McHugh is who he is. Musgrove has never pitched a full season... let alone given teams multiple times to see him and force him to make adjustments. Those are huge if's.... far from being "likely" that those two could anchor a contending staff. The "aha" moment... Keuchel and LMJ aren't sure things going into 2017. HENCE the concern.... hence why many were hoping they would acquire a proven quality starter going into the season. But yeah, if you're already looking towards the free agency class of 2018 for answers (or willing to wait longer)... there's really not much more point in debating with you. We've already had 2 MVP-level years from Altuve and a Cy Young-level year from Keuchel that this team may never get back. The ultra-prime-young core that has this team in position to cotend only gets older and more expensive with each passing year.
Nook and Major: What is the highest you would go for Quintana? I would deal Martez, Tucker and another good prospect, whether it's fisher or someone of that ilk. I'm reluctant to deal musgrove bd I see him as our No 3/4, and solidly so for the next several years I am of similar mindset - as a fan, I want them to get aggressive and go into the season wit a No 1 starter in hand, and if Keuchel returns to form, then we will dominate with two of em.
I tend to agree with you - I'd lean towards keeping Musgrove since he's a current member of the rotation. That said, I do defer to the Astros in terms of knowing their prospects and the underlying strengths and potential issues with players far more than I do. So I try to avoid criticizing specific deals or whatever as much as possible. We also don't know what the CWS really want, what they'd accept, etc. My only point - both here and in the EE thread - is that the Astros routinely seem to barely miss out on players that could have helped us tremendously. They seem to never be willing to really take a lot of risks, always fearing what they might lose over what they might gain, whether it's in slightly overpaying a FA or in a trade. I totally understand and support that much of the time. But when the stars are aligning and you're hitting that peak window (similar to the late 1990's and the 2004-2006 range), I think you take the risk and overpay to some extent. If doesn't work out, so be it. But when you have those rare opportunities that everything aligns, I think you double down - you never know who's going to get injured or just start sucking or whatever and your window narrows before you thought it would. If they don't get Quintana, so be it - we don't know yet what CSW will get. But seeing an EE pass by for $60MM/3 yrs is really disappointing - he's a game-changing player in the heart of a lineup and the Astros could easily figure out how to handle having too many offensive players (good problem to have). If Quintana slips through us again for something that's not a huge overpay, I'll be disappointed as well. He's a #1/#2 type pitcher that you rarely have available to you for 3-4 years at a reasonable price. I felt the same about Hamels, though that was beyond our control. I don't care as much about rentals - I want to acquire long-term building blocks and stability. That lets you keep narrowing the holes you inevitably need to fill every year. Acquiring a Kazmir was great, except that 2 months later, you need another Kazmir and have to deal with all this again. The one qualifiying factor with Quintana is how certain they are that Martes can be Quintana in short order. If they really truly are confident in that, I understand the hesitation there a lot more.
This is mainly how I feel. I was really disappointed to hear that EE only got 3/$60M. That's a value contract, and we could have been the beneficiary of that value, instead it seems to me that we were looking for excuses NOT to sign him, which is silly to me. I also can't wrap my head around why a 1 year deal to Beltran ended our pursuit of EE. What is this "not enough bats to go around excuse?" Adding both EE and Beltran, why couldn't we have rolled with: EE at 1B, Beltran to LF, Gurriel to DH, and Reddick in RF, with Reed either traded to help strengthen another area of the team, or simply sent down to AAA to get more seasoning? That seems to work just fine in my opinion. Instead we gave this middle-of-the-order bat on a value contract to the team that was inches away from winning the World Series last year. I get that most fans thought "at least the he didn't go to the Rangers." But I am actually more concerned that he went to the Indians. Let's look at it this way: Indians improve by getting their ace pitching healthy for next year, they should also get a very productive Michael Brantley back from injury, AND they just added EE? Wow. Red Sox improve by trading high risk/high reward prospects (good ones, mind you) for Chris freaking Sale. A great team just added one of the best pitchers on the planet. And then what have we done this offseason you might ask? Trade for an aging Brian McCann, whose best years are clearly behind him, pay a substantial amount to Josh Reddick, who I see as solid but not great, and as basically a platoon outfielder, and a 1 year deal to Carlos Beltran, which is actually the transaction I like the most out of the 3. The Indians and Red Sox got appreciably better here, I'm not sure if our upgrades will translate to as many additional wins as most hope. I hate to be a negative nancy here, but I wasn't overly thrilled with the offseason (I know I am in the minority here) before losing out on EE, which feels like a punch to the nuts. It's probably a good thing this happened while I was busy, or I would have had a mini meltdown here. I also agree with Nick's line of thinking about our pitching depth. That is why adding a top tier arm like Quintana or Archer would be huge. And almost a necessity if we really want to overcome teams like the Indians and the Red Sox in the AL alone, let alone teams like the Cubs, Dodgers, and Nationals in the NL.
Quintana, the ace that has only thrown 1 complete game in his career. You say they are risk adverse, but they take risks. But Kazmir cost far less, and you move on. Gomez was under contract for 1.5 years, had a track record, and was a disaster. We gave up a lot to get Giles, and he struggled and we failed to even make the playoffs.
Not sure if that's supposed to be reassuring... when they do take risks, they apparently pick the wrong player to go after... Would you also call trading for McCann a risky move? (also, yes, more cost= more risk... so all those moves above were far less risky).
