To acquire an ace-level starting pitcher; elite closer, and a sell-high candidate like Kemp, the Astros would have to unload almost every single building piece in their system, which they are never going to do. They're on pace to win 112 games, for f***s sake - you make it sound like they're an 88-win team on the playoff cusp. Sure, they could get better. I think they'll target under-the-radar arms and bats. But they are not in need of an ace, an ace closer, and a big bat.
Every year, one team wins. Every year, more than one team trades for players to help them. Straight up wins, prospects produce more wins on average. However, as I said, "... question is are those wins today worth more than 20% for wins at a future unspecified date..". Wins aren't linear to WS odds. Adding Chapman and Cueto were definitely huge (on Peavy...Astros really sucked then and didn't pay much attention to NL teams) based on their teams' makeup. Lucroy and Hamels not so much.
The goal is winning the WS and 112 wins means jack sh-t if we don't bring home the prize. I will trade all our top prospects if that will bring home even 1 WS in the next couple of years. You must be satisfy with just being good not wanting a chance to be great kind of person. Last season the Cubs added Chapman and that one move got a already real good team their WS. The winning window is small for most teams so it is important to do whatever it takes to win it now. Look at us 2 years ago and than last season. We never know.
As you pointed out 1 sentence earlier, more wins doesn't guarantee a WS. So trading all our top prospects like you advocate doesn't guarantee bringing home 1 WS--it just guarantees more wins. But it does guarantee falling off a cliff without depth to backfill from. It's the gamble from hell that only has 1 way of paying off. The goal is to create a long-term winning window. The Cubs didn't blow their entire farm..they made 1 big move. We could do something closer to a single big move, or a few smaller ones...rather than "trading all our top prospects".
We keep the core like the cubs but trade the prospects in the minors that may not have a spot in the majors.
If you're good enough to win 112 games over a 162-game schedule (a winning percentage of 70%), then you should be good enough to win 11 of 19 playoff games, which is merely a 58% winning clip. Unfortunately, playoff series are short and are too often victim to wild fluctuations and bad luck.... a gaggle of traded prospects wouldn't change that. The Astros have made big moves (Johnson, Beltran; hell even Kazmir and Gomez) and it didn't get them a championship. Please. The Cubs, who, on the day they acquired Chapman had the best record in baseball, were actually *under*performing their Pythagorean. They were a juggernaught of a team. And even they nearly blew the World Series because, again: postseason contests are subject to wild fluctuations and bad luck. And people need to stop viewing this team through a short-term window. you might be willing to trade every available prospect if it got them ONE World Series TODAY - but I guarantee you you wouldn't be satiated five years from now when it's basically 2006 all over again and you're staring down a bleak 10-year stretch because you've depleted your farm and your MLB team is either aging or pricing itself out.
That sounds very reasonable, does not involve going all-in, and fits what I am advocating. Make reasonable trades. If a team wants too much, move on and trade with someone else. Astros should have a good team through Correa's club control. Which year will end up being best shot at world series, we don't know even though 2017 is the front runner.
Can you imagine if that dude who made the SI cover in 2014 or '15 called the WS champion 3 years early?! that would be so cool lol
Sure, but coincidentally or not, each of the last 3 years (didn't look any further back), the team that won made a major deadline deal for an all-star caliber player. Could they have won without them? Maybe. Could we win without one? Certainly. But the teams that won did acquire a significant piece midseason, so it seems hard to argue that they don't make a difference.
If Martes/Tucker/Perez proves too rich for Luhnow, don't be shocked if the Astros turn their attention to Johnny Cueto. His cost is limited based on his mediocre performance early this year, and the fact he has a player option he is almost guaranteed to exercise. The Astros have a glut of the type of prospects likely needed to get a rental like Cueto. The Astros get to add to their rotation, keep their prospects and excite their fans/players.
I think we need insurance vs Morton's and McCullers health. I would put all our chips (that we are willing to part with) in getting a #2 and/or a #3 SP.
Because a closer isn't worth 2 or 3 top prospects--especially on a team with a stud bullpen. Also, "I will trade all our top prospects" vs. "2 or 3 top prospects" (where "top" is vague) are different statements, so I think you need to clarify your position--otherwise I'm not sure how to respond. Which goes back to, wtf does "all in" mean (not directed at you)? I would pay for Cole, but with his injury history and likely needing a long-term deal after next season, I'd want to be careful with my offer and not just blow everything. If his arm blows out, then you have no chips left and no player.
My point is that we don't need all three of those things; not that we don't need any of those three things. I'm certainly not against the Astros pursuing improvements of any scale. But right now seems like a weird time to discuss the team as if it has glaring holes... perhaps by July, they will need to plug a few cracks. But right now, they're the best team in baseball despite Beltran and Bregman underperforming; despite starting three pitchers who are below average; despite two of their best bullpen arms (Gregerson and Giles) underpefroming a bit. Sure, in their place, Reddick is overperforming; so, too, is McCann. Marwin, obviously.
Not arguing that they don't make a difference ever. I said "usually". For every year you find a trade on WS champion, I can find that many plus 1 for a team that wasn't.
And still w/o McHugh who should be a good replacement for Fiers. I wouldn't be against making a move for a TOR starter or a better lefty reliever but I think we're in a pretty good spot right now, too. I really don't see the need for another bat. I want a WS win as bad as anyone here but I also want to have the ability to do it for years on end...not just one run at it.
Cueto? I would expect Luhnow would be more willing to trade prospects than to take chance that Cueto gets injured in last half of year and they get stuck with the tab. Granted, Astros could get insurance to mitigate the finacial risk of severe injury.
