Let's hope he is ready. We were very lucky with Correa and McCullers but not all rookies will produce well right away.
I'm not sure the Astros feelings, but I wouldn't allow Gattis to factor into my moves at all. He wasn't good for the vast majority of last season, and he is a positional black hole. I'm certainly not opposed to bringing him back, but he starts the year as a part timer at best. He can hit his way into more PA's. If we add a 1B, I think Gattis gets moved, or starts the year on a short leash. Tyler White could also force his way into the roster with a great spring, but I don't think the Astros are gonna pencil him in like Reed. If he struggles much at all, he goes back to Fresno. I think they will let Reed try to hit his way through growing pains.
Fortunately, for overall team improvement, he just needs to outplay Carter. I'm guessing his defense is better, so he's already ahead in the game.
This isn't terribly difficult, Nick. It matters because I don't want a 7/$210MM albatross of a free agent contract to be a burden in their trying to keep the current nucleus here; a nucleus that most assuredly includes Dallas Keuchel.
But those deals are not anything like a 7-year monster free agent deal that's going to run through the heart of the organization trying to keep its young nucleus together. In fact, what those deals illustrate, to me, is that the team values financial flexibility. Kazmir was a pending free agent; Gomez's deal is, essentially, a year and ~3 months; Fiers is club-controlled through 2020 and not arbitration-eligible until 2017; and Hamels, while on a big deal, was only guaranteed three years. Even at four years, he's done in '19. IIRC, the Astros control Keuchel through '18; Altuve '19; Springer '21 and then whatever designation Correa winds up with. So the end of Hamels' deal would have coincided well with having to approach long-term deals for Altuve, Springer and Correa, and would have (likely) overlapped Keuchel's for just a year. I think the deals demonstrate an urgency; I wouldn't argue they demonstrate irresponsible urgency.
"irresponsible" is a tough word to use for paying a player (or players) market value. Again, either you feel 7 year deals are too much for a pitcher, or you don't. I think 7 years is too much for Keuchel... but if its the only way you can keep him, I'll accept it. I've never supported long-term deals for pitchers, but I do understand why teams on the cusp of contention go for it (like the Nats did last year, or the Tigers did with Verlander, or the Dodgers continue to do with their guys). Likewise, if the only sure-fire way to improve the starting rotation is by signing a free agent, I'm not going to jump off the ledge claiming that they need to be "more responsible". And as I've said before, the window to acquire a big-name player is actually going to be now... vs. later when the young guys start making real money (unless payroll is not going to increase... hell, it could actually decrease going into next year if they really wanted it to).
You keep bringing up Scherzer's contract without actually looking at the details of it. Its really 7 years/$105 million. The other $105 million is deferred for the following 7 years (essentially its a 14 year deal). Its why I doubt anybody gets that much this off-season (unless they don't want all their money now).
Reed's defensive is a work in progress. I'm betting that Carter and Gattis will be lucky to still be Astros after the Winter meetings. The Astros trade winds will blow strong this offseason.
I'm aware of the details; I just don't paticularly care. $15MM/year for 14 years is not better (or worse) than $30MM for 7 years. They're both albatrosses.
Anyone see us adding Chris Davis? FanGraphs predicted we sign him at 5/130MM. I don't see it happening, but would be intrigued with that type of move. His opposite field power would play very well at MMP.
It doesn't limit flexibility as much though.... in fact, $15 million a year may be pretty damn cheap in 12 years (sorta like how $8 million/year is now considered to be the standard for a decent veteran.... whereas 15 years ago it was Craig Biggio extension money).
Luhnow also stressed that one of the biggest reasons for the Gattis trade was that we had(4) years of control with him.
No, Nick......... that is yet another conversation of your creation because you either keep forgetting, ignoring or flat-out don't understand the concept of context. All pitchers are not created equal. A seven-year deal for Dallas Keuchel *right now* is not the same as a seven-year deal right now for Zack Grienke or David Price; DK doesn't have the same leverage. Plus, he's 5 and 3 years younger; he's a much better investment (on paper). I would be THRILLED if Keuchel inked a seven-year deal this offseason because it would undoubtedly be, on average, a below-market deal; he'd take it to buy-out his arbitration years, which comes at a cost. Who said this?... Again, context: the ledge-jumping would happen if they signed a big-time free agent pitcher to an albatross of a long-term deal. If they can steal a... Zimmermann or a Samardzija at a reasonably club-friendly deal, I don't think anyone would object.
I don't think Davis is worth all that money. 1) He's been terribly inconsistent the past 4 seasons posting OPS's that have fluctuated 200+ points every season. .827 1.004 .704 .923 2) His BB/K ratio is a retched 1/3. 323 BB 1090 Ks 3) His postseason numbers (granted only 6 games) might be worse than The Killer B's first appearances. .478 OPS 1/9 BB/K 0 XBH
So would I... but if the chances are that he doesn't, and goes to free agency, would you still be as opposed to a 7 year deal then? Sure... but it sounds like you're opposed to signing a free agent pitcher to a 7 year deal, claiming its irresponsible (or "irresponsible urgency"). Sometimes, when you're on the cusp of contending, teams take that justified risk. Scherzer's deal does not prevent the Nationals from contending now... and like the Astros, their window is open now and for however many more years they have Bryce Harper, thus they're going for it. I've already made "my" stance known that I don't think teams should be signing pitchers beyond 3 years (even the arg-eligible ones), but unfortunately that's not reality. We're posting about what we think the Astros will do. In the end, I don't see the Astros acquiring a free agent pitcher, but not because they would be opposed to trying... but mainly because I don't see big-name free agents choosing to come here (yet). I actually predict payroll will go down next season (especially if they don't re-sign Rasmus)... but it won't affect the potential of the team (which therein lies the crux of my suggestion that 'now' is the time they could really afford a big-time contract... moreso than in the future when they have to pay everybody else).
Considering that the Astros have shown they have a high tolerance for variance and will go with flawed players, I think you've changed, though not your intention, my opinion from thinking Fangraphs was crazy for linking Davis to the Astros to thinking they may be right.
So... 2019, right? His age 31 season? I'd rather he walk, frankly - but I'm saying that with no idea where we are, as contenders, what, if anything, we've done with Altuve, Springer, Correa... A $7MM/7 deal wouldn't bother me... I just don't view starting pitching as a 7/$210MM-level priority right now. Neither, apparently, does Luhnow as he's said they're not likely to chase Price or Grienke. Knowing what's on the horizon, I'd like the team to be very judicious and patient; each move today should be with an eye on beyond 2018, when things could get really hairy.
Looking unlikely at this point that Colby will get a QO. Makes me think that we are trying to make big moves and do not want to take the risk that he accepts it.
