*My* opinion is that... while this is a good team with a bright future, declarations of the Astros being "appreciably" or "demonstrably" better in 2016 because they added a promising but unproven closer, resigned a middle reliever who, this time last year, was an afterthought journeyman and an outfielder who was posting a sub-.300 OB% as recently as September 6 seems a little overly optimistic, not to mention a slew of "what if"s that it seems a few fans have already concluded are givens: that Correa and/or McCullers will be as good/better; that Springer will be healthy; that Gomez will bounce back; that whoever plays 1B will be better than Chris Carter... Meanwhile, they haven't addressed what we all collectively agreed was their greatest offensive need (hitters who can get on base) and they still have offensive holes at 3B, DH and C and a question mark at 1B. And amid all of that - all of which is *my* opinion of the team's biggest needs - they are reportedly looking for starting pitching, having met with Kazmir and been rumored to be in on Fernandez, Carrasco, and several other available arms.
My opinion is that we will see demonstrable improvements in offensive stats from Correa, Springer, Gomez, Gattis, Valbuena, and anybody we choose to start at first base. Conversely, Altuve might regress, or he might show us that he's on Biggio's level by continuing for the third year to surpass our expectations. Rasmus might show less power but has enough of a track record to show that he should be able to maintain a .250 batting average which was better than last year. All things considered, a LOT of things went wrong for us last year offensively. There is enough natural progression of young talent and regression to the mean built in to reassure us that our offense will improve even without demonstrable expensive upgrades. That, and looking at the market, there is not unquestioned position player superstar that is worth shelling out money to give a roster spot and guaranteed playing time to. Davis is better than any of our young options, but is he really worth giving up that first round pick and effectively giving up on the Singleton, White, and AJ Reed projects? We as Astros fans should be demanding that the Astros open up the books, but right now the limiting resource on our team being competitive isn't money. It's roster spots and at-bats. In order to keep the prospect factory churning, you need to have the roster spots to allow them to grow.
BTW, that is a blatant mis-characterization of any thing I've posted in this thread. I never, ever, never stated that the team "won't possibly be improved"... I'm just not convinced it definitely will improve; certainly not based on where they are v. where they were... a month ago... There's ample space, as is, for the team to get better, between health, maturation and better luck alone... But that it's all a given?... And that Giles, who, I think, is a terrific addition, is going to dramatically move the needle.... It'd be great but - a) the bullpen was a strength for 85-90% of last season; b) he's unproven as a full-time closer; 3) ....Gregerson wasn't bad last year. I mean... he made 40 appearances and didn't allow an earned run in 30 of them.
And amid all THAT.... they underachieved last year (despite wildly exceeding expectations), and there is the likelihood that a full year of McCullers, Correa, Springer, Giles, and no Carter (net negative WAR for the majority of the year) has this team playing at or above the level they underachieved at last season. Its more likely that rookies improve rather than regress. Its even likelihood that Springer does not have a fluke hand hit by pitch injury. Gomez could easily be somewhere in between his bad 2015 and his good career numbers, and still be an improvement. Seems like you've picked all worst-case scenarios to try and prove your point... but I'll take the chances that a team that missed Correa/Springer/McCullers for about half season's worth of games, and still ended up underachieving, will be better going into next season (which can be presumed based on experience gained alone).
Fine... noted.... semantical, but noted. You're not convinced... but it could still happen... but you're just not convinced it will definitely happen... but it could still happen. If Giles keeps them from having the worst bullpen in baseball for an entire month, which they did in September... its a net positive. And better luck alone could have them playing up to their expected record that they underachieved to obtain last year... along with what a larger sample size of Correa/Springer/McCullers/Giles/no Carter "could" achieve.
I think this sums up the reason why most of us are a little riled up at your posts. Maybe it's not your intention, but you seem to be expecting worst case scenarios as more likely than the scenarios that most people (astros fans and national pundits) are expecting. Things could go wrong of course, but that seems like the less likely outcome.
Not that I care about batting average but, just out of curiosity... which track record are you using?.... He's hit .250+ once the past five years. His other four seasons: .238, .225, .223, .225. And just twice did he post a .300+ OB%. I would've shelled out big money to Jason Heyward, prior to Rasmus signing his QO.
Except for the fact that the qualifying offer deadline preceded the FA signing opening date (right after the exclusive negotiating window ended)... and the fact that Heyward (who still hasn't signed) would be unlikely to sign a contract that early. Sounds like you would have not given the QO to Rasmus... which means you don't get a draft pick if he signs elsewhere... AND there's no guarantee you win a bidding war for Heyward. Not exactly inspiring confidence as an amateur GM here...
