The bolded is where I respectfully disagree with you. Quintana is not average. Nor would a prospect becoming an average major leaguer have more value than Quintana. Quintana has been one of the most successful and consistent pitchers on the planet over the last several years. He also happens to be on a very nicely cost-controlled contract for the next several years. Players like this are a very rare commodity, and off the top of my head, I can only think of three: Quintana, Archer, and Goldschmidt. Hypothetically speaking, if Quintana was to be a free agent after this upcoming season, he would easily get $25M-$30M per year on the open market. So for a mid-market team (like us and the Pirates), paying him relative peanuts while he helps anchor our rotation has tremendous value. Also, think about the replacement cost of each. How do you acquire legitimate aces? Either trade for them, or wait until their best years are behind them, and throw silly money at them for their past performance, only to understand that they will regress with age, as their salary increases. On the other hand, acquiring a bat is MUCH more easier. So even if Kyle Tucker is legit, and blossoms into a good/great ball player, it STILL would be easier to find an OFer to replace him than it would be to find an ace to lead our rotation. We are definitely giving up value, there is no doubt about it. The prospects we trade away will hurt, but at the end of the day, but I think the front office and many of us fans need to get over our collective analysis paralysis. Make a bold move, give us 2 or 3 talented prospects that may or may not end up being great, and acquire an ace that will not only help your team get to the playoffs, but a guy that allows you to trot out a trio of Quintana, Keuchel, and McCullers in a playoff series. Trade both Martes and Kyle Tucker for Quintana, and be very happy with the 25 man roster we have at the big league level, for this year and for the next several.
Is it really just Martes and Tucker though? I imagine they are still asking for Bregman. I would think if it was just Martes and Tucker the deal would already have been done.
Without being privy to any trade talks between the two teams, I would hypothesize that there is almost no way Bregman is being discussed now. I think we would've said early on in the talks that if Bregman is a deal-breaker, then the deal is broken, and neither should waste their time. The rumored deal from earlier in the offseason was Martes, Tucker, and Musgrove. I think Musgrove was the deal breaker, and to somewhat back that up, Luhnow has said that we are not interested in trading away guys at the big league level. I think if the third piece is another prospect, perhaps in the 10-15 range, the Astros would be happy. I think Martes, Musgrove, and Daz Cameron for Quintana would be fair for both sides.
I've long, and rather recently, been a strong advocate for "trade everything; we can restock." But my opinion is evolving, in part because I don't believe the Astros have that approach at all. I think they take a very careful, measured approach that is almost certainly neck-deep in statistical models that help them make informed decisions. And thus, I've come around to posters like @Joe Joe who are far more analytically inclined. In terms of determining future value, I don't believe the Astros take a boom-bust approach; I think they likely take an informed middle ground. Four young, cheap Mike Fiers may not be ace-like sexy, but they have tremendous value, not just on immediate and/or future W/Ls but on budget and cost allocation, which, as the *real* studs in this line-up mature to becoming *rich* studs, is not unimportant. I'd like them to acquire Jose Quintana - I've been on that bandwagon a loooooooooong time; I think he's a terrific pitcher that's actually somewhat underrated. But I'm starting to understand/appreciate the cost of doing that kind of high-end, ace-level business. And why the Astros are more reluctant to do it.
You're not factoring in age and the cost of doing business. A 22- or 23-year old who is essentially providing Collin McHugh-like production has *tremendous* value because of how much financial flexibility it provides. You can't - and I guarantee you the Astros don't - view this in a 1:1 bubble: is Quintana >> league-average 22-year old? Yes, he is. Obviously. But these aren't one-man pitching staffs or rosters. So you have to look at it like this: two Joe Musgroves or Jose Quintana +... Brad Peacock, which is all you can find/afford because you've emptied out your system by dealing your top four pitching prospects? What about in 2020, when you have to pay 31-year old Quintana $11.5MM *and* Jose Altuve is a free agent - how do you feel about the trade now? It's much more complicated than just, Jose Quintana is better than (insert young pitcher with potential).
The average pitcher is probably being controlled for nearly 7 years, of which 3 years will be at a minimum salary. So that average starter is going to give you 14 WAR, while Quintana gives you 16 WAR. He wasn't calling Quintana average, it wasn't about would Quintana be a better pitcher today or even across the next 4 years, but about long-term value. I'm willing to trade Martes and change gladly for Quintana. I'd lean towards trading Martes and Kyle Tucker for Quintana. What I wouldn't do is trade Musgrove + top prospects for Quintana or gut the entire top of our system for one guy.
