Yep. In the end, no outcome is a guarantee. Forget the Cardinals, just look at the 90's Braves... even contending year after year with 3 HOF bound starting pitchers only netted one World Series win over 12+ years. I see the Astros making all sorts of inquiries into optimizing the team for the now this year... just like they did when they traded for Gomez and traded for Giles that very off-season. Luhnow has shown the aggressiveness to not waste years where there's a real opportunity to win. While there's no Randy Johnson like pitcher on the market... if there was, I have little doubt that Luhnow would pull the trigger like Hunsicker did.
The Cards also have found a few diamonds in the rough, reclamation projects and unheralded types that turned into very solid players for at least a year: Jay, Craig, Adams, Freese, Matt Carpenter, Rosenthal, Garcia, Mujica, etc... There's something to be said for scouting and development.
So basically....forget operating like team that have won a few world series, show disdain for a team that only won 1 and follow the template of a team that squandered its best 2 or 3 chances at winning a world series putting too much emphasis on one year.
The first 2 are Cards and Braves, are you really talking about the '98 Stros as the 3rd? Every team in baseball makes that same trade every year given the circumstances (team ceiling, prospects involved, whatever). It's a no-brainer. Every time. OK, maybe 1 out of 100 doesn't, I'll give you that.
Braves fans would trade 10 of those division titles for another ring. This team could get better next year. Correa could turn into A-rod and Bregman could turn into an all-star player himself. But I think we can win this year if we add another piece or two. And who knows what kind of mental boost winning the WS would do to the young players (and/or their chances of resigning).
If I believed loading up for the next 2 years gave us a substantially better chance of winning a WS, I would be all for it. But the inherent unpredictability of the baseball playoffs mean that isn't the case. The best team occasionally wins it all, but just as often they are bounced before they even get to the WS. If you told me we could win 90-95 games for the next decade, of 105 games for the next 2 years, I would say the first option gave us a much better chance to win a chip.
True but long-build teams also fall apart or fail win a championship too. The late 90's Indians teams and late 00's Rays both had decently long playoff runs with nothing to show for it. It comes down to preference. I think three years of a 100-win caliber team gets us at least one ring.
True, but how many times has that ever happened. I can think of a few times where a team built a juggernaut, that ultimately fizzled out quickly. Meanwhile the Red Sox and Giants have multiple WS titles, without a single 100 win season. The Giants have 3 winning 88, 94 and 92. The Cardinals have 2 WS titles (83 wins, and 90 wins), while having 6 seasons over 95 wins (including B2B 100 win seasons) that didn't account for a WS. I think people are shell shocked from the Biggio, Bagwell era. Odds are if you are good for an extended stretch you will win a WS.
You are correct. Nick basically said Braves model for winning WS that only lead to a decade or so of winning plus a World Series victory is not the model to follow and then praised Hunsicker's 0 WS wins as the model to follow. Losers whine about giving it their best shot, making trades every team would make, etc. Winners go home and @#^ the prom queen.
There is an important aspect that goes into considering whether the Astros should go "all-in" that gets little discussion. Future financial concerns. Obviously, the Astros are well positioned currently to spend more money because of their willingness to develop all-star caliber players who can contribute early with out costing the team greatly. Because the Astros have minor leaguers who had early success, and are on team-friendly contracts, the Astros were able to spend in FA on players like Beltran, Reddick, and McCann. If the team chooses to go "all-in" now and trade these possible all-start caliber early contributors, it may put the team in a bind financially in the future. It may force the team to spend in FA to get starting caliber players, versus having the option to bring up minor leaguers on team friendly deals. One thing the Cardinals were able to do so well around Albert Pujols, was compliment his talents with minor leaguers who could contribute far greater value than their contracts suggested. Holliday, Rasmus, Carpenter, Wainwright were all brought up through the system (I believe). Generally, mid-market teams with continued success are successful long-term because they have the continued minor league talent to help ease financial considerations of current players who are successful at the major league level and require bigger contracts come FA time. Obviously, drafting well would ease this a bit, but if you trade away your most desired minor league talent, it makes this all the more difficult. I'm not suggesting the Astros shouldn't go all in now, but future financial considerations should be in the discussion.
The Cardinals also got a ton of contributions from non elite prospects too. If you trade Tucker for a pitcher, you hope Fisher is steps up. Or Teo. Or even someday Laureano. If heaven forbid, they traded Bregman for a pitcher then they've got a ton of options. Slide Yuli back to 3rd and call-up Reed or White. Call-up Moran or JD Davis. All those secondary options are sub-optimal compared to the guy they're replacing but if they can step up and perform 80% as well while netting significant playoff rotation upgrade then its worth it.
Matt Holliday? They traded for and extended him. They used Brett Wallace, who they had taken high in '08, as the bait.
I see your point but who is to say we will be healthy for 5-10 years. I say win now, get a quality 6-7 ip started under 4 era... Maybe a long term reliever so defenski don't get over work and roll with 3-5 years on contenders. People want to play with this team and that's HUGE! B(great coaching, atmosphere and future!). If we go to 3 out of 5 Alcs I am more happy than losing early in the playoffs.... We have ws potential already... So many weapons just a couple of tweets.... That's my 2 cens! Have a good on!
At the time, I would have even though I remember thinking Garcia and Guillen were a lot to give up. Hard to say what I would do now with information available at time as hard to be objective knowing Garcia and Guillen's career. Hindsight says Astros gave up several chances that would have been every bit as good as 1998 if not better. Randy Johnson on rental was available at deadline this year, I would not trade Tucker, Perez, and Musgrove. One year of him just doesn't raise odds enough. What do you think is better, winning for a decade with a solo WS championship or 0 championships and being able to whine about giving it best shot, making trade every team would make, etc.?
Garcia was the big loss, and he wasn't some sort of can't-miss prospect league-wide. Guillen and Halama were nothings, the former less-so than the latter. Guillen turned into a very good player 4 or so years later, and then he had to move to 2B because.... I don't know where you were, but everybody at the time said it was a great trade, again given where the Stros were and wanted to go that year and what they gave up. That team was geared for a WS more than any other in the history of the franchise. This year included so far.
It's funny you should say that, since we are getting a couple picks and money from them after they hacked our scouting information. But you may be right on development.
Agree, even though all 3 guys reached the majors and had decent careers, Garcia is the only one who would have likely made a significant impact on future Astros teams. Guillen was a late bloomer and Halama was a fairly up/down/mediocre player. And even with Garcia, though it would have been nice to have him in the middle of the rotation for 5+ years, I think had Carlos Martinez not gotten injured nobody would even be sweating giving up Garcia.
