Sure... he was saying that if you could maximize the chances for just one WS with the core they have now, who cares if they can't retain all of them 5-6 years from now (when some may be past their primes anyways). But again, it won't be all or nothing... for them to suck for a decade (again) will require them to trade all their prospects now AND stop drafting well. But we know drafting well alone won't do it...the Rays/A's stood pat for years... and when the prospects ran their course, they now have a lull. They'll be back eventually but with new cores/prospects that run the same risk of fluctuation if they don't supplement.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Jeff Luhnow: "We are exploring different trade possibilities. I won’t say we’ve gotten too far … it’s just a matter of continuing those."</p>— Evan Drellich (@EvanDrellich) <a href="https://twitter.com/EvanDrellich/status/664231969836965888">November 11, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Ben Zobrist has lots of interest but Astros aren’t in, at least yet. He’s type of hitter you’d think they’d want, but he wants to be 2B</p>— Evan Drellich (@EvanDrellich) <a href="https://twitter.com/EvanDrellich/status/664272167949828096">November 11, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">AL Gold Glove winners: SP: Keuchel C: S. Perez 1B: Hosmer 2B: Altuve SS: A. Escobar 3B: Machado LF: Cespedes CF: Kiermaier RF: Calhoun</p>— FOX Sports: MLB (@MLBONFOX) <a href="https://twitter.com/MLBONFOX/status/664245050109366273">November 11, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Sure... but we need more context. He could have been simply answering a leading question of "since you made the trade, do you feel more compelled to sign the player also or risk looking bad in the trade?" (wouldn't surprise me if the hacks tried to paint him in a corner... or trying to suggest to him that he lost the Kazmir trade badly).
The problem with expensive long-term contracts for older veterans is that when the time comes in 4-5 years, you're stuck with them so you're more likely to have to let elements of your in-their-prime core go. If you're not stuck with old, expensive players in 5 years, you can extend your core in their prime and contend for that much longer. If you sign Zack Grienke to a 7 year, $200MM deal, then you're stuck with a few years of a 37-39 year old Grienke being paid $30MM/yr in 5 years. That's money that you're not going to be able to use to keep a 32 yr old Keuchel. Instead, you want to be signing 3-4 year deals now so they are ending when its time to extend your core.
Yes, I understand all of that.... but the decision to let the in-their-prime core go is still one that would be made by the decision of the owner and front office, with this being an uncapped league. They don't "have" to let anybody go, if the price is right... and as is, they'll probably be letting people go regardless (even if the price is right) as this front office may value their future replacement in the minors vs. signing their current player to a free agent contract that basically does the same thing that you're worried about now. Signing Dallas Keuchel at age 32 to a 7 year deal is the same thing as signing Grienke or Price now... except if you sign Grienke/Price now, you're ADDING him to a prime/young Keuchel. Who knows where this team will be when Keuchel is up for free agency. Hell, if they have a younger/ace-material like pitcher up from the minors, wouldn't the same argument then hold true? Why sign Dallas at age 32 when you have a younger guy who will be up for free agency when Dallas is 39? San Francisco had Barry Zito carrying dead-weight on their payroll for most of his time there (and they fully knew what they had with Caine/Lincecum coming up)... not only did it not prevent them from continuing to make necessary payroll additions to contend.... hell, he ended up somewhat earning his contract by actually pitching well in the WS in their title before the last one. (obviously a worst-case example since Zito didn't do what you'd want an ace pitcher to do... hell, they went on to re-sign Cain/Lincecum despite MadBum coming up and dominating... and now they'll probably re-sign him too). In baseball, you can have your cake and eat it too... provided the price is right (or provided you're willing to be shrewd and ready to move on from players when your window is closed or you're confident their best is behind them).
i can't imagine him taking the bait and answering like that. i think he would have at minimum generalized his answer, and said "any player" rather than "him". i'd lean towards the lines being easy to read between, in this particular case.
Knowing Drellich's history, I doubt anything was straightforward about what question he was asked to garner the response that he tweeted as fast as he possibly could. Luhnow has never flat-out lied... he'll bend the truth or leave open potential possibilities... but at the same time, he tries to answer every question within the context that its asked. Additionally, the appropriate follow-up question from any competent journalist would have been, "So, does this suggest you're not going to try and re-sign Kazmir?"... but of course we don't get that tweet.
That's obviously a sound approach for budget management but it's not super helpful for talent acquisition in a window. To get top talent you either pay the market rate, which is typically a 7 year deal, or give up a substantial amount of your minor league system to get a player midway through their current FA deal (e.g. Cole Hamels).
Frazier and Chapman available. wooooooo <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Reds have followed up on their discussions of last month and are ready to discuss everybody in trade, as reported: <a href="https://t.co/cBAX52Deev">https://t.co/cBAX52Deev</a></p>— Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN) <a href="https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/664333056749211652">November 11, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The more I think about it, the more I prefer longevity than a sprint. It sounds like that's the approach Luhnow's taking based on the recent tweets. Man, winter meetings can't get here soon enough.
That's always the approach this organization has taken, I too love it, although some think their team should be more aggressive. Luhnow will make deals, he's shown that. But I would be shocked if he ever made a Randy Johnson like trade where he gives up a ton for a half season rental. They will also maintain financial flexibility so if a player they really want is available, or if there is a desperate hole they need addressed, they can always pursue. I think Luhnow is confident, some would say arrogant, that we can be like the Cardinals. Players come and go, but they are in contention every single year for 16 seasons now, and show no sign of slowing. And they never make the huge splash in free agency.
They certainly make their fair share of deadline deals... sometimes even for free agents. (they did sign Peralta to a big deal). The difference is that they're always confident that playing in St. Louis, and seeing that fan-base/dedication first-hand can sway a lot of those players into re-upping with the team. It worked when they acquired Mark McGwire, Scott Rolen, Matt Holiday, John Lackey, and we'll see what they do with Heyward. They've also not been afraid to take a gamble on some reclamation projects like Lance Berkman, Carlos Beltran (sometimes actually paying a good amount for a possible unknown). They also make shrewd decisions on their own organizational free agents (Pujols, Freese) that frees up flexibility for them to go after the next piece of the puzzle. They have a payroll that still ranks in or near the top 10 of baseball (4 players making $15-20 million/year).. which is probably what will be required from Crane/Luhnow to not only keep some core players but still allow flexibility to take on contracts via trade or free agency.
Depleting *and not replenishing* the system comes with a cost... I was thinking about this last night: for all the hand-wringing people do over trading prospects... how many deals have the Astros made involving supposed top prospects do you truly look back on and regret?... As long as they continue to value draft picks, I don't fundamentally have an issue with them dealing the unknown of a prospect for a known veteran that fills a need and (likely) doesn't sink their budget/flexibility. I prefer that approach way more than overpaying free agents who, generally, are older and leaving (or soon-to-be leaving) their prime.
Certainly true - there are players that fit the bill, but they are rare. Donaldson last year was the perfect guy to pay up for. Elite player with 4 years of club control in his prime (still no idea why Oakland traded him). I'd be curious what kind of a deal Chris Davis is looking for, but if it's 5 years, it fits the bill perfectly too - he'd be a free agent when our core is needing new deals and you'd get him through his prime years. Nook mentioned Cueto and how he might get a 4-5 year type deal. IMO, those are the types of guys to focus on - it's hard and they are rare, so it might be frustrating to fans in that you might fail to get them, but that's what I'd aim for. Absolutely true - but they very rarely lock themselves into potential longterm boondoggles. Letting their franchise icon in Pujols go was a perfect example of that. That allows them to always retain that flexibility.
