Why is it so baffling??? In 2015, they were 58-46 at the deadline and led the division by 2 games (and the wild card by 4). This year, they were 55-49 and trailed in the division by 6 games and the wild card by 2.5. Six teams in the AL had a better record. Their playoff likelihood was significantly higher at last year's deadline. While I would agree there's no sense in overvaluing/hoarding prospects - we're not the ones that need to fawn over them. It takes two to tango and it's possible, which obvious exceptions, that some of these guys might not have a lot of external value. I've stomped the ground a few times about AJ Reed - he's a guy I would have dealt in a heartbeat to secure a proven MLB 1B bat. I would have done it last winter, during the season, at the deadline... I'm cool with them valuing Bregman as untouchable. And they need to be judicious with their pitchers. But beyond that, no one else should be stapled to the floor.
So, the sweep vs. Detroit made all the difference? In the current scope of things, that series does represent the true set-back event, and it happened to occur right before the trade deadline. The Yankees series just prior featured the first time they lost ground in the division race in over a month... and you'd presume they were working on certain deals around or prior to that time. Also, as of 2 weeks ago (following the Angels sweep), they were closer to the best record in the AL than at any point from the deadline on in 2015. They also made the moves last year prior to the deadline... around the time they had almost an identical record to this year's team. Lastly, tell the Rangers of last year that they shouldn't make moves because playoff chances are low... or tell any team in the hunt, but not in the lead, that they shouldn't bother to make moves. They needed to improve at least one spot in the lineup, and they very well could have done so without losing critical prospects.
I think losing 5 of 6 to the Yankees & Tigers was the death knell. They went from .545 and 3.5 GB to .529 and 6 GB over the course of that week. They also lost 1.5 games in the wild card chase. Their winning % after they swept the Angels was .551. When they dealt for Kazmir last year, their winning % was .557; Gomez: .563. Of more significance, they were 1 GB in the division and led the wild card when they dealt for Kazmir; up 2 games in the division when they dealt for Gomez. Positioning, I'd wager, was the far more significant factor. Last year, they were maintaining/protecting a lead; this year, they were chasing it. Also, which team would you bet on: the team that had '15 Keuchel? Or '16 Keuchel? I never said they shouldn't have made moves. And I don't think they were opposed to making moves. I just think they were more cautious. While I would have loved them to acquire Beltran, he, alone, is not going to make up 6 games. Or even 2.5. So I think they gave a lot of thought to how they'd feel if, next March, they didn't make the playoffs, Beltran is gone *and* they're without (insert prospect). As for LuCroy... he fits their prototype (young with extended contract) - I have to assume they chased him. But Stearns knows our system up and down and he wasn't going to give an asset of Lucroy's stature away. I would guess the intimacy made a deal tougher.
Your debate to whether our positional standing was key to whether we made trade moves or not is interesting. But I cant help but believe that any trade that would make us better without undue sacrifice would be made regardless. I tend to believe that there were willing and reasonable trade partners last year where there were not this year. Maybe Jeff got under the skin of some folks and as a result, they just wouldn't deal fairly with him?
While anything's possible - there's no GM - who wants to keep their job - that would knowingly take a lesser deal because they're whiny little bastards. If the deals are close, sure. I just think fantasy baseball has created an idea that trading is easy and it is not. There are a lot of factors - most of which, we don't have any idea about. I wish they had made deals; but if they looked at the situation, saw an uphill battle, and raised their asking price, I'd understand that perspective.
Of course... but they were also within 4 games of the best record in the AL at that time. It just seemed much more wide open... in addition to the fact that thanks to the early hole, this team was actually playing at a much better pace than last year's team prior to the Valbuena injury. You can't deny the upward trend this team was on... at the right time (how many Astros teams of the 90's emulated similar sluggish starts then torrid all-star break to finish runs?). Last year's team started out strong... then basically treaded water (especially after the Springer injury). I already mentioned that the pitching regression, and lack of ability to acquire anybody, was probably their biggest reason for standing pat. That being said, Keuchel is looking stronger and stronger and is still on an upward trend despite that awful Detroit start. Also, the 16 team still has a healthy Springer/Altuve/Correa... couple with the possibility of Bregman/Gurriel being upgrades. They needed to fill the void of Valbuena/Rasmus/Gomez with SOMEBODY. I could buy that... then again, he just took whatever the Rangers gave him without going after their best names either. You think a J.D. Davis, or Fisher, or Paulino, or Hernandez, or even Martes wouldn't have been able to be a starting point (let alone discuss some of the higher up guys like Reed, White, Hoyt, etc.). I just think that if they wanted to beat the offer, they could have.... if anything just to prevent the Rangers from one-upping them again in a division race that was still up for grabs.
