Astros interested in Quintana

I said they were more apt to trade prospects when their window was more open as a response to whoever was saying that the Cardinals don't trade prospects anymore. Dating back to the McGwire, Rolen, Holilday, Mulder deals... and the host of other deadline deals they make to shore up weaknesses. They do trade enough prospects.

Of course the Astros have a team that can compete. They also have very serious questions regarding the health and well being of their starting rotation... which still remains the most important aspect in trying to build and maintain a winner.

I don't expect the Astros to outslug everybody towards prominence. I suppose its possible, but they're going to be in trouble if Keuchel doesn't stay healthy and return to form, and LMJ never comes back to be able to throw a lot of innings.

 

They didn't really give up top prospects in those deals. They bought relatively cheaply on those guys, and then worked out extensions with them to stay. What they did give up were young big leaguers for upgrades (like Dan Haren, like Shelby Miller, like Polanco) who were being replaced from within the organization or directly by the trade. They would pull of a deal with a McHugh-esque player (just younger) as the headliner. Devenski would probably be the most apt comparison, or Musgrove if we make it to the deadline.

I disagree about the most important part being the rotation, as we've seen mediocre rotations win. All phases of the game are important and shouldn't be ignored.

Even if we add Quintana, and LMJ & Keuchel are essentially done, then wouldn't you feel we need to go out and get another starter again (we wouldn't have Martes or Musgrove anymore that are our best 2 in house options to replace those guys with apologies to Devenski)? I'm willing to wait until the deadline to see if that is indeed our biggest need. I would only be willing to offer up one of Musgrove, Devenski, or Martes.

If the White Sox would do a deal for say Fiers/Martes/Fisher and change, it would be great, but that isn't the deal they are looking for. I want another starter, I just want it for a price that makes more sense for us. If they want Musgrove, the secondary parts need to come way down in price.

 

Well this is certainly true, I am not privy to the negotiations. You are right, "gave" was the wrong word. But we still let it happen, which is essentially the same thing. Per reports (which I'll admit can very well be wrong), our pursuit of EE cooled after we signed Beltran. Again, I just don't see how a 1 year deal should drive us away from signing a potent bat like EE for 3 years at a reasonable AAV. Reports state that before we signed Beltran, we made a 3/$66M offer to EE. From what it sounds like, it looks like we pulled that offer once Beltran was on board. So although I offer no proof that EE would still have picked $60M from the Indians over $66-$70M from the Astros, I just find that hard to believe. Just as the case with 90% of free agent signings, more cash usually makes a player's decision a lot easier. And we could have easily beat the Indians' offer, we simply chose not to.

So although you are correct in saying we were not 100% control, in my humble opinion, it appears to me that we certainly had enough control to make it happen if we really wanted to. I am a big fan of the front office, so let's hope I am just overreacting here.

 

Seems you don't understand the "free" component of free agency; Astros can do any and everything imaginable and it means nothing if EE doesn't want to play here.

 

No, I completely get it. I just feel that teams ultimately control how appealing they want to be to free agents (via money offered, opt outs, no trade clauses, etc.). I haven't read anywhere that EE did NOT want to play here. I have only read that his preference was to stay in Toronto. I'm not sure what your point is here. You're telling me I have no proof that EE wanted to play here, and I'd respond by asking for proof that he did NOT want to play here. And money is usually the biggest driver in free agency. Are you saying that the Astros' could've done nothing to sign him? If they offered $70M over the Indians' $60M, he's probably an Astro right now in my opinion.

I know there have been times where free agents have said they prefer to play on the West Coast, or be closer to home, or something to that extent, but I don't think that's the case here for EE specifically, so it's not applicable here.

Now if you want to go back to the Hamels' situation, I have no qualms about it. Sure, I would have preferred he not veto our deal, but that was completely in his right via the contract he signed, and he made the best decision for he and his wife. But I am talking about EE here, no one else.

 

"We gave..."
"We still let it happen..."

Both of those could be read as you implicating the Astros - that's my issue. They had no control over EE's decision.

 

Oh ok, got it, thanks for the clarification. I'll just respectfully disagree. I feel they absolutely had an impact on EE's decision. If employer A offers me $50K, and employer B offers me $1M, and I choose employer B, can employer A justify that by saying "well, we wanted him and we tried, but we ultimately have no control over which employer he chooses."

If he signed with the Blue Jays, and took less money than what we were offering, and said his heart was in Toronto, and enjoyed what they built there, THEN I would 100% agree with you. But I just don't think that's the case here.

I might be 100% wrong here, but I just feel that IF our front office wanted EE to be an Astro, he would be an Astro right now.

Although I appreciate our back and forth, I'll stop now, especially since we are in the Quintana thread (my fault for venting here), and we're probably giving our fellow fans false hope that some good news has broken, only to be disappointed.

 

Of course we would prefer to target players with a shelf-life remaining. However, if it were that simple we would have done it already. Given the price tag for such players, it is far more likely that we grab a rental mid-year; and if said rental can provide us with an edge to get to the WS, it would certainly be worth the price.

 

It was reported earlier this week that we are out of the Quintana trade talk. No need to get your hopes up anymore.

 

I thought you said before that players DO NOT have anything in their radars such as rivalries and fan-based interests? That they basically are just out there looking to collect fat paychecks happy to be swinging throwing and catching for a living?

I find it hard to play down the Astros level of control here. Yes a player can chose a team just cuz his girlfriend likes the team colors. And going to place close to championship is classic ring chasing.

But how can a team NOT be in position of influence, not be a big player in the field than by offering more money than anyone else? While having a good team with good young core going forward?

 

You've completely shredded the point I made, which was that they don't care much, if at all, about interstate rivalries; certainly not to the level fans do. But winning? Yes, that they care about winning. And if you're sizing up the Astros' potential to win, not being able to beat your DIVISION rival (what state they play in is irrelevant) would probably rank below "six outs away from winning the World Series" (or however close the Indians were).

Influence is different than control; sure, offering more money is a huge factor; having a good, young team is a factor... But players have their own agendas and it's impossible* to trump those.

* obviously, if you were to vastly overpay the player, that would likely force the player to reconsider their priorities. But the Astros aren't in the business of overpaying players.

 

You guys are arguing for no reason. Edwin Encarnacion was happy to play in Houston if they gave him what he was asking for. He ended up getting less than he wanted because the market fell out from under him when nearly all of the potential landing spots signed someone else. His agent was very clear that they would love to be in Houston, but they still had leverage then and were hoping for the mega deal.

 

The ClutchFans credo.

 

Every time I see this thread bumped I feel obliged to open it up just to see if the Astros surprised me.

 

I just like daily disappointment... keeps me grounded.

 

You and me both!!!

 

Apparently the Astros offered Martes, Tucker, Paulino, and 2 others for Chris Archer...