I would say I'm merely balancing an abundance of best-case scenarios.... It's extremely unlikely that Giles will ascend to elite closer status *AND* Correa/McCullers will maintain/improve upon '15 *AND* Springer will finally stay healthy *AND* Carlos Gomez will reverse 18 months of regression *AND* anything will be an improvement over Chris Carter *AND* all that bad luck Valbuena and Gattis experienced will turn to better luck *AND* signing Tony Sipp and Colby Rasmus makes the team better *AND*... Literally every one of the statements have been posted in this thread; often in the same post. And it's possible every one of them will perfectly break the Astros' way........ Yeah, there's a touch of devil's advocate to my posts - but I truly don't believe we'll see the majority of those things break the Astros' way. I still think - perhaps stupidly - that this is a flawed team and I believe, despite what the numbers tell us, that they overachieved last year and that we'll see them regress. Having said that, the team confounds every thing I thought I knew about baseball and I readily admit that it makes no sense to me.
You really and truly don't need to nitpick each and every post... Or, if you do, try and least read through the thread... I wasn't suggesting any specific course of action; only that, IMO, Heyward - who is better than Colby Rasmus - would have been a position player worth paying big money. But he was not the only available path to upgrade Rasmus.
I think we've established this, but it's nice to see you acknowledge it. Nobody expects "all" of those things to happen, if they do this team is gonna win 110 games. But if half of them happen, then we will be improved, and I do expect more than half of them to happen. Unlike you, I see no likely scenario in which any of our players is significantly worse than last year. And we will, barring injuries which are unpredictable, have our 2 best players for much more time than we did last year.
Most people, at least in this thread, are expecting nothing BUT best case scenarios... everyone improves, everyone is healthy, no one regresses... Seriously, other than my "worst case scenarios," show me a post that isn't blasting two tons of sunshine out it's ass. The team traded for Giles and resigned Sipp and virtually every post that came after mentioned the World Series... and that's only the slightest of exaggerations.
But those aren't best-case scenarios. They're mostly all valid expectations. Best-case scenarios would be to have all of those guys play at an MVP level, never miss any time, and this team wins 120 games. As for realistic expectations based on reality: Giles is expected to be at least equal to better a closer than Gregerson was (he actually has more closing experience than Gregerson had going into last year). And Gregerson is expected to be a better 8th inning guy than Neshek was. And Neshek (if healthy) is still expected to be a solid weapon against right-handed hitters, and Sipp proved that he could step up his game in higher pressure situations.... all leading to a bullpen that has a good chance to NOT be the worst bullpen in all of baseball for an entire month. The worst-case scenario is that they are who they were last year for Septemebr... them playing up to expectations does not have to be the best case scenario. As far as Springer goes... he's had one hamstring strain (that the team played it ultra-safe with, as contention was not an issue) and one fluke HBP causing a broken hand. Jeff Bagwell once had back to back seasons where he broke his hand too. I'm still predicting that he's more a victim of the worst-case scenario rather than him being mostly healthy being a best-case scenario. As far as Correa/McCullers go... they basically mirror the Astros in a nut-shell. They vastly exceeded expectations as rookies... to the point that it would be convenient to say that they have to get worse, even though most promising young players do make improvements and adjustments with more time in the majors. As far as Rasmus/Gattis/Valbuena/1B/DH... there's not enough there to say they'll either get better or get worse. It will probably be a little of both... which again had this team poised to win more than 90 games. They had quality pitching (starters/bullpen) and they scored runs at an above average rate.... that's always won games for teams since the game was invented.
Ok... so what would you suggest as a specific course of action? Since you're continuing to disagree with what actually happened (which is the team keeping Rasmus), which was largely a function of the QO deadline being where it was. And, I'm not nit-picking... just pointing out that it would have been impossible to sign Heyward (or any other available path to upgrade) prior to Rasmus accepting the qualifying offer.
Plus you have Harris and fields. It would be nice to have another lefty but Harris can help there as he is better vs lefties. Our bullpen is going to be strong next year, is a domino effect when you get a reliever as good as Giles, everyone goes one inning down and that makes a big difference.
You would have dropped $210,000,000 - $230,000,000 for Jason Heyward? You also would have traded for Jose Fernandez? What else would you do?
Harris and Fields may end up helping, but what I find most promising is the number of talented arms they have in their system are almost ready to be plugged into the pen. Someone (if not several people) will falter in the pen, and the Astros have a number of guys that can fill in.
I'd say your posts questioning whether they've improved by that much outweigh the posts proclaiming world series.
All them breaking the Astros' way most assuredly represents a best-case scenario... IOW, it'll be one of the best bullpens, like it was April-August?... And that's an overall improvement how, exactly? Bagwell actually had back-to-back-to-back broken hands; three years in a row. As I said earlier, I try like heck-fire to avoid labels and recognize that there's no connective thread running through Springer's two major injuries... Having said that, until he actually plays a full season - which, again, he's never done - just assuming he will now seems a little premature. I don't think hedging a bit on that is a "worst-case scenario" but... Ok. I mean, I'm guessing, 21 years ago, you and I would have been locked in a "Bagwell's broken hands were a fluke the past two years" debate.... I'm just a much more tangible guy, i guess. I recognize Springer likely WILL be healthy. But until he is healthy... It's kind of like the Texans playing in Indianapolis - until they actually win there I'll never believe they'll win there. And so what is so "worst-case scenario" about me hedging on any definitive claims they'll be as good, let alone better?...
