When do we Trade Wandy, Carlos Lee and Myers?

[xcrunner51]

Originally Posted by The Cat There's a reason it's called upside; there's a downside to it, too. You should have to give more "upside", in theory, to acquire a proven Major Leaguer in his prime. Honestly, if a deal starts with a Paul Clemens-level prospect, I'd consider keeping Wandy. He's the type that should age well and could have another five or six years of near-peak production, possibly helping you come 2014 or 2015 when you make your first playoff push. If you can't get one player of the Singleton/Cosart caliber, which is what his production deserves, I'm not sure I deal him.

Well other benefits of trading for younger players is getting a cheap, team-controlled player. Call it crazy but we may possibly get more WAR out of J.A. Happ over his Astros career than the Phillies got out of Oswalt even though Oswalt was clearly the better/best player in the trade.

If we get a young pitcher who can step in and pitch like Wandy (a strong 2 at times) while being under team control for 6 years I'd jump all over that deal even if the player never had a better season than Wandy.

Wandy may be the type of pitcher who can pitch 5-6 more years at a similar level but he'll require an extension at some point and it'll probably be for similar money. Keeping Wandy another 6 years here could easily cost the Astros another $50 million. That logic doesn't compute. There's absolutely no reason the Astros should keep Wandy.

[jaxwithanx]

Yeah Wandy is looking like he might net us a haul. And I love the Myers move...Luhnow knew he would be more valuable to another team as a closer at the trade deadline than a mid-rotation pitcher on a crappy team. Lee....I just want him to stay healthy enough that we can get a few good bats for him before the deadline.

But seriously, Luhnow pulled a very shrewd move with the Myers switch. I would be willing to bet he is gone mid-year.

[The Cat]

Originally Posted by xcrunner51 Well other benefits of trading for younger players is getting a cheap, team-controlled player. Call it crazy but we may possibly get more WAR out of J.A. Happ over his Astros career than the Phillies got out of Oswalt even though Oswalt was clearly the better/best player in the trade. If we get a young pitcher who can step in and pitch like Wandy (a strong 2 at times) while being under team control for 6 years I'd jump all over that deal even if the player never had a better season than Wandy. Wandy may be the type of pitcher who can pitch 5-6 more years at a similar level but he'll require an extension at some point and it'll probably be for similar money. Keeping Wandy another 6 years here could easily cost the Astros another $50 million. That logic doesn't compute. There's absolutely no reason the Astros should keep Wandy.

If the six years Wandy is here corresponds with the time that the team's young core is on extremely cheap contracts, it might make sense to spend that money - assuming he keeps giving you this production. That said, do I want to move Wandy? Yes, I do. But not for the sake of moving him.

[tellitlikeitis]

Trading Wandy should net the Astros a top-100 guy and a couple of Baseball America Top 30s.

[xcrunner51]

Originally Posted by The Cat If the six years Wandy is here corresponds with the time that the team's young core is on extremely cheap contracts, it might make sense to spend that money - assuming he keeps giving you this production. That said, do I want to move Wandy? Yes, I do. But not for the sake of moving him.

I like Wandy. I do. But if we weren't going to keep Puma or Roy O. using that logic, there's absolutely no defending keeping Wandy. Especially when we're about to go to the AL.

Give me a #3 starter with 6 years of team control and cover all $26 mil left on his contract --> bye bye Wandy.

[xcrunner51]

Originally Posted by tellitlikeitis Trading Wandy should net the Astros a top-100 guy and a couple of Baseball America Top 30s.

This i think is reasonable. That's roughly similar to the Bourn deal.

[The Cat]

Originally Posted by xcrunner51 I like Wandy. I do. But if we weren't going to keep Puma or Roy O. using that logic, there's absolutely no defending keeping Wandy. Especially when we're about to go to the AL. Give me a #3 starter with 6 years of team control and cover all $26 mil left on his contract --> bye bye Wandy.

The Astros are at a much better point now than they were in 2010, when those two were dealt. There are several young starters that actually have above-average potential, many of whom are already producing as much. I could see, as soon as two years from now, this team making a legitimate run at the postseason. In 2010, it looked four years away, at a minimum (probably longer, considering Wade and Drayton were firmly entrenched). And that doesn't mention the unique circumstances of those two, such as Puma's rapidly-declining production and Oswalt's chronic back situation.

