Astros interested in Quintana

I could understand trading away Whitley & Tucker is hard for the Astros, and us as fans. Why ??! Barring injury, there are not high risk players. They basically are going to be solid players with potential to become All-Stars. Also, is how high they where drafted. Both got paid handsomely before they got to play professionally in the minors.

 

Martes & Paulino have high upside, but have more to prove for me. Fisher is just a decent player. Has speed and decent power. Very tradable! Musgrove has show me enough that he can become a pretty good workhorse. Why I wouldn't trade Kyle Tucker, because hitters are harder to find because of quantity as well as quality.

 

Musgrove has much more to prove. I love his command of the strike zone and his stuff - but he still has a tendency to get wild in the zone and get lit up. He's got to get precise on his edge of plate locations - not an easy task to do. He's as likely to flame out as he is to become a quality MOR pitcher

 

Musgrove is legit. I think he is a very safe bet to be a rotation regular with his likely floor being a Mike Fiers type pitcher.

 

I wouldn't call it being wild to have pitches go more or less where you want them. He just wants them to be strikes at a rate that makes it easy for hitters to guess strike. Astros, according to Hinch, are working with him on when to throw balls to make it harder for hitters to guess.

 

Even if Luhnow was looking at only this season, no way he deals two SPs that will be needed during the upcoming season. He would put Tucker in deal for one of Musgrove and Martes before trading both of them. Guys get hurt and I'm tired of the Peacock. Rays would deal Archer for a ton of talent without needing them both and would accept guys not likely in MLB soon.

I'm pretty sure smart GMs would do deal 0 times out of 100 even if it is to deal more talent from lower minors to keep at least one of Martes and Musgrove or to keep them and get Archer instead.

If Astros were willing to do that deal..it would have been done a long time ago. If Astros said they were dealing those guys in a package, they would get better bids than just Quintana.

 

I don't know about that... I'm all for the Astros doing what they can to secure Quintana, but that is trading away important short-term value, as well as (potentially) significant long-term value.

It's possible, that by 2019, any one of those pitchers could be a better value than Quintana. And it's not inconceivable that one of them might be as valuable as early as 2018. So if the other three - or heck, just two are serviceable, league-average MLB pitchers, the White Sox come out waaaay ahead in that deal.

I think the Astros are going to be VERY reluctant to deal *too* many prospects moving forward. They'll strike a balance and be very disciplined.

 

Spoiler

 

Can anyone else read spoilered embedded tweets? Mine just say "loading tweet..."

 

Yea I read them fine

 

"Possible" in 2019, "not inconceivable" in 2018. Isn't that the point of the trade from the White Sox? That if all goes well, they come out ahead? And if things don't go well, they come out behind? What are the realistic odds that 3 or 4 out of 4 prospects become league-average players or better?

It seems we have the typical problem with trades - people value prospects as though they'll reach their best and then it would turn out to be a bad deal. No one ever looks at upside - what if Quintana is ... Quintana and is a #1 or #2 pitcher that helps the Astros win the World Series, while the prospects mostly flame out? Then the Astros come out waaaay ahead in that deal. But fans tend to only look at one side or the other.

 

I'm all for going all in. The future is not a sure bet the Astros will win a chip. I hate prospect hoarders.

 

It is a strawman argument to believe most people (well at least most on a message board) value prospects like they will reach their best. Most of the people I see that value prospects understand that a prospect that turns into, on average, an average player over his club controlled years is about as valuable as Quintana...it just isn't consolidated in 4 years.

 

But that's exactly what he's saying.

Most people who value prospects believe they'll make it at some point.... even if its just at an average level.... when the fact remains that plenty of prospects, even highly touted ones, simply don't do much at the MLB level.

It will be extremely unlikely that all of Martes, Tucker, Paulino, and Musgrove go on to have at the very least average to above average MLB careers.

And yes... timelines do matter. The Astros have a prime/club-controlled core of Altuve/Springer/Correa/Bregman at this moment. Luhnow is rightly going to exhaust every opportunity to supplement them with proven pitching.

 

I would rather not include both Martes and Tucker in the deal. I'd be willing to give up any of Martes, Fisher, Paulino, Feliz, Angel Sierra, Celestino, Reed, Alvarez, Teo, Laureano, Stubbs, Alcala, Hector Perez, Anibal Sierra, Davis, Cameron, and Arauz. The three guys I wouldn't move are Tucker, Franklin Perez, and Whitley. If I absolutely had to give up both Martes and Tucker in a deal to get Quintana, then I'm not sending much else in the package beyond a lottery ticket or two.

 

To be clear, I want Astros to acquire a guy like Quintana/Archer and I think Astros have value in minors to do such a trade reasonably .

I didn't say that people expect average careers...just that an average career is almost as valuable as Quintana. Just one of those prospects having an average career would be nearly worth Quintana. One of them actually hitting their ceiling would blow Quintana's value out of the water as they just have more years under control. I'm not hearing people wouldn't trade Martes straight up for Quintana which is basically what Major is accusing people.

On time line, Astros have not won a division title in a while. Astros have placed a ton of expected value already into 2017. Astros are also likely to have a ton of expected value for the next 6 or years with some likely being like 2016 and some likely be very nice. Astros want value now and later. I do expect Astros to consolidate....just not to the point that they are giving up a significant portion of young guys projected to help in 2017 or 2018 in Tucker's case . There are other teams that will trade for the lower level guys. It is not Quintana or bust.

Personally, I think hang up between Astros is CWS want two of Martes, Tucker, and Musgrove. Astros likely have offered one with more quantity or have asked the CWS to include someone else that can help Astros this year. Granted, people that don't care about prospects much would have done all three of those guys back in December based on what CWS supposedly wanted.

Astros are going to make a big trade this year. I highly doubt two of Martes, Tucker, and Musgrove are in it.

 

If a deal gets done I would expect it to include both Martes and Tucker, but in order to get it over the line Chicago includes another player, either a lesser value guy like Robertson or Jennings or a lower level prospect like Luis Corbelo or Amado Nunez. Maybe a deal is closer than anyone thinks and that's why Houston has cleared 2 40 man spots.

Astros get:
SP Jose Quintana
RP David Robertson
IF Luis Corbelo
$9M

White Sox get:
SP Frances Martes
OF Kyle Tucker
OF Derek Fisher
3B JD Davis
SP Jorge Alcala

 

How is it a strawman when it's the exact line of thinking used in the post I quoted? The assumption in that post was that the White Sox come out ahead if one of the players becomes a star and the other 3 become "just" servicable, average MLB players. Is that even a bad thing? Isn't that the exact scenario where the White Sox *should* come out ahead? I didn't suggest they were all going to be stars - I asked what are the chances that they all even become average players? Most prospects don't even do that.

If prospects have that high a success rate that we can assume they'll become average MLB players, then we shouldn't really care to give them up - we can apparently just replace them with more average players fairly easily.

 

I would also disagree with this premise. A player that helps you win 1 game a year for 7 years is NOT as valuable as a player that helps you win 7 games in 1 year - simply because the latter also leaves you a free roster spot for the other 6 years to add more wins. Your 1 WAR for those other 6 years is far more easily & cheaply replacable than your 7 WAR for that one year.