Jeff Bagwell is -7.9 for his career. Do you think he was a terrible 1B? Keith Hernandez was 0.6 for his career (many consider him the best). WAR is trying to compare players across all positions, and as such makes positional adjustments. A great defensive 1B isn't necessarily more valuable than an average SS. There are only 4 1B (qualifying) this season with a positive dWAR Carter's DRS is only -3.
Wait, are you saying he's a good first baseman? The stats are merely confirming what we all suspect. I also have seen him regressing at that position from what he was doing earlier on. I can tolerate him if he's hitting... But even with the isolated hot streaks this season, and leading the league in pitches seen per AB, he isn't performing well enough at the plate consistently.
Oh, come on - this is pure revisionist. When Lowrie was signed, Correa was coming off a major season-ending injury and had never logged a PA above A-ball, Nick. This idea he'd be here in 2015 at all, let alone at any point before September is utter nonsense. But even if we accept your warped reality, it undermines your position - because if Correa's promotion in 2015 was inevitable, then the Astros viewed Lowrie as nothing more than a temporary placeholder. I've given no indication of my opinion of the signing; only a rejection of the idea that Jed Lowrie is a difference maker. Someone actually argued he'd help Jose Altuve return to form; I mean....
He was signed to multi year deal with correa's promotion in mind. He was approached about changing positions at some point. There is no "revisionism". You honestly think he was only signed just in case Correa wasn't going to pan out? C'mon. I don't think he's a savior by any means, but he's good enough to get consistent playing time when he comes back.
No, but he isn't terrible over there. Can we upgrade 1B? Sure, but not with Lowrie. I'm fine with Lowrie taking Marwin's position as primary backup for the IF. I see him playing more 3B than anything.
I think the expectation was Correa may not be here until 2015. We also hadn't traded for Valbuena when we signed Lowrie. There was room for both on the left side. Edit: I think the primary reason they gave him a multi-year deal was that it took that to get him to sign.
And, btw, Nick - since you've somehow twisted my not seeing a lot of available ABs for Lowrie into me not caring for the signing, my opinion of the signing remains relatively unchanged: wake me when Correa gets here. Lowrie's a nice player who doesn't really move the needle.
Aren't you the guy always talking about the FO's damaged reputation and how much harder they've potentially made it to attract FAs? Is that just conveniently only applicable to every player BUT Jed Lowrie? He's the one guy they didn't have to overpay? Because he was thrilled that the regime that dumped wanted him back; so much so, he was willing to settle for a one-year, incentive-laden deal but the Astros insisted he sign a 3-year deal? His deal is structured to decrease each year, as would be expected as they likely viewed him as an upgrade for 1-2 years until Correa arrived and stuck. Hedging their bets with an unproven, 19-year old prospect doesn't invalidate their evaluation of Lowrie as nothing more than a placeholder. When did I ever say this? I think they saw him as an immediate upgrade/bridge to Correa. Then he got hurt, Correa's development accelerated, and now Lowrie is looking at a line-up where he doesn't necessarily have a role (beyond 3B platoon/back-up).
And juicystream is right, btw; they signed Lowrie before trading for Valbuena. So I think we have a pretty solid idea how the Astros viewed Lowrie: the bridge to Correa.
Sure. And that's why they suggested that he's going to need to be open to switching positions. Luhnow just stated in an on air interview that he does expect him to continue to have a big role if he comes back healthy, and it's obviously going to be at a different position other than SS. He still will get a fair share of AB's with Correa here. He will probably get more than Marwin has gotten to this point. You can postulate who's AB's he will be taking. But, if you want to continue to say that Lowrie has no clear regular role on this team, I'll have to continue to disagree with you, as will Luhnow.
Oh, great - so Luhnow clarified where Lowrie will be playing? We're all ears.... Again, I think they *will* try and find spots for him to play (including, as I've said multiple times, almost certainly against LH'ers at 3B). I've just yet to have anyone offer a legitimate plan as to where that might be. Oh, I've had plenty of posters tell me where THEY'D play Lowrie... but I'm guessing Luhnow didn't confirm any of your flights of fancy; just offered standard, GM-speak for players returning from injury, am I right?