Yeah, I think the Astros would consider Musgrove + Tucker - that's more of the 1:1 deal many here are desperate to make this since Musgrove will be part of the opening day rotation. Quintana (in '17, likely '18) is >> Musgrove. Martes and Tucker?... That's when the longer-term value takes on greater significance. And I don't think there's ANY way they'll deal Musgrove AND Martes, and there's NO WAY they'll deal those two plus Tucker.
I am not viewing this in a bubble at all, and I agree with you that the front office isn't either. I don't think trading away Martes and Tucker (plus another piece, like a Daz Cameron) is gutting our farm system, and when have I endorsed trading away our top 4 pitching prospects? I think you might be confusing the argument here. It's rather simple. Jose Quintana is an elite talent. Francis Martes and Kyle Tucker MIGHT become elite talents. Hell, I like both, so chances are they both become good baseball players at a minimum, and likely to be great. But will they become elite? Not sure. I'm willing to trade that potential greatness for a more sure thing. I completely understand that Quintana is not a 100% sure thing, but his resume suggests he's pretty darn good. I feel that making this trade increases our chances at winning it all within the next 3 years. So I would do a deal similar to Martes, Tucker, and Cameron for Quintana. And no, paying Quintana $11.5M three years from now will NOT prevent us from locking up Jose Altuve. That's kind of a silly argument. In fact, I'd argue in three years, when the market for pitching is even more crazy, an $11.5M Quintana will still be a huge bargain when compared to all the pitchers making $20M-$30M that year. I'd also argue that we would still have the likes of: David Paulino, Forrest Whitley, Franklin Perez, and Cionel Perez to provide McHugh-like production that are in our pipeline. Re-reading your post, I might be missing the argument here. Many of the things you argue against, I never said.
Oh I agree. I've never said we should gut our farm system for Quintana. I simply said that I would include Martes and Tucker as the foundation of the trade package, along with a top 8-12 prospect in our system, and I threw out the Daz Cameron suggestion (who I am not a huge believer in to begin with). I guess my overall point is that I am not necessarily interested in making incremental improvements to our roster. I am looking to add elite talent. I wanted one of either Sale, Archer, or Quintana this offseason. I don't think thinking about 1 or 2 WARS that we might sacrifice in a 7 year span should preclude us from acquiring Quintana. There are just too many assumptions and unknowns to worry about 5 or 7 years down the line. This is where I said that many of us get too wrapped up in the numbers, where the analysis paralysis happens. Adding Quintana means adding an ace to our strong-yet-oft-injured starting rotation, which would also mean that when/if healthy and at full capacity, we get to roll into a playoff series with a Quintana/McCullers/Keuchel trio, and considering our [hopefully] strong offence and bullpen, that is something I would gladly go to battle with. If Quintana helps us win the World Series within the next 3 years, I honestly wouldn't care at all if both Martes and Tucker go on to have hall of fame careers.
Actually, you are. When you initially responded to @Joe Joe, you jumped into a long thread that, essentially, (re)started here: ------------------ You're absolutely in a bubble, viewing this strictly through the immediate lens of the personnel involved. There are much larger concerns. Including... I never said it'd prevent them from locking up Altuve. In four years, if Quintana is closer to Collin McHugh than '13-'16 Quintana (which is.... likely), which situation is better, in terms of addressing Jose Altuve's new contract?: paying Jose Quintana $11.5MM or paying two-to-four young pitchers rookie scale for essentially the same production? What... (insert high-dollar free agent pitcher) might get on the open market a) isn't relevant to the Astros; b) only underscores my point. The less you have to pay for certain levels of performance, the better off you are financially - to the point of potentially being one of those teams shelling out the $20-$30MM pay day.
If you trade 3 of your 8 best prospects, including your top 2.... I mean.... how can you view that as anything BUT gutting your farm system? It's that kind of casual indifference to what you're suggesting that bothers me... I get the impulse - I'm just not sure you fully understand the ramifications of what you're advocating. Trading 3 top 8 prospects takes a tremendous bite out of your system that you can't easily replace. If the Astros traded Biggio and Bagwell in 1991 for..... David Cone and they won one World Series... you'd look back on that with no regrets? Maybe you would but that's essentially what you're advocating. I think I'd rather build a team around Bagwell and Biggio and take my chances that we could win more than one World Series with a nucelus of two Hall of Famers.