I didnt follow this whole thread so someone may have said this, but the worst part about this series for me is that Lucroy almost single handedly beat us... the one game we won, he didnt even play.
Agreed and so my emerging theory that Jeff got black balled. Or the near equivalent of it as in a eye wink from Texas that next time around they would send something extra.
This is a good debate and I see both sides of it. I kind of lean towards Hey Now in that due to where we were at in the standings, injury luck in the first half of the season, Keuchel not being dominate before the deadline, etc. Kept us from trading long term potential for short term gain. Of course, Martes would have gotten the Brewers to the table but top end pitching is king right now in the majors and ace or near ace pitchers are hard to come by. Martes could get a call up as early as next year so it's not like we are talking about some off in the distant prospect. Assuming Lucroy wouldn't sign back here after his contract (not sure if that is true but no way of knowing) then you have lost Martes and probably Reed for 1.33 years of Lucroy + a solid reliever and you are still looking for that consistent pitcher after trading away Martes. Position players on the other hand are up for grabs but combining Reed and Fisher (or some other hitting prospect) was not what Milwaukee was after since they got a top end pitching prospect in the deal. I am sure Luhnow was hoping to deal 2+ hitting prospects for an OF and/or a C but most of the teams wanted pitching talent in return and I think you hoard pitchers as their value doesn't decrease as much as hitting prospect over time and most have had early success pitching for the Astros. Assuming Darvish eventually walks, the Rangers will not be able to compete with our pitching staff someday as the future looks bright. It pains me to lose yet another series to the Rangers and I am not giving up hope on the season. It does seem like we lost our chance to contend for the division this year but even if we made a major move we still might be on the outside looking in due to lineup issues, injury issues, never ending struggles against the Rangers, etc. I assume Luhnow will be able to navigate this offseason after knowing what each young guy has to offer and how much pitchers can fetch in the market. Hopefully some have created positive value and can be traded for controlled players for teams looking to dump payroll. Keuchel McCullers Martes Musgrove Paulino/Fiers/McHugh/Rodgers/etc.
i'm glad the Astros stood pat during the trade deadline this year. Let the kids have some time to jell together and build some confidence. I'll still be watching every game till the end of the season, while anticipating next year.
That assumes teams were willing to part with assets prior to a deadline that creates urgency and pressure. As the Chapman deal illustrates, you pay a premium for acquiring players early. What relevance do teams from 20 years ago have on this year's Astros? And yes, they *were* on an upward swing - and even after the swing, they were still 2.5 games back. And as the next six games demonstrated - that's the uphill battle you face when you're chasing: your margin for error all but disappears. Look, man - if Milwaukee was pounding on our door July 25 to take Lucroy and we said, Nah; we'll wait until August 1... then, yeah: shame on us. But the rumors swirling around him and Beltran in the days prior to the deadline were that the Brewers and Yankees were asking for a ransom. Well, that awful start in Detroit was the taste they had in their mouths at the deadline. Doesn't "the possibility of Bregman/Gurriel being upgrades" address the Valbuena/Rasmus/Gomez void?... I'm not sure impulsively making trades because OMG! The Rangers might if we don't!! is the best way to run an organization. Again, I would have loved Beltran. But if they were reluctant to part with topline prospects on a rental, I would understand. And yes, I wish they had gotten Lucroy. But I'm not going to assume just because they didn't that it's 100% Luhnow's fault.
I don't think Stearns would have any reason to not want to deal with Luhnow. Hell, Luhnow just gave away Villar to him, who looks to have finally turned into a viable MLB player... in addition to Hader/Santana. The only GM who allegedly has some beef with Jeff is Walt Jocketty in Cincy, as it was rumored that Jeff played a role in marginializing some of his duties (which is also why LaRussa, a buddy of Jocketty, apparently doesn't care much for Luhnow). So, until the Astros make a trade with Arizona or Cincy... lets just say those teams will think twice before giving Luhnow something he wants.
Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe... the Brewers *really* liked the players they got? Or is it just easier to assume Stearns wasted his team's best asset *and* made his team worse in order to spite somebody? Just because *we* consider an offer better... doesn't mean it's the gospel and the Brewers fall in line behind our obviously expert opinion.
