You're assuming he's going to get $16mm. It's just as likely that they negotiate a longer term contract with a lower salary.
Last year. In both 2013 (.808/.757) and 2014 (.970 (!)/.773), he hit LHP better. I'd be perfectly OK with a Tucker/Gattis platoon. The problem, as someone else mentioned, that puts you with 6 OF/DH. If I'm doing my math correctly (big if...), that leaves two spots for bench INF/C (assuming 12-man pitching staff). Maybe they're OK with that...
So again, you probably don't want him here even at last years salary? Sounds like you're not doing enough homework.... What's your best guess? Chances are, the front office crunched the numbers and had both that figure in mind, as well as possible other suitors prior to extending the QO. Even if those things are that "obvious"... and presuming there's mutual interest, explain to me why its so disastrous to offer the QO? The "worst" case scenario is that you have a productive OF again playing for a 1 year deal... Any other outcome involves you either locking him for a multi-year deal or getting a draft pick in return. You don't extend the QO, you likely end up with nothing when he signs elsewhere. The only way they don't give the QO is if they absolutely had zero desire to bring him back... to the point that they'd forgo a draft pick rather than risk having to pay him for even one year. Since there's mutual interest there... this was a pretty low-risk/low-hassel/negotiation-free way of keeping him... and if there's even further interest, they'll work to sign something beyond just the QO that could save them some $$$ in the mean time (which I'm not too worried about since I'd rather have the year to year flexibility vs. an extra $4 million or so dollars).
If Tucker is going to be sent down to AAA, they will trade him. They don't want to lose value and there would be some interest around the league.
Gattis will still likely hit lefties better than Tucker does... given his career numbers. Gattis did make some adjustments as the season went on that had him striking out a lot less over stretches... but at the same time, he was sacrificing his XBH potential. In the end, he's still a club controlled asset that they won't give away for free... so if there's not really a desirable trade outcome, they're keeping him.
Last year the Astros rolled with a 13 man pitching staff. That leaves 12 position players. 8 starters, 1 DH, 1 C2 (Conger), 1 backup IF (Marwin) and 1 backup OF (Marisnick). The 3 roster spot battles will be for DH, first base and third base.
"Disastrous" is your term; mine would be... "disappointing;" the rationale being they only have 3(.5) spots to upgrade a legitimate need (OB%). Rasmus now assumes - with a hefty salary - not only one of the available spots (LF) but potentially one of the easier ones to fill (I'm assuming some combination of Carter/Reed/White/Tucker/Conger/Bagwell fills 1B). So that leaves 3B and DH - where they're (likely) pot-committed, at least from a platoon perspective, with Gattis. Third basemen with a high OB%s don't exactly grow on trees...
Who are your presumable "easy to replace in LF" candidates? The Astros clearly were interested in keeping him. And presuming Colby was going to get at least a marginal raise ($4-5 million) from last year's team-leading salary... its not all that hefty or crippling of a raise to take on for only one year. I also bet he's not the only player to take the QO by the end of the deadline today... definitely could be a market trend amongst teams/players that has them valuing both guaranteed competitive pay-outs now and future flexibility (its not like baseball is a injury-riddled sport like football where 1 year deals could backfire with just one bad injury). Its also not the worst thing in the world to have a guy where both money/years is not the driving force.... who's still younger than 30 and doesn't effect any sort of flexibility going forward.
Well, for one: Alex Gordon. It's a pool issue, really. In theory (I'm not pretending this is absolute), there are 30 3B; 120 OFers to try and find OB% guys who might be available. Hence, it's (likely) easier to fill that need in LF (or DH) than it will be at 3B. But now, that flexibility is gone because you've committed $16MM to a LFer.
I'm thinking Lowrie is our starter at 3B, as you're probably not going to get a huge upgrade from him on the open market. And he has a decent OB%. But, as we all know, Lowrie is only good for about half the season.
Yeah, I wouldn't include a free agent with zero ties to this team/city as a potentially "easy to replace" candidate.... in addition to the fact that they actually do have to come to an agreement/bidding war with said player, and this option would not have been able to be explored/resolved before the QO deadline. Maybe for this season... which again, they had interest to bring Rasmus back anyways... but its not gone long-term by any means (which is sort of the best of both worlds... they keep a guy they valued, but are still not locked into anybody beyond next year). Like you said, there are more OFers out there... and if there's a need evidenced there throughout the season (if Rasmus somehow does not have as good of a season, or there's an injury), they have ways to acquire replacements like they did with Gomez.
I disagree, Valbuena should be ahead of him. Lowrie last year had a .312 OBP and a career .328 OBP. He lacks power, and is a very weak hitter for a 3b. His numbers work for a SS but not a 3b. Now, Valbuena is much better defensively, and hits for power. I could see a platoon there, IF we are unable to trade Lowrie.
You should really think about taking a class of some sort to help you crack the obviously daunting task of how to correctly use quotes... Quotes are used to accurately - that's a very important term here: accurately - communicate what someone has said. I never said "easy to replace;" you can put it in quotes as much as you like (twice, so far...), it won't change that fact. What I *did* say is that LF is "one of the easier ones to fill" - ie in relation to the other (likely) available positions the team could conceivably upgrade (which was plainly evident by the full context of my post). You're completely misrepresenting what I said (I never said it was easy). No, worse - you're literally making up what I said and then putting quotes around it as if I had said it, word for word. That's not fair; I'm not going to explain/defend something I never said. I'm happy to discuss the ins and outs of Colby Rasmus accepting a QO; but not if I have to spend the majority of my time teaching someone what they should have learned, frankly, in middle school (this isn't the first time you misused quotes with me...)
Only by the standards of this team. They need a bigger upgrade than an oft-injured 32-year old with a career OB% of .328, IMO
RAsmus was projected as the number 26 FA for 2016. The numbers given was 3 year, 39 millions, so thats 13 per year. So we pay 15.8, only 2.8 millions more, and we don't need to give a longer contract??? I don't see how that contract hurt us, for 2016, and leaves options for the future. Colby hitting 6th, behind Gomez, is a good spot for him. What we need now is getting a number 4 hitter, that MUST be our next goal for the lineup, and try and trade guys like Lowrie, Gattis, Carter and Feldman
Epic quote rant! And before you went on your quote rant, you suggested Alex Gordon could have been Rasmus' replacement... which goes in line with people suggesting Chris Davis at 1B... they're both suggestions merely because they're free agents, but there's absolutely zero indications or reports indicating that either would prefer to sign here (let alone this would be Crane's first big-ticket free agent... which is hard to presume it will happen till it actually happens). Is he the only person you eyed as a replacement for Rasmus? Did you have other suggestions that you felt they should have waited on, considering its a easily replaceable position? The team had to make a decision... they value Rasmus... and now they get him for one more year. Once you acknowledge that the club wasn't just looking to get a draft pick out of it (that was merely a backup option), you'll realize the move makes sense and is by no means "disappointing". (Did I do it right?... rolleyes)
