So you think they made offers but weren't really looking to take on the contract? The cost in players went down in August and there was willingness on Verlander's part to accept the trade. That's what changed. Not the money portion.
You staunchly were against trading for verlander, with similar doomsday like predictions (“plus, we have Fiers who is pitching just as well!”). Sure, regression would be a risk. It’s a risk for any of the core guys they have now that they’re considering extending. We know that they’re all in their prime, and quite cheap, now. We know that Stanton is absolutely one of the best players in the game now. Optimizing the roster around the cheaper core will likely come with spending money as well. The decisions to do that, with the owners blessing, haven’t backfired at all. Just looking at the current everyday lineup, there is at least one OF spot that could be improved upon... certainly doesn't require the NL MVP to improve upon, but again, if they get the payroll blessing... I wouldn't' be thinking about the worst case scenario of regression. I'd be thinking simply about the best case scenario of another WS title.
Yet to make the case that the Astros plan all along was to spend on a big fish prior to the deadline, you have to be willing to look beyond the fact that they didn’t pull the trigger on any of the following... Sale, Quintana, Encarnacion, Darvish, Verlander, Gray, Cueto, Cabrera, Stanton, and Gonzalez. If it was in their plan to spend, they would have done something. They could have pressed Verlander, as evidence by the fact he changed his mind. Just do the work and spend the money. The Astros mindset seems to have clearly changed from that point to today.
Let me be clear that I am NOT in favor of acquiring Stanton in lieu of extending Altuve or Correa, but the ~$300M guaranteed to Stanton is roughly what it would take to resign ONE of Altuve or Correa. So trading for Stanton does not mean risking the “entire philosophy and roster construction that got them in this position”; it just means foregoing extending $300M worth if players, whether that’s one big fish like Altuve or 2 good players like Springer and McCullers. If Luhnow and his analysts determine that Stanton will be a far superior playert to Correa or Altuve over the time left on Stanton’s deal, then it makes sense to do that deal. It’s all about value.
And now Stanton. They could have gotten Stanton last year. Could have cared less about it. So yeah, I think they were trying to do trades on a dime last year, saw the results of those decisions, that includes the bullpen, and are willing to spend more now. They’ve opened up the pocket book.
You are quite literally just making **** up. Of course, truthfully, any team *could* have gotten (sic) Stanton last year. But nobody did, I wonder why?
It may not be about the superior player as much as which can we hold on to. Pretty hard to anticipate how good a player will be in 4-6 years in any case. There is no way to know so far in advance whether we can come to terms with Altuve and Correa when the time comes. However, we CAN lock in a guy in that same tier right now and be certain about it. By certain, I dont mean risk free. Lots of risk here. But there are risks and uncertainty regarding any guys future beyond his current contract. Just for clarity, I am not wholly in the camp of trading for Stanton. But I haven't dismissed it entirely either.
RIght. It cost too much. That’s the point. This year, we are willing to pay it. It’s a decisive change in policy.
There is this assumption that the Astros will keep a low payroll and try to sign their top players long term. There is no guarantee they take this tact. The Astros could very well decide they cannot keep their core intact and spend money over the next few seasons to maximize this window. FWIW Theo Epstein has alluded several times to the Cubs maximising their current window and bottoming out again. I would be behind maximising the next 3-5 years and “going for it” and then rebuilding again.
Maybe replace assumption with probability, but sure. Most folks are on that bandwagon. And although I am still on the fence regarding the bloom then bust theory, many are not. Many would see it as a near total reversal of team building strategy. But it would increase our odds of going all the way more often in the short term. I suppose the FO could still claim the strategy is the same and continuing to state our longer term goals as before, but knowing in their own minds no strategy can guarantee anything and why not try to get several championships over the next 3-5 years while there is a window to put together a staff capable of that.
I don't favor trading for Stanton, particularly if it involves trading Tucker and/or Whitley, but I do think you need to acquire a major piece at some point if you want to repeat. Stanton for Martes, Celestino, Hector Perez, and Fisher. I'd make that deal.
I personally do not see see a contradiction at all. With the modern state of the game the Astros are going to lose a number of key pieces and it is asking a lot for the Astros front office to replace those pieces internally. The assumption throughout baseball has been that teams like the Astros and Cubs would do what they could to keep their core signed. The feeling in Chicago was that the Cubs would resign all their players and supplement through free agency to be long term contenders. Epstein has different plans having said the whole process is 6-8 years and then is likely gutted and reassessed. The dealing away of their farm system supports his comments as well. I don’t know that the Astros have even definitely decided what they will do. However I agree with the maximisation of titles likely means going all for it the next 3-5 years.
I could see them figuring that course to be the most conducive to continuing to get rings.... I've always wanted them to maximize talent around the young/cheap core, even if they had to spend (overspend) a lot elsewhere to do it. There's also an assumption that this farm will keep churning out everyday players to replace the ones they can't re-sign. Its exceedingly rare (like all-time MLB rare) to have one MVP winner who signed one of the all-time bargain deals, AND be in a position to promote guys like Springer, Correa, Bregman (and maybe Tucker) all within 4 years of each other. Those 4+ guys are their version of Maddux-Glavine-Smoltz.... or Hudson-Zito-Mulder.... or Pettite-Williams-Jeter-Posada. After Tucker, there's a high chance that they won't find another player of the caliber they have now... and if they do have another minor league stud come out of nowhere, they may simply serve as trade bait. I also don't expect them to part ways with all of them... at least 1-2 will likely re-sign, or sign the sort of extension that delays free agency by another 2 or so years.
What kind of team could they field if they went all in over the next 2 seasons (until Altuve leaves)? Start with the assumption that they cannot extend any of their core and they could get payroll up to $180M. They only have 5 roster spots that aren’t booked by a proven player. For fun: Trade for Stanton and Britton; both of these can probably get done without giving up Tucker or Whitley. Let’s say Stanton and most of his salary for a package built around Martes and Fisher, and Britton for a package built around Moran and Paulino. Sign Davis, Nicasio, and Lucroy. Resulting opening day roster: CF Springer 3B Bregman 2B Altuve LF Stanton SS Correa DH Gattis 1B Gurriel/Marwin C Lucroy/McCann RF Reddick/Marisnick Rotation: Verlander, Keuchel, Morton, McCullers, McHugh Bullpen: Peacock, Nicasio, Harris, Musgrove, Devenski, Giles, Britton, Davis It’s a super team. Payroll would be extremely high, but not even close to the luxury tax and if they knew they were going to start rebuilding in a few years it would all balance out.
Signing big money Verlander landed the WS. He was like 9-0, our leader down the stretch, and gave us near post season perfection. I think we'd almost all agree we would not have gotten there or won the series without him. Playoff Team or close to playoff team on a dime, yes. Absolutely it worked. That was a perfectly executed plan. But the stretch results without Verlander looked sketchy at best. And it was those results that directly led to the indelible decision to go after and sign Justin. Now adding Stanton, that's generally a once in a lifetime opportunity. But everyone is getting a second chance to do it because Jeter has gone rogue, or maybe he remains part of the evil empire, either way, Stanton is up for grabs.
