced that Carlos Beltran would be patrolling center field in Minute Maid Park through at least 2011. Instead, Astros fans had to read on the Internet Sunday afternoon that Beltran had bolted to the Mets for $119 million over seven years.
Beltran and his agent, Scott Boras, allege that Beltran said thanks but no thanks to Houston because the Astros refused to grant Beltran an absolute no-trade clause. Astros owner Drayton McLane states that the no-trade clause was just one of many things that kept a deal from getting done, and newly minted Astros general manager Tim Purpura says that time and distance made negotiating all the more difficult, since neither Beltran nor Boras apparently felt much need to get face-to-face with Astros representatives.
Bad Faith?
Baseball’s anti-collusion rules gave rise to a situation in which the Astros, as Beltran’s latest team, must reach a deal with Beltran by 11 Central Time on January 8 or lose negotiating rights until May 1, a month into the season. All other teams had as long as Beltran and Boras wished to bid for Beltran’s services.
Whatever the merits of this regime in preventing collusion by the owners, it sure has the effect of accommodating bad faith by players and their agents. An agent who knows that the latest team wants the player desperately can use the deadline as a means to extract a deal for other teams to bid against, even if the player has no intention to return to his former team.
If the Astros’ money were fine but the no-trade clause the issue, Beltran and Boras could have been talking to McLane and the Astros for several days before Saturday’s waning hours. More likely, Beltran and Boras spent Saturday afternoon and evening soliciting bids from Beltran’s other suitors, particularly the Mets, with the threat that Beltran would be gone by 11 if the Astros’ deal remained the best.
A lot of people are upset at Beltran for following the highest dollar or at least for refusing to admit that the biggest contract was his priority. Justified though that may be, perhaps the bigger problem is whether the anti-collusion deadline and rules permitted Beltran and Boras to negotiate in bad faith.
Did Beltran ever intend to return to Houston, or did Boras simply pretend to entertain offers from the Astros as a gimmick to solicit higher bids from the Mets, Cubs, Yankees, Tigers, Angels, Tokyo Yomiuri Giants, Birmingham Black Barons, House of David, Bad News Bears, Mr. Burns’ All-Stars, the Harlem Globetrotters and every other outfit that Boras claimed was in the running the last three months?
No rule says a player has to accept a deal from any team that offers him one or even that the player has to give serious consideration to a deal. But stringing a team along that a player has no intention of signing with solely for the purpose of running up bids by other teams — if the owners behaved comparably, Boras and his agent cohorts, as well as Don Fehr and the Players’ Association, would file a grievance faster than Beltran rounds the bases.
If Beltran had little or no desire to play for the Astros, or if a no-trade clause were the issue, he could have made that known well before 11 Saturday night. That might have made the Mets a little less eager to throw $119 million Beltran’s way, but it sure smells better.
As for the notion that Boras is simply a zealous advocate for his clients, a fine line runs between zealotry and underhandedness. Whether Boras crossed that line is tough to tell for anyone not privy to all the proposals and discussions that crossed paths since Beltran filed for free agency. Even an agent should be held to some level of honesty.
Silver Lining
It may sound like sour grapes at this point, but it’s still conceivable that the Astros will be better off not having made a deal with Beltran and Boras. Signing any player to a seven-year contract is risky, especially when his salary will consume something like a fifth of the team’s payroll over that span.
This is not to say that Beltran might not pay off in spades for the Mets or would have for the Astros. But Beltran could get hurt; might not play to expectations; could handcuff a team from making other moves important to its success. The Astros were taking a risk on a player very likely worth taking a risk on. But the upside of losing the bidding is avoiding that risk. It’s not a total loss.
If McLane is still willing to spend close to the kind of money he would have on Beltran, he can get down to the business of persuading Clemens to return to action. The Beltran snub makes this less likely than had Beltran signed, but Clemens probably has some figure in mind that would bring him back to the mound in 2005. With Roy Oswalt on a healed ribcage and Andy Pettitte with a healthy elbow, the top three in the rotation would still be formidable. Brad Lidge still lurks in the bullpen as well.
What remains of the free-agent market is not particularly exciting. Purpura must make his debut by judiciously looking for a bat or two to replace Kent and Beltran, and Berkman through at least part of the season, and an arm or two to replace Miller and possibly Clemens and to strengthen the bullpen. The Astros aren’t looking for anything like Beltran — another player to build around for the future.
Players who can help in the next year or two and saving money to eat some salary during mid-season acquisitions are what’s in order. This isn’t anywhere near as comfortable a formula for success as signing Beltran was. But, then, the Astros entered last season with off-season moves having gone precisely according to plan, only to find themselves 35-49 at the All-Star break. And few people expected the Astros to acquire Beltran at mid-season or to finish up 36-10 and come within one victory of the World Series.
Before lamenting the loss of Beltran and concluding that the 2005 Astros can’t contend, just bear in mind the most important lesson of the 2004 season: baseball is overwhelmingly unpredictable. Funny how quickly that can be forgotten.