He didn't rule out first base when questioned... Also, don't be so quick to yank Valbuena out against left-handed pitchers (has been on a mini-tear lately)... and his defense at 3rd has been better than advertised. Don't worry... while you've ignored all the legitimate plans that you don't agree with, I'm sure the team will do something that they were likely planning on doing all along, regardless of your doubts.
Oh, cool - so someone specifically asked him about Lowrie playing 1B?... Wait a second... where are ALL these legitimate plans I'm ignoring, Nick? From the start, I've readily offered that he'll almost certainly platoon with Valbuena (a suggestion you're now tapping the brakes on, btw...) and he'll obviously give Correa/Altuve a day off every 2-4 weeks - that's what back-up MIs do. Beyond that, we've had: - a from-the-deep-recesses-of-my-ass suggestion he'll play 1B 1-2 games/week - Joining a possibly crowded group at DH That it? Two?... Yeah, man - I've been ignoring the s**t out of those plans, Nick... I mean, I never said he'd never see the field. I just... oh, never mind. I made my point about 37 pages ago.
Yep. Said they've considered it as a possibility (among all possibilities that doesn't turn Lowrie into simply a backup middle infielder). Mainly just focused on him getting back healthy, and they'll figure it out then. You ignored Kaidelosky's plan which basically echoes what Luhnow has suggested ... and why would you put him in the DH rotation? (that's your plan?), when he's capable of playing the field equal to better than some of the current everyday fielders (thus making those fielders he replaced the better DH candidate). And now you're arguing for this being an issue... when you're the one who made it an issue! Classic.
Also, I find it funny you claim people to be "pulling things out of their ass"... and you choose to complain argue about it endlessly, when you've done similar things in the form of putting Altuve on the trading block in part because "he wasn't chosen by this regime."
If Luhnow explicitly stated 1B was an option for Lowrie, cool. Again, I never said he shouldn't play; just that I didn't see where he would play. Since he has almost no experience at 1B and the Astros seem inexplicably infatuated with Chris Carter, I made a fairly logical leap that 1B probably wasn't an option. If it winds up being one, great - anything to make the team better. You're apparently unaware what the term "ignore" means. Why wouldn't he? He can swing a bat, right? DH would be an easy way to get his bat into the line-up more often - isn't that what we're trying to do? It's not terribly complicated. Don't be a dick about user names, Nick - that's gigantically uncool. I'm perfectly OK with heated back-and-forth and disagreements - but don't be disrespectful. I'm not hiding my name from people on this board; most people know who I am and how to contact me. But based on professional relationships, I have chosen to keep my name hidden. And to not respect that is the trolliest of troll moves. (Castor, do you mind deleting my name from Nick's post. Sorry to bother you about it.) Anyway, where were we?... Oh, yeah I asked a fairly reasonable question - where is a guy who has spent 86% of his career playing SS or 2B going to find enough at-bats on a team with Altuve and Correa to positvely impact the team's OB%. And if, as you claim, Luhnow said the team was exploring "all possibilities that doesn't turn Lowrie into simply a backup middle infielder" - then it's the same question the team is asking itself. So, what, exactly, am I arguing, Nick? I don't believe, based on what we know, that 1B is a 1-2 games/week option. If it turns out it's a direction that the team is actually considering/pursuing... tip of the cap to kaidelosky for being on top of it. I don't think it invalidates that it's a pretty radical idea, considering the evidence. Frankly, there's more evidence to support that idea than there is for Jed Lowrie playing 1B. Absent of concrete evidence, the best discussions should be built on a foundation of available evidence, patterns, histories, etc. It sure beats, "Let's trade scrub A for All-Star A" level discourse. I'll stand by what I said: this regime has shown little love/respect for the previous regime. They cleaned out the front office and have seemingly gutted the majority of their prized acquisitons/draftees - note: they've promoted four top prospects this year, and three were Luhnow choices. Again, there's a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest they didn't think much of the organization they inherited. So is it really much of a leap to think if Altuve potentially doesn't fit what they're trying to do (and/or they *really* love the 2B they drafted in 2012, or are desperate to find a position for Lowrie, now that I think about it...), that they'd make Altuve available? They wouldn't be the first "new" regime to clean house; they'd be the, oh, 1,237,820th. That's what new regimes do. Ask Andre Johnson.