Dude, I bolded a specific sentence from Joe Joe's post ("Just one of those prospects having an average career would be nearly worth Quintana."), and specifically prefaced my entire post by saying: "The bolded is where I respectfully disagree with you." Perhaps I should have deleted his post before and after, to further avoid confusion. So to me, if Francis Martes is an average pitcher for the next 7 years at basically the minimum salary, is that more valuable than have ace-like production from from Quintana for $7M, $8.85M, $10.5M, and $11.5M for the next 4? If given those two options, I would pick Quintana. But if I interpreted Joe Joe's comment correctly, I think he would take Martes and his average career, because you get a few extra years of value, plus he would cost less. That is where I respectfully disagreed. Other than that, you started disagreeing with stuff I never said. It seems like I may have upset you or something, and I have no ill feelings towards you, so I have no problem dropping this "debate."
You may not have said certain things, but you jumped into the middle of a conversation that had much greater context and tried to extrapolate - and then disagree with - a point that wasn't being made. No one was arguing against Martes-for-Quintana; in fact, in the very paragraph in which you initially disagreed with @Joe Joe, he went on to say: If the White Sox called and made that 1-for-1 offer, I'm sure the Astros would jump all over it, and essentially for the reasons you state (Quintana is *likely* to have more immediate value, '17-'18.) But when @Joe Joe is arguing that Martes reaching league-average status has more value than Qunitana, it's because of multiple factors as part of the larger conversation, including the team having *three other* young pitching prospects to augment Martes' development, as well as the likely regression of Quintana, which you seem to dismiss as a probability, even though we all fundamentally understand that pitchers generally don't get better as they get older.
Quintana has been dominant today! His stuff looks sharp and his velocity is a tick up. Man, something is going to happen by this weekend. A lot of scouts watching him today.
Haha wow. You are really grasping at straws, and are arguing with yourself here. I honestly don't know what the hell you are talking about. Go back and read the one sentence I bolded from Joe Joe's post, and then re-read my rebuttal on why I respectful disagree. Or better yet, how about you let Joe Joe speak for himself, instead of taking offense to me "jumping into the middle of a conversation that had much greater context and then I tried to extrapolate - and then disagree with - a point that wasn't being made." I never even talked about a 1-for-1 trade. What the hell are you talking about again?
With the caveat that Houston should always get fair value and never just "spend it cause they got it", there are 3 things that greatly diminish my apprehension when it comes to Houston trading away prospects. First, the haul of international prospects they added in last season. Freudys Nova, Yorbin Cueta, Angel Macuare, Anibal Sierra, Cionel Perez, Lupe Chavez, and Yordan Alvarez are all very high ceiling prospects. And similar to the Rangers' system a couple years back, that group can sustain a farm system despite low draft position and being buyers at deadlines. Second, Houston has 5 of the top 100 draft picks in the upcoming draft after receiving the Cardinals top 2 picks. So there's another opportunity to restock the system. And as with the international prospects it matters less that they're far away because of the youth/control featured on the current big league roster. Finally, Luhnow has a pretty good track record of identifying low level prospects in other teams systems as well as developing lower rated prospects from within, so even after depleting the upper levels, odds are there are sleeper prospects on the way to fill the gaps. Let's imagine Houston made these 2 trades tomorrow: Quintana for Martes, Tucker, and Musgrove Archer for Reed, F Perez, Whitley, Fisher, and Fiers So all of a sudden Houston is the WS favorite and added two potential aces under control for 4 and 5 years respectively. Would the farm be "decimated"? The list of remaining interesting prospects by position would be: C: Stubbs, Rogers IF: A Sierra, M Sierra, Nova, Cueta, Y Alvarez, Moran, JD Davis OF: T Hernandez, Laureano, Cameron, Celestino, Dawson, Wrenn SP: Paulino, C Perez, Chavez, Alcala, H Perez, Macuare, Thornton, Bostick RP: Ferrell, Guduan, McCurry, Hoyt With 5 of the top 100 picks coming up. Would it still be a top 10 system? No. Would it be "decimated" or even in the bottom 5 in the league? I don't think so. So I'm all for Houston going for it and adding elite pitching at any near-reasonable cost.
I'd give anything except anyone on the roster so no Alex, No musgrove. They can have whoever they want from the minors except Kyle tucker but Preston tucker, I'd be more than o.k with that. Martes,Daz, Fisher, P.Tucker. fair for both sides. Call it a night.
