Among all of this trade deadline discussion , a few themes have arisen consistently . One of these is the discussion of now vs future. No doubt , a successful prospect is one of the most valuable assets in baseball. Team control and low salary combined with performance is the best a team can get . This is why teams are willing to trade bonafide players for future potential . Yesterday , and during the previous offseason , the Astros decided not to make that exchange . Obviously, this was a measured and calculated decision and I respect our management for not "overpaying" The line has come up , "we didn't suck for 3 years to blow our farm for one year of success." This is true . To evaluate that statement , we need to truly understand the strength of our farm system . But there is another element to our sucking over the last few years . Our payroll . From 2012-2016 has been at or near the bottom of MLB team payroll . And often by a wide margin . Many here have stated the need to exercise caution adding too much to the payroll because we will have to pay DK , Correa , altuve etc . My question is will we? Kuechel is a pitcher and has had injury concerns over the last couple of seasons . I don't think most rational fans would mind letting him go if the price got too high . That being said , wouldn't the rational thing to do ( in terms of efficiency ) be to trade him? We could easily get more future value if we flipped him at the deadline next year . Do you see where I am going with this ? It's far too easy to rationalize kicking the can down the road . The only way ( absent many of our prospects hitting which is statistically very unlikely ) we are going to put ourselves in the strongest position to win a title is to spend . I know this seems like a knee - jerk . But in what ways is expecting the success our core has had this year also based off a small sample size ? I understand lunhow wanting to see how Lance and DK did this year before making a move . Hence , no adding a bona-fide starter during the offseason . But what would his plan have been if either guy had struggled early . If you put yourself back in time , it was a legitimate question how good either of those guys would be this year. What if Dallas had a repeat of last season ? Let's hold the other variables constant ( except for maybe wins ) . So in sum , our offense is crushing but we need pitching help . What is the move ? Do we go in heavy for an ace ? Or do we punt and go into the playoffs absent an Ace ? I think my overall point is this . Not making a big move could have been , and likely was rational . That being said , what circumstances surround this decision? Do we have an owner that is willing to put up cash in an effort to really go for it ? How much longer is kicking the can down the road an option ? We still have some lingering advantages (hopefully ) of having high picks multiple years in a row in our farm system . How long will that competitive edge last ? I'm still really enjoying the Astros success this year . But I will not forget the price it came at . To not make a stronger attempt ( either in the offseason or the deadline ) to bolster SP ( an area of concern to most going into the season ) points out a few different possibilities . 1) we weren't willing to give up farm system surplus for immediate benefit. 2) our prospects future value is higher for us because of our owners future willingness to pay . A counter argument to all of this is that we do have a really good farm system and wanted to make trades , but that it takes two and our prospects didn't match up with what other teams wanted . To that I say , lunhow can get creative and work a 3 team deal . TLDR : this was a rant.
i think it's quite likely that Crane made it clear that Luhnow was not to give up any tier 1 prospects as he does NOT plan to pay out huge contracts to our core guys when they come due. Why else would we have not made a real effort to get some help? How many position prospects do you need when your club is offensively loaded at the major league level.
I think the plan is to pay two of the big 3, probably Altuve and Correa. OF is the easier position to replace of the three and we have some great prospects at outfield. It's just not realistic we'll be able to pay all three, we don't have a 200 million dollar TV deal like the big boys.
Is the other guy springer ? Just clarifying . I think you are probably right . Still, (and I don't have all the info on when they become FA's and what potential salaries they will command) I think keeping all 3 should be an option. We sucked hard for 3 years on purpose . And during those years ... And for for a year after our payroll was dirt. Our opening day payroll one of those years was 22 million . Now , I don't want ownership to cripple the franchise by handing out a huge contract to a declining player . But I will be pissed if (assuming they are still productive) we don't make a legit effort to keep all 3 . Paying your guys and having major league slots filled allows you to trade prospects for needs of the current team vs counting on them to fill them. It's one way to get around taking BPA and having a glut of players at one position. For example . Tucker , reddick, springer , and fisher can't all play at the same time . Say you decide to let springer or reddick go because you have Tucker coming up next year . It's a potentially cheap and equivalent way of filling a spot . But, a guy leaving in FA nets you nothing outside a draft pick. Whereas Tucker could be part of a package that could get you an ace and help you compete this season . Yes , you would have to pay the FA to keep the team as good next year ... And costs would go up . That's just the trade off you have to make. The other option is to kick the can down the road. There are times when it's good to do it and times when not being aggressive enough is a bad choice . We will see how lunhow plays his cards. But his options may be constrained by the owner .