This is what has happened and why this thread has gotten out of hand: You asked a question of "where is Lowrie going to get his AB's? I don't see where he'll get them!"... and as soon as people started making valid suggestions that have been partially echoed by this team's own GM, you continued to argue against those suggestions, with claims of ideas being "made up and pulled out of asses/radical ideas with no evidence!." You then go on to continue to argue that this regime goes out of their way or discredits players from the previous regime... with more anecodotal/talk-out-of-ass logic than anything else that has been stated here (even attempting to use a bad football example... really?) This regime has held on to Kuechel, held on to Castro, extended Altuve/Singleton, attempted to extend Springer, promoted Santana, gave exhaustive playing time to Villar... in any given regime, that's not a bad MLB promotion/retention rate (Luhnow likely thanks Wade/Heck for having that Philly connection, acquiring as much as he did, and getting everyday MLB players with first round draft picks). Of course new regimes are going to overhaul most of what was there (and pretty much what is here at the MLB level is the majority of what was viable in the farm when Luhnow was hired)... it doesn't mean that every single non-Luhnow player needs to be put on watch for possible trades simply because they were acquired by others. I know it makes sense TO YOU to trade Altuve, and nobody is writing 500 word posts to argue against you... but if you can't see that you're doing the exact same thing that you're arguing against, I'm not sure even hiding/changing your username will save you from yourself (apologize for using your name... didn't know you had extraneous reasons for staying incognito... maybe I'll change mine as well).
There was ONE suggestion I dismissed. From the beginning, I've readily said he'll likely platoon at 3B, spell Altuve/Correa here and there, and likely be in the DH mix... I just don't think that amounts to a lot of ABs, generally, and certainly not enough to move the needle on a team that has one of the league's worst OB%s (which, again, was the initial suggestion I responded to). And IF the GM did indeed echo the idea of Lowrie playing 1B (I didn't hear the interview but trust your reporting of it), that came to light literally yesterday. (And I doubt he suggested it might happen 1-2 times a week.) If you'd like to provide evidence of him, or any one else in the regime, suggesting it prior to yesterday, have at it. But we both know it doesn't exist. I mean, don't we try to keep discussions grounded in a certain degree of reality here (which you most assuredly police, too)? So other than your own desire for it to happen, what evidence, prior to yesterday, suggested Lowrie - a career MI - playing 1B 1-2 games/week was viable? Because he played 3 games at 1B four years ago? Because this team has shown an urgency to bench Chris Carter and his team-leading 72 games played? What's the evidence? So, yes - the idea of a career MI getting 1-2 starts a week at 1B is, by every definition, pulled out of the ass. It might ultimately be a brilliant spot-on pull out of the ass... but it's a pull out of the ass, nonetheless. I never said, "every single non-Luhnow player needs to be put on watch"; they're not stupid, and neither am I. But there's been an undeniable amount of Wade/Heck-era turnover, including the majority (if not entire) front office and scouting department. Wait, wait... I don't believe I've ever given any indication that my Altuve suggestion was anything BUT a wild hair suggestion. Of course it is! It's 1,000,000,000% speculation. The issue there was someone told me there was NO evidence suggesting this regime might view Altuve expendable. None? I disagreed. We have an underperforming 2B who, generally, doesn't seemingly look like the other MIs this regime has acquired (especially guys they've drafted, who all tended to be high OB-guys). They have other, more pressing needs (SPs), a seemingly acceptable replacement in AAA (that, btw, this regime selected) and they've shown no hesitation to readily deal a Wade/Heck-era player... Anecdotal? Yes. Again, it's 1,000,000,000% speculation... but there are at least reality-based foundational elements to make the case. Far more than Lowrie playing 1B 1-2 games/week.
