That week confirmed that chasing is an endlessly exhausting, uphill battle with almost zero margin for error that requires a team to play out of its mind for a prolonged stretch. You're extrapolating; I'm not - that week was a piece of the larger 2016 season puzzle, which is that they dug too big a hole. Considering exactly 11 teams in the entire history of baseball have won 108+ games - I'm objectively concluding that their 108-win pace was not sustainable. Do you disagree? And, again, even playing at that pace, they still trailed by 2.5 games - so any idea that the chase was "on the verge of completion" is patently ridiculous. They still had to catch the Rangers - a team they can't beat and still had to play 9 more times - and then *maintain* the lead. It is a Herculean task and smart teams (IMO) will weigh that against what's best for their future. I'm not arguing what *I* would do; I'd think the many times I've mentioned how much I would have loved Beltran and/or Lucroy would have made that obvious. (Or the numerous other players/trades I've expressed interest in. I STILL hope they pursue Freddie Freeman in the offseason, for one example.) I'm merely surmising that IF the Astros saw the postseason as an unpredictable uphill battle that they had little control over - ie chasing a lead as opposed to maintaining a lead like last year - and thus were far more reluctant to part with future pieces, I can understand that point of view. I'm guessing they'd rather have no postseason and (as an example) Musgrove than no postseason, no Beltran *and* no Musgrove. I think all these fans up in arms that they didn't make a deal aren't looking past today and giving any consideration to the downside of any deal. As we saw last year, a trade at the deadline guarantees you nothing. Is that risk worth a prospect you value? That answer is harder than some are admitting (if they're even considering the question).
You're being a tad dramatic... them playing their way back in the race was not some sort of epic/historic comeback. Not even close to a historic run from a franchise, let alone MLB perspective. Not a single everyday position player or pitcher was playing over their heads. They weren't winning a bunch of flukey 1-run games. The run differential, the averages, the power numbers, and the starting pitching all lined up to perform as expected. Yes, they still had 9 games left with the Rangers... and were 2.5 back at the end of July. Playoff odds/likelihood %'s across the board had the Astros favored. But yes, once they start losing key members of a paper-thin lineup, bad things can happen.... hence the 3-11 record since Valbuena was hurt (and Bregman called up). There's two possibilities... either they chose not to make a deal (disappointing to me), or they attempted to make a deal and failed/lost out to a more shrewd/savvy/aggressive GM (also disappointing to me). Its clear as day that this lineup won't survive without more MLB caliber players. Once it was obvious that certain guys who were counted on to produce were going to be MIA, I would have expected most MLB-caliber GM's to acquire reinforcements (something Hunsicker did, something the Cardinals did, something the Rangers did). There's just too much of the same mindset that willingly allowed this franchise to purposefully tank for 4 years.... its the same mindset that allows one to consider them raising a white flag with 3 months left to go in the season as no big deal. At some point, it has to all change... the current MLB team is the most important priority. Not the AA playoffs, not the AFL, and not the Astros in 2021. This is a team with a bare minimum payroll, an apparently deep farm system that has players that won't all make it, and significant needs at the MLB level. They weren't uncategorically eliminated from any race what-soever... in fact, had they had just one or two more bats over this last 2 weeks, with the pitching they received, things would likely remain on that upward trend.
I suppose the question that many here want answered is which of these actually happened. (bolded) While as you point out, both are disappointing, they paint very different pictures of our brass mindset. As for the rest, unlike last year, no one is going into this coming winter thinking we just need to plug 1 or 2 holes to have a WS contending team. I look forward to seeing how our management responds.
"I'm merely surmising that IF the Astros saw the postseason as an unpredictable uphill battle that they had little control over - ie chasing a lead as opposed to maintaining a lead like last year - and thus were far more reluctant to part with future pieces, I can understand that point of view." This is sound logic, and I suspect that you are right. It also helps to explain why they moved Feldman for a pitching prospect instead of a veteran bat of some sort. They basically threw in the towel and decided to rely upon what they had, and that strategy has effectively bit them right in the ass. But at least there is next year! Again...
I suspect that this strategy had to be seen from the outset as being one that wasnt going to catch the Rangers. Especially after what the Rangers went out and did.