Doubtful. If Crane or Luhnow think you can generate a new crop of MVP-caliber players every 6 years, they've stumbled upon the most unknown of baseball secrets that has never been discovered in the 150+ years they've been playing the game. Every team will have a set window... and the teams the Astros are trying to emulate (90's Braves, Cards) all re-signed their key players at least once. The teams that didn't (A's, Rays) had windows of 4-6 years and then not much else.
Astros are doubtful to spend to keep everyone. If Crane was willing to spend that much, he should be spending more now, and Astros shouldn't be as tight with prospects.
After 2018 season, the only big FA's are Keuchel, Marwin, Gattis. Some decisions to make then but I doubt we keep Marwin and Gattis for that matter.
I have feeling they won't pony up for Marwin and have him penciled in as a replaceable utility guy rather than pay him the Ben Zobrist money he may require.
He will spend what the club generates in revenue. The reason he spent money on Beltran, Aoki McCann, etc was because of a somewhat surprising increase in revenue last year. He would have added Chris Sale's contract too if Bregman wasn't required. If you want them to spend the average attendance for the team with the best record in the AL needs to be higher than number 14 in MLB. Keuchel (if healthy), Correa, Altuve, and Springer are all 25 million a year players and up. No, they can't keep all of them unless they can lock up someone on the cheap like they did with Altuve and that will not happen because Altuve is in their ear saying don't do it.
During the mid 2000's the Astros were consistently in the top 10 for attendance . One shouldn't expect fan interest to rebound to peak levels after you've intentionally sucked for 3 years in a row . Edit . Also we charged the 5th highest ticket price in 2016 and I don't know yet for 2017. Second edit . Based off our average ticket price and attendance , our revenue from ticket sales last year was ~85 million . I'm not sure if this includes suites or season tix etc . In comparison our payroll was 69 mil . Obviously for profit one needs to consider tv deals , merchandise , and of course operating costs . But , I think crane is making plenty of money ... Just don't ask me to prove it.
I was in the "Jim Crane is a cheapwad" boat too, but this past offseason I give him credit for taking on Beltran, Reddick, and McCann (or part of McCann's salary). We're currently 16th in the majors in payroll (http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/) and if you look at who's coming free in the next few years, Luhnow and Crane will have an opportunity to make good on their promise to spend to retain our own players. The Cardinals are probably a good template here: in the 2000's and 2010's, their payroll has always been middle of the league. If the payroll - winning pct has a linear correlation, it's probably still a minor one. I'm ok if the Astros over the next decade hover around the #10 payroll in the majors. On another question, if you had to ask me which player would be the hardest to retain, my guess would be George Springer. A New England native, he's a guy you could easily see the Red Sox and Yankees have a bidding war over, with his eventual salary hitting 30+M per year.
Cardinals are a tough example. They are 2nd in average attendance and 12k more fans PER GAME than the Astros this season and our tickets averaged only 2 dollars more per ticket last year.
Is it unrealistic to think Altuve will get a 10 year = $300 million deal? He's better than Cano and he got a similar deal.
In a fantasy world it would be something like 5/$150 or 6/$180, but yeah, it would be highly unlikely he signs a deal that isn't over $200M. The list of position players to sign for that much are small (Cano, ARod, Fielder, Pujols, Stanton), but hard to imagine he won't join them.
Bingo. Crane is not going to pay to keep Altuve, Dallas, Marwin or maybe even Springer. Like I said, Crane will use the old Marlins model.
Then, all this talk about competing year-in/year-out are flat out lies? The Marlins were never consistent competitors. They know they're going to have to re-sign at least one, if not two, foundational players to replicate the teams they've stated they ought to replicate.
"is not going to" "will use" Bunch of assumptions with zero evidence. Just conjecture making multiple leaps from decisions that could have been made for a million different reasons.