I guess the compromise I could live with, if a Paul Clemens-level upside is peak value, is if Luhnow targets such a player that's already had a taste of the Majors and/or is playing well at AAA. If I could feel confident in limiting the bust risk, I'm with you.

[bobrek]

Originally Posted by The Cat ...I could see, as soon as two years from now, this team making a legitimate run at the postseason. In 2010, it looked four years away, at a minimum ....

So, in 2010 you saw the playoffs 4 years away (at a minimum) and now in 2012, you see them possibly 2 years away?

[jev5555]

What if we are contending? Do we still pull the trigger on trades?

[Major]

Originally Posted by bobrek So, in 2010 you saw the playoffs 4 years away (at a minimum) and now in 2012, you see them possibly 2 years away?

I think 2014 was and is a reasonable goal. Back in 2010, 3 years might have been an outside possibility depending on what all the trades netted us, but they really don't seem to have brought all that much. That's really when all the big contracts are gone, so we'd have total freedom to fill holes with free agents - but that assumed that a lot of key pieces were filled by club-control players, and I'm not sure we have quite enough of those just yet.

It also helps that they are going from a 16-team with 4 teams (25%) making the playoffs to a 15-team team league with 5 teams (33%) making the playoffs.

[juicystream]

Originally Posted by xcrunner51 This i think is reasonable. That's roughly similar to the Bourn deal.

Bourn didn't net us a single top 100 prospect.

[panamamyers]

Bourn didn't net us a Top 100, because one of the slots was filled with a guy that was basically a major leaguer already. He used to be a Top 100 guy, but had a few down years.

I am sure if Schafer was not included that the trade would have looked different. The farther the prospect is away from MLB, the more potential he better have.

[Xenon]

Originally Posted by Major I think 2014 was and is a reasonable goal. Back in 2010, 3 years might have been an outside possibility depending on what all the trades netted us, but they really don't seem to have brought all that much. That's really when all the big contracts are gone, so we'd have total freedom to fill holes with free agents - but that assumed that a lot of key pieces were filled by club-control players, and I'm not sure we have quite enough of those just yet. It also helps that they are going from a 16-team with 4 teams (25%) making the playoffs to a 15-team team league with 5 teams (33%) making the playoffs.

I'd agree that 2014 is a realistic scenario in their current division but not with the upcoming move to the AL. The team has a LOT of work still to do to be competitive with the Rangers. They made a good amount of progress at least.

[Major]

Originally Posted by Xenon I'd agree that 2014 is a realistic scenario in their current division but not with the upcoming move to the AL. The team has a LOT of work still to do to be competitive with the Rangers. They made a good amount of progress at least.

I agree that the division will be difficult, but with two wildcards, they could still make the playoffs. The Angels may be good as well (assuming Pujols recovers), but Oakland Seattle are perennial disasters.

[The Cat]

Originally Posted by Xenon I'd agree that 2014 is a realistic scenario in their current division but not with the upcoming move to the AL. The team has a LOT of work still to do to be competitive with the Rangers. They made a good amount of progress at least.

As Major said, the two Wild Cards is what gives them the opportunity. It'll definitely take much longer than 2014 to compete with the Rangers during the regular season.

[The Cat]

Originally Posted by bobrek So, in 2010 you saw the playoffs 4 years away (at a minimum) and now in 2012, you see them possibly 2 years away?

Yes, I know it reads funny. But for me, when I speak in terms of time frames, there are some idealist assumptions in there. That is, development of young prospects into decent Major League guys, right moves from the front office, etc. So to still be on that timetable two years later is a much better situation.

[Astrocreep2012]

Carlos looks EXTRA fat and slow...I just can't imagine many teams offering much.

[MadMax]

Bump due to Mariano's injury.

[juicystream]

Originally Posted by panamamyers Bourn didn't net us a Top 100, because one of the slots was filled with a guy that was basically a major leaguer already. He used to be a Top 100 guy, but had a few down years. I am sure if Schafer was not included that the trade would have looked different. The farther the prospect is away from MLB, the more potential he better have.

Schafer was a top prospect before the steroid suspension and wrist injury. Clearly not the same player from his top prospect days. The trade was all about depth. A couple of B level prospects, a C level, and a mediocre, but young MLB OF. That type of deal wouldn't be that surprising.

[juicystream]

Originally Posted by MadMax Bump due to Mariano's injury.

They were interested in Myers last year as a starter. Certainly seems the type to be able to handle NY pressure (Doing it for the Phillies is about as close as you come to NY/Boston pressure in the NL).