You're betting on two Cleveland teams winning major sports championships in one year? Indians are very good but that might be a bridge too far :grin:
Rangers remind me of the Tigers, but maybe 2 years behind. Huge payroll and an aging roster. I don't blame them for going all in, but it doesn't seem like they a roster that can compete with Cubs/Indians/Nats/Giants. Particularly on the pitching side. Hamels, while doing well this year, has his best years in the rear view mirror, and Darvish hasn't been able to stay healthy for a whole season since 2013? So I love those guys shipping away their minor league talent for what looks to be a fairly low chance at the World Series. Granted, I suspect that they'll make the playoffs this year and next, but then the decline should start and last for several years.
They may.... but the Rangers are going to be very tough. The Rangers offense is substantially better. The Rangers bullpen is appreciably better, and will be tough in a series. Also Hamels and Darvish are very capable at the front of a playoff rotation.
Brinson has high bust potential. Tate has upside but is very raw. Ortiz is a good prospect who I think could be very good...if he stayed healthy. They really did very well with what they had in their system considering they all have a fairly high bust potential.
Again, what about last year? Rentals don't always pan out. Can't blame them for being gun-shy this year.
High bust potential, but all of them also have very high upside. It is a trade off... but truth be told most organizations would rather gamble on higher upside.
I'd in fact say the opposite. If the Randy trade was out there, that would've been what Luhnow would've gone for. Followed by further moves.
I think the Rangers needed to go for it. I think they realize that the Astros were talented enough to catch them. Now the Astros will need to focus more so on the wild card, as the Rangers pulled a notch ahead of them. Good move by Astros to let the youngsters develop. Reed and Bergman have to be given a chance.
Good news is that Houston still has a roster that projects to be a playoff contender next year just with the players they control. It's a ~40 WAR team projects to a <$75M payroll. That and they still have one of the best farm systems in baseball. Also, although the Rangers just made it incredibly likely that they win the division this season (and pretty unlikely that Houston makes the playoffs), they are doing it with an aging roster (Beltre, Hamels, Lewis, Choo all over 30) and they did expend a lot of prospect depth to acquire Beltran, Lucroy, and Jeffress. Unfortunately the bad news is that this year is shot. A year where Altuve, Springer, Correa, Keuchel, McHugh, and McCullers combine to make less than $20M, they won't even make the playoffs. A year closer to those players leaving for greener pastures in free agency. Also unfortunate is that the Rangers will still be there next year, sporting this same improved roster, and still armed with enough prospects to do this all again next season. I'm all for staying the course, but the time was now and the front office has failed this season's tests.
I get people thinking the Luhnow is gun shy after his trades over the past year, but this is still a hard pill to swallow that the Rangers who are already 6 games ahead appeared to have more sense of urgency and got two of the better hitters at the trade deadline. The Rangers team overall is older and may have more sense of urgency but they also have had more sustain success over recent years than the Astros organization and they didn't have to absolutely bottom out for several years like the Astros did. It's just frustrating.
We had a 7 game lead over the Rangers on the trade deadline last year. Trades are exciting, but they dont always work. And it definitely doesn't mean they aren't "playing with the big boys."
Ultimately who did the Astros lose? Jacob Nottingham has already been dealt by the A's and has a 620 OPS in AA. Daniel Megden has been hit around this season. Brett Phillips has struggled in the minors with an unsustainable strikeout rate. Domingo Santana has done nothing special. Adrian Houser is hurt again. The only real good piece the Astros moved was Josh Hader, who has really struggled at AAA and a lot of scouts think is destined for the pen. Getting Fiers helped the Astros get to the playoffs last year.
Yup. That's the one that really matters. Couple thoughts: There's a bit too much fawning over the Beltran deal, for my taste. This is a guy who's 39 years old, provides almost no defensive value, and had an average OPS of .750 the last two years. I'd have liked him in Houston because of the inconsistency at the bottom of the order, but I don't think he significantly moves the needle for anyone, and his current ".900 OPS!" over four months is classic overachieving. He'll regress. Again, he'll still help the Rangers, whose DH production has been poor... it's just not as huge of a deal as some are making it seem. Too many people are blinded by the name. The awkward thing for the Astros is how much depth of "average" they have. People accuse them of hoarding prospects, but I don't think that's really the case... they've definitely splurged for the likes of Kazmir, Gomez/Fiers, Giles, etc. The problem now is that only a very SMALL subset of the market would work for them. Is someone like Matt Moore appreciably better than Mike Fiers or Collin McHugh? Could say the same on the hitting side. The catching market was quality, but a Castro/Gattis platoon isn't bad at all. Once Gurriel arrives and you limit Rasmus/Gomez to one spot (hopefully a platoon), there aren't that many black holes there, either. You could still upgrade, yes... but what the Astros need with both pitching and hitting is more top-tier talent, and unfortunately the vast majority of the market is middle- to upper-middle class. In my view, what the Astros needed was a consolidation move for the likes of Chris Sale or Chris Archer. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem either was legitimately on the market. So for me, it's disappointing, but enraging or anything. I get it.