Giles had a very high cost. I don't consider McCann a risky move. Depending on prospects is a risky move as well. What it tells you there are no certainties.
I have zero issues with the Gomez and Giles trades, even seeing the results and even if VV or one of the others turns out to be great. Gomez would have been a fantastic trade had he been even average - and he did help the Astros make the playoffs in 2015. Giles, especially, is exactly the example I like. Yeah, he was mediocre last year, as were the Astros. But we have another several more years of him to get value. If turns out good, we have a closer for the foreseeable future for whenever the stars align right for the team. He's the exactly the type of player I want the Astros to chase in trades - and Quintana is a good example of that. Ultimately, trades get judged on their end results, but decision-making isn't really about that. The Astros cannot control whether Gomez sucks it up or Randy Johnson suddenly finds new life or if Giles becomes an ace or a dud. They can only determine whether these things are worth the risks. I don't fault the Astros for aiming to acquire proven high-quality MLB talent. If that talent bombs, that's on the player, not the team.
But we can only afford to do that so often, and so far it hasn't worked. If we hadn't made those other moves, it would be easier to be aggressive on Quintana now. Similarly making a deal for Quintana now, will make it more difficult to make a move at the deadline or next offseason when we once again discover another hole on the team, which I promise you will happen. No team is perfect. The Cubs were the closest thing, and they nearly lost to a team missing its #2 & #3 starters, as well as a couple of their best offensive players.
In retrospect, Giles was not a very high cost. Appel to this point has confirmed his complete bust status. VV looks to be weighted down with injuries. It looks like we got Giles on the cheap.
I never considered Appel to be a real loss, and actually like the deal better getting Fisher back & Arauz and giving up Appel. Velasquez had high value then and has high value now and was the real painful part (he'd be nice to have right now for sure).
I promise you, the Astros (and other possible contending front offices) are not operating based on your mindset. That is as risk averse of a post as it comes. Not taking risks now simply because other risks didn't work... The reality is that all teams, regardless of how chalk-full of talent they are, have fixed windows. And within those fixed windows, there are a subset of years where their chances to win can be exponentially better. Right now, as Major put it, the stars are conceivably aligning. Club controlled players galore, talent in the bullpen, no more dead weight in the lineup. Their best everyday players are playing for peanuts. THIS is the time to strike. You also continue to strike next year, the year after, and every year while you have prime core players (and moreso when those prime core players are cheap). Not striking is the difference between emulating the Cardinals and being more like the A's/Rays. The Cardinals took a good amount of risks on a yearly basis when it came to trading prospects, but in the end they have titles to show for it.... regardless of whether some of those moves didn't work out 100% or some of those prospects went on to greatness elsewhere.
I'm not really sure why you bring up the Cardinals. I can't recall a big trade they've made since Holliday in '09 (well the Heyward trade in '14, but the return was centered around Shelby Miller who wasn't a prospect). The Astros have moved more prospects in the last year and half than the Cardinals have the last six years.
Agreed - but that's why you go out and get guys with 3 or 4 years on their deals instead of guys with 2 months or 1 year. Sure - but I'd rather use those prospects on a guy we'll have for 3-4 years rather than some desperate move for some guy with a few months left. It's rare to be able to find those types at the deadline - Hamels was the notable exception and it sucks that we didn't get him. And I disagree that the Gomez and Giles deals in any way noticably hampered this team in the grand scheme of things, especially if we're now arguing that Fiers is a useful piece of the rotation. We have a wealth of prospects, and at least back then, we had too many for our roster anyway. If this team has a consistent pipeline of prospects - which I think we all believe they do - then using them to consolidate to fewer players is necessary for roster management anyway.
Hmm....just last year rentals included A Chapman and C Beltran. Other major trades included A Miller and Lucroy. Plenty can be had if teams can see eye-to-eye.
Broxton? Heyward? Lackey? Mujica? But yes, the Cardinals have slowed down some. The point was that when their window was about to peak... they maximized their opportunities by trading prospects for much needed players.
"We gave..."? Maybe EE *wanted* to play for the team that was "inches away from winning the World Series last year" as opposed to the team that went 2-1,236 against their division rival? There are always two sides to any free agent deal; any notion that the Astros were in control is inherently false.
Sorry for any confusion. Rentals are plenty at the deadline. I don't want to use prospects (as much) on rentrals though, because then you are in the same position minus your new player 2 months later. I'd rather focus on finding guys that will be here an extended period - and *those* guys are rare at the deadline. Hamels was an exception a few years ago, and that would have been a great get. I love the idea of the Astros pursuing the Hamels/Giles/Quintanas of the world rather than the Chapmans/Beltrans/Kazmirs, and that's a task much easier done in the offseason than at trade deadlines.
That actually isn't really true. The Cardinals mostly held onto their top prospects, except for trading Brett Wallace for Matt Holliday. They did trade Shelby Miller, but after he was already an established MLB pitcher. Most of their moves are short-term. The Cardinals success was based on developing their own stars and finding a few FA gems. And it is funny you bring them up in a post about fixed windows, when the Cardinals haven't operated in a fixed window at all. You don't understand that every move you don't make is also a risk. It is all risk. The Astros have a team that can compete right now with or without Quintana.