These deals are hashed back and forth well before the actual deadline... Luhnow has mentioned that the average trade he's made thus far has been in the works for at least a month prior to actually being executed. Sure, several things have to fall in place... That teams on that sort of trend typically do surge and stay in playoff contention... provided they have/acquire the requisite talent. If you don't want to go back 20 years, just look at last year's Rangers... who weren't even playing at the pace the Astros were. In the end, you can only see what teams ultimately gave up for them... and wonder if the Astros could have beaten those offers. I feel they could have... and judging from Luhnow's comments, they chose not to (he intimated in his press conference that there were discussions with both sides, and they didn't want to give up what the Rangers did). If you follow the timeline of Bregman's mysterious delayed promotion, it coincided with rumors that a huge deal had been offered up for Sale, and was rejected. The very next series, Bregman makes his debut. We don't know for sure if this was the Astros, but the theory fits... that being the case, they didn't need the last start from Keuchel to make the presumption that they needed more pitching or else. I'd also hope that a front office that's as forward-thinking and level-headed as they come wouldn't overreact to just one game or one week's worth of series. They had a 6-8 week run of solid baseball prior, with nobody really performing above/over their heads... just closer to expectations. I don't think Luhnow, or anybody else, ever thought it would be either/or. Those guys were supposed to be joining a lineup that was predominantly MLB caliber. Without Valbuena/Rasmus/Gomez playing at least replacement level (let alone better), this is not even close to an average team. Of course not.... nobody is asking for an impulsive trade just to trade. The Astros have (and will still have this off-season) major needs at C/DH. Couple that with the fact that your most direct rival is the main competition for two players to fill that void, and that sometimes is enough to tip the scales. My main concern is that we really don't have the full story on what Luhnow can or cannot do at the MLB GM level. We know he can run a draft, we know he can stockpile minor league talent, and we know that he can find a way to build an above .500 team on a minuscule budget. There is still major question marks on his ability to assess trade value, on their ability to graduate touted prospects to succeed at the MLB level (and/or recognize the ones who may have flaws that don't translate), and lastly... on his shrewdness ability to make the sort of deadline deals that his former Cardinals teams, Hunsicker's Astros, and now Daniel's Rangers seem to be able to make with regularity. The major league team is the top priority... now more than ever with the primes of Altuve, Springer, Correa and Keuchel in the balance. Maximizing every and all chances around those guys each/every year is what I hope is the overall organizational goal (unless they feel that its that easy to promote 4 all-star caliber home grown players with regularity).
Agreed, the price is surprisingly low. By most lists, Reed + any one of Musgrove, Paulino, or Martes would've trumped the Rangers' offer. The one potential rub is the PTBNL in the deal. I'm curious if it could end up being a guy like Profar (or Gallo) -- someone who the Rangers wanted to help them win this year (and the Brewers could care less about right now), but is a talented young piece.
Doubtful... very rare that the PTBNL is the center-piece/best prospect of any deal. If so, this would be one of the first times in recent memory. Additionally, what GM would want their prized acquisition getting potentially hurt or mis-used by a team that couldn't care less about their long-term health or psyche.
http://americansportsnet.com/meet-trea-turner-baseballs-ultimate-player-to-be-named-later/ Domingo Santana was also the PTBNL in the Roy Oswalt deal, who was a pretty significant (but young) prospect at the time.
In-season trades are different as it's an obviously more dynamic situation. For example, a month ago (July 1), the Astros were 8.5 games behind the Rangers. So.. in other words, they're not a relevant example, either? Again: chasing is hard and it's far more unpredictable. It changes the perspective considerably, in terms of how much you're willing to give up. Nobody... besides you? "I just think that if they wanted to beat the offer, they could have.... if anything just to prevent the Rangers from one-upping them again in a division race that was still up for grabs." I would agree; so explain how two months of Carlos Beltran maximizes their window beyond 2016? I think that's the other side no one is considering; sure, it makes sense *right now* - but are we all OK if we deal a prospect for Beltran and they don't make the playoffs and next March, Beltran is a Red Sox?
While I'd absolutely deal Reed, you have to remember that there's no premium on first base prospects - unless they're just exceptional. The Brewers are loaded with "OF" prospects; realistically, any one of them could project to be a ML 1B. I'm just not sure Reed had much value to them. As for Musgrove, Martes, Paulino, etc - knowing what you know right now, would you trade Musgrove for Lucroy?
Trea Turner, though everyone knew he was the PTBNL and only the 1 year rule led to him being a PTBNL. I can't think of when it would be a case of a player with big league experience. They were frequently players within 6 months of surpassing their 1 year post signing requirement to be traded (rule now changed thanks to Turner situation) and a list of low-level prospects.
