That wasn't necessarily the choice though. Wouldn't surprise me if we offered EE comparable or even more money, but his agent was promising him a mega deal. I think we just moved on.
Would I have welcomed EE on the Astros? Sure. But logically it doesn't make a ton of sense. You've already added Beltran as an OF/(mainly DH), Gurriel is going to play a lot of 1B with Bregman at 3B. OF will be Springer, Reddick and a number of guys in LF. So if you bring in EE you pretty much eliminate a spot for Gurriel or you have to cut Gattis out of the DH picture. This team already has plenty of options at 1B/DH. Not worried about missing out on a 34 year old who declined last year and will most likely continue that decline this year.
This. Our offense is set. Astros need to focus on the SR, and using next year's first rounder (which would have been lost had we signed EE) could be important in a trade.
I think Gurriel would have been in LF and EE at 1B, with Gattis being the big loser in terms of ABs. We would have been incredibly deep on offense, even when giving guys a day off. I do love this team either way.
Hind sight is always 20/20. However we gave Josh Reddick 4/52. We could have gotten Encarnacion at 3/60. I would far rather have Encarnacion, and Gurriel could have played a corner outfield spot. Let's not even get into the Beltran situation.... they could have signed Encarnacion and saved money on a per year basis by letting Beltran and Morton sign elsewhere. Having said that, maybe Encarnacion takes a major step backwards and Beltran continues to defy his age. I will say this, if Beltran suddenly slows down, we are back to needing another middle of the order bat.... and Beltran is 4 or 5 years older if I remember correctly. Still really excited about the Astros, they should be markedly better than last year and the year before, and in the thick of the playoffs.
Can't trade regular picks in baseball. The pick will be of no value to us until next off season at the soonest, when it's an actual player. Having that that, losing the pick has to be taken into consideration because 1st rounders are a huge part of keeping the farm stocked, even if it's not a high 1st rounder.
Not being a deal breaker is same as saying it has zero value (or so close to it that it doesn't matter) in regards to deal being discussed. Sure, a pick is negligible for a 200 million dollar deal. The pick is approximately worth 20% of the actual cost to the acquiring team for EE. That is not negligible and is a potential deal breaker. Edit...and as I've already said, I suspect Astros were likely very competitive with the deal.
Close this up... http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18335563/edwin-encarnacion-agrees-deal-cleveland-indians
That's what I meant; first rounders can be very valuable for the future. We are still young and will be adding a few Vets the next couple of years to compliment. The window is getting small.
I don't think anyone is losing significant at-bats except other random bench guys. Between normal injuries and age (EE, Beltran, McCann, and Gurriel), there are lots of at-bats for the equivalent of the "6th man" - probably nearly a full season's worth. Gattis will probably catch 30-50 games as-is, and then if he covered 10-15 rest days for EE, Beltran, and Gurriel, that's another 45 games worth. Then you can assume injuries somewhere along the way, and given the versatility of Gurriel and Bregman, virtually any injury outside of Springer would result in Gattis in the lineup. (if Correa gets hurt, Bregman moves to SS; Gurriel moves to 3B, EE moves to 1B, etc.) Plus, every single day, you have a top-tier pinch-hitter on your bench for the late innings for whatever you deem your most critical at-bat. Basically, instead of having a random scrub in the lineup when people need rest or someone gets hurt, you'd suffer virtually no dropoff.
The original talk was 4 years $100MMish, and the Astros were rumored to be heavily interested and engaged in the EE discussions. Given that, 3 years and $60MM is a much lower price. Again, we don't know what the Astros offered or what made EE ultimately make his choice. But I'd be disappointed if we weren't pursuing him at those prices.
