Right. And remind us all how far they advanced in 1998 with Randy Johnson - was it farther than they did in '97? How about '99? 2001?........ The Astros are starting to look/feel like the Cubs from last year - a too-good-to-be-true, wire-to-wire contender that, all at once, realizes its vast potential and just bulldozes the league*. I certainly want them to be active and look for ways to improve - but they'd be fools to assume it's all or nothing this year. * Yes, I realize it's early. But if you're not getting a distinct '16 Cubs vibe from these Astros, your not trying hard enough.
How did you get that from reading that one sentence? I'm not going to mortgage our future for a body with a name just to call it a "move to improve". I will go all in for the right pieces. Does that sentence make sense?
Kazmir was plan B; Hamels was their priority. And then they dealt for Giles in the offseason, a younger, cheaper version of Kimbrel with a longer-term deal. And they've since been linked to Quintana, Archer... They absolutely have a type. I'm not saying the WON'T trade for half-year rentals - but they definitely seem to prefer players with more years. That may change as we creep closer to Free Agent Apocalypse...
in that scenario our players were on wheelchairs collecting social security. the team needed to get younger. there was no balance.
Why would you fear a team that, since July of 2015, has traded for Kazmir, Gomez, Giles, McCaan and signed Beltran and Reddick - not to mention gave Colby Rasmus $15MM and has reportedly kicked the tires on an number of starting pitchers - would be reluctant to upgrade their team? That's silly.
The thing is in 2 years you won't be able to keep altuve, springer, dallas, etc. You could but the payroll would probably be 150 mil and this ownership has not shown they want to do that. If we had Wade Davis a couple years ago we make the world series. Randy Johnson didn't work out, but he was great for the astros. Who knew sterling hitchcock would be even better.
Hamels is a better pitcher. Of course he was first priority if they could get him at a reasonable rate. If Hamels was the rental and Kazmir was the long term option, Hamels would have still been top priority. The Astros definitely prefer better players for more years. That said, if deals presents themselves in a good season like this that one would be beneficial to Astros short and long term, and another that would be beneficial that is a rental, which one do the Astros make? I know the temptation is likely to say the one that benefits short and long term. I would say Astros likely make both provided they could get guys from both on the field in postseason and don't involve same minor leaguers. I see deals involving better players for more years to be more difficult to make. I probably should have worded it differently such that while Astros may prefer better players for more years, they are more likely to have to settle for rental or two with maybe one big acquisition if lucky. As such, I expect they are working as hard for rentals as long term deals and will take whatever is best for team.
Gomez was not a half-year rental though. At the time of acquisition, Carlos Gomez had 1.5 years left of control (we also thought he wouldn't suck all of the sudden, and we would offer arbitration, and he would decline for a long-term lucrative deal, which would give us an additional comp pick, but none of that happened, because as history has it, he did actually decide to suck all of the sudden). Also, I feel the inclusion of Mike Fiers was an important piece to that deal, as he himself was a cost-controlled, average to slightly above average starting pitcher. Turns out, both turned out pretty bad for us.
Hamels was under contract for several years at the time of him getting traded (which was a large part of his appeal to us, I am sure). So he definitely was not considered a rental. I think you might might be confused as to what a rental actually is.
You are very right to do so. I liked the deal at the time, and could still justify it, but man did that deal amount to a whole lot of craptitude. Oh well, you win some, and you lose some.
This organization's payroll has been increasing every year, we don't know for sure what their payroll budget will be in 3-4 years. 150 million is barely in the top half of the league these days. I feel pretty confident we will be at least a top half spender by then. I doubt we keep all of our young studs, but no one player is franchise changing irreplaceable. And you mentioned 2 years again. Altuve has 2 years left after this season. Springer 3, Correa and McCullers 4, Bregman and Devo 6. And as is we have no long term contracts aside from Reddick, and that is an extremely manageable 13 million for 3 more years. If we sell out our current farm to compete this year and next, when the bill does start coming due for those guys we will have no talented cheap young labor to offset the cost of retaining these young studs, and the closing window will become a self fulfilling prophecy. Nobody is opposed to moves, even really big moves. But long term considerations have to be taken into account, because if well managed there's no reason we can't keep contending. You don't have to be the best team in baseball to win the WS, we've seen that on numerous occasions. If building the perfect team in 2017 was almost a guarantee to win a chip than future be damned, but it's simply not the nature of this sport. We could add Mike Trout, Clayton Kershaw and Aroldis Chapman, and still not be a lock, or even close to it.
Ownership has spent when appropriate and I don't think a $150MM payroll is unrealistic. It's $125MM already according to Spotrac. Keuchel is already 29 and won't be a FA until after the 2018 season. If another team wants to give him a mega-deal for his age 31+ seasons that's fine with me. Altuve isn't a FA until after 2019 which is his age 29 season. Springer is a FA following 2020 season - his age 31 season. Why are we even talking about this? Going all in is always a bad idea if the goal is to build a team that will contend year in and year out.
I'm confused as to what "all in" even means. Is OP suggesting that we overpay at the trade deadline to ensure that a deal gets made? Because otherwise, if Luhnow feels like the asking price on a potential trade is palatable, he's never shown an aversion to pulling the trigger.
Has this ownership been in a position to compete before and pay in order to do it? I wouldn't assume ownership is cheap since they didn't spend when we were merely average, same with the Rockets ( not specifically addressed to you but regarding that same mind-set).