Astros could have offered him at 3/60. I suspect they offered him something at least close to that if not even slightly more early in offseason. Astros getting Morton, McCann, Reddick, and Beltran through free agency and trade likely helps Astros a lot more than EE alone would and I doubt they could have done as well at addreasing weak positions if they had waited until EE was ready to accept a reasonable deal. That said, no guarantee he would accept 3/60 from Astros over Cleveland if Astros would have waited. I'm very happy with Astros off-season and I don't think it is done. Astros budget rose a little more than I expected and they haven't used up a real prospect yet on a trade. I would have
Original talk of 4/100 million was people guessing EE would be severely overpaid. HRs are usually still paid a premium. Before the offseason, fangraphs editor, who's usually pretty decent at salary estimates, predicted 4/80 and called it an overpay due to too many years plus pick. 3/60 sounds about right considering no risky 4th year and pick cost is spread between 3 years instead of 4. As I said, I suspect Astros were in the ballpark on the deal and may have even offered slightly more in early off-season. This sounds like a very reasonable deal. EE may have missed his chance at a 4th year by waiting...but doubtful he's very good 4 years from now to make it a reasonable deal for team. Edit, granted getting what you want early in off-season is worth a slight overpay, extra year sometimes as it helps you make other moves to fill positions more effectively.
For all we know, the Astros offered EE the exact same deal, but he decided to go with Cleveland based on his role on the team. We simply don't know enough to denigrate Luhnow and Crane.
Looks like they pulled their deal to Encarnacion after they got Beltran.... http://www.fanragsports.com/mlb/heyman-strange-market-encarnacion-dozen-sluggers-remain — There’s a lot of criticism of Encarnacion and agent Paul Kinzer for not immediately jumping on the Jays’ initial $80 million, four-year offer, but the reality is that while that was obviously quite a reasonable bid (and the highest one he’d receive, as it turns out; he also got one for $66 million and three years from the Astros) there is no one who would have taken that at that time. Everyone, including the Jays, was figuring Encarnacion would easily beat that bid, and the Jays moved quickly to Morales, presumably believing Encarnacion was going well past their price point when they suggested he test the market, which turned out less inviting than predicted and expected by everyone. One factor: some big-market teams were waiting on the new CBA at that time, and the Red Sox and others decided they didn’t want to go past the new $195 million luxury-tax threshold. While Encarnacion came into the winter preferring to return to Toronto, where he felt comfortable, he is said to have soured a bit on that situation because of the way things went, with the Jays canceling a meeting the first day of the Winter Meetings with him following their surprise signing of Steve Pearce, which further limited their interest in Encarnacion. The Indians were a surprise, but not necessarily a bad one. He is also very close to several Indians players in a very positive Latin-heavy clubhouse.
Not surprising. Another one of those big moves we just miss out on (Andrew Miller taking less money, Hamels rejection, and the losing bid on Jose Abreu.
So, if these reports are true the Astros did make a superior off to the Indians, but Encarnacion wasn't ready to sign. I imagine they preferred EE, but we were only gonna sign one. They weren't gonna be held up while other players signed elsewhere and Beltran was ready to put his name on the dotted line. I hope the irony of that isn't lost on everyone.
Them only wanting to sign one... and drawing a line in the sand... was the Astros decision, not EE's camp. I think EE would have been a better signing (especially at that contract) than Beltran. We now know the only reason the timing was what it was... is because EE's camp was hoping Toronto would make the best offer, and they never did. That was all at the start of the winter meetings, prior to Beltran signing. I don't think it would have been that drastic to wait. This is where some of the inexperience Luhnow has as a MLB GM is telling. I have far less confidence in his abilities to woo/sign premier FA's and execute trades to help the MLB club, than I do his ability to make draft picks and rebuild the farm.
How is that on Luhnow? This is on EE's agent. If EE really wanted to be in Toronto, and had his agent knew what would be, he would have taken the 4/$80M offer, but didn't. Waiting is a substantial risk. You either get a bargain, or you get left with nothing. Were you willing to be left with nothing?
Not all on Luhnow... but the Astros did decide to move on when they could have ended up with the player they wanted for even less than what they were willing to spend. There is an inexperience factor when it comes to these sorts of negotiations. Yes, waiting is a risk... but so is jumping to sign a lesser player first when the player you covet may still be available for even cheaper. Again, this too is part of a GM's job description. There are some that are just as good at this aspect of the "game" as Luhnow is at drafting and building the farm. Or you could take the viewpoint that the Astros have simply been unlucky in every free agent acquisition they missed out on.... and it had nothing to do with this front office. Chances are, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