Well, there's a ton that will need fixing. Even more of a hole at C now that I guess we can all safely presume that nothing close to the 2011 Jason Castro will ever be seen again (not to mention his defensive regression). For all the options they thought they had at 1B/DH between Singleton/Reed/White/Gattis/Tucker... I don't think they'd be comfortable with any of them. Reed certainly will and should continue to get AB's for as long as he's up here, so here's hoping he can take the job and run with it. 3B hopefully can be decided between Bregman/Gurriel with Valbuena likely gone. CF would normally be Marisnick's if this lineup was all-around sound... but its not. If they can't shore up the other pieces, this will be another need. Same goes for LF... unless again, Bregman can find a way to play all over (with Marwin), and the offense is sound elsewhere.
The question will become whether 2 months is long enough to really separate the call-ups into those can help and those that cant. It will sort of be the same options we had at the trade deadline. Do we sign FA's to a lot of money and in the process part with several prospects OR stay in semi-rebuild mode and give the prospects we have more time to develop.
It was enough time for them to make a decision on Singleton. They had plenty of experience from 2012-2014 on experiments to see who would stick and who wouldn't. Attendance numbers alone should indicate to this front office and ownership which direction they should go... they have young/marketable/core-type players already in the fold, and a fan base starving for a winner. You don't need to remain cheap and halt all attempts to build around those guys. There's only so many star players in Major League Baseball... even less that are consistently home-grown by one single team. I'm not saying that all farm system guys need to go, but the mindset has to be squarely towards either high-ceiling/low-floor type young guys or you go out and get professionals who have done it before.
It seems to me that we still havent decided anything about Singleton unless we are content to pay him $2M/year to play AAA ball indefinitely. Nearly all the guys brought up this year went completely untested at the ML level 2012-14. Yes, we weeded out some guys during that time, but not the current call-ups. I agree we need some battle proven vets to help out this club. But I am not sure the brass agrees with us. At least, not a all-in FA approach.
What would need to happen to Singleton to change your mind? They owe him $2M/year no matter what happens. Why would they let him go to another organization when they could let him sit in the minors and *hopefully* reinvent himself a la JD Martinez? Unless someone's going to pay any kind of a lottery ticket prospect for a player who has failed at the ML level multiple times, is older than "wait-and-see" prospects, and has a much larger contract than those younger prospects... this is the only course of action that makes sense. Give him shots in Septembers and spring trainings in the meantime.
My point was nothing has been decided. We haven't decided to let him go. We haven't decided to buy him out. We haven't decided to let him play 1B at the ML level. So basically, he is just hanging around tying up a 40 man spot and $2M/yr. What do I need to change my mind about?
I meant it from the standpoint that he was given every opportunity to be the everyday 1B in 2014... and it didn't work out. They've went with other options since then. If they give guys more playing time than they deserve now, and they end up flailing, there's a chance they'll be prepared to move on and go with other options again.
I call that "decided". Letting him go or buying him out doesn't change anything as it stands right now--the 40 man roster spot isn't needed immediately. If we see someone significant let go this offseason, then we can talk about this again. I'm hoping if it comes down to Singleton or a prospect with real potential (vs. a guy like Peacock or something), they find a trade or a buy-out for JS.
As recently as this spring, they were still trying him out. So I would say it was 2016, not 2014, when we finally gave up on him and moved on. But we haven't really moved on as long as he is on the 40 man roster, have we?
And you're delving into the weeds. It's not a terribly difficult narrative: On May 22, the Astros fell to a season-low 11 games below .500. They trailed the then-2nd place Rangers by 8.5 games. Between May 23 and July 24 (the sweep of the Angels), they went 37-16 (which, yes, *is* an historic pace). Regardless of who played how, etc., that is a 113-win pace and unsustainable. And they *still* trailed the Rangers by 2.5 games. And it's not like the Rangers tanked; they played at a 94-win pace over that stretch, which is far more sustainable. So it's not as if the Astros could have taken their foot off the accelerator and relaxed, which is exactly what the NY-DET week demonstrated. And sure enough, one tiny in the grand scheme of things 6-game sample cost them 4.5 games. *That's* chasing - it's endless, exhausting and extremely difficult. No; they were 2.5 back on July 24. At the literal end of July, a mere seven days later, they trailed by 6. I don't think it was a white flag; I don't think they were opposed to making a deal. I just think they were more calculating and realistic. On July 24, their overall odds of making the playoffs were 84.8%; after the 6-game tumble, it dropped all the way down to 40.8 (per FanGraphs). My guess is that it's much easier to part with future talent at 85% than it is 41%. You may disagree - but I think that's a fairly plausible position - if it is indeed the one they took.
But this 2 week tailspin is in a large part related to the offensive nose-dive (which has continued onto this week). An offense that wouldn't have required heroic measures to improve. If those 2 weeks are enough to erase the 3 months of work they put in leading up to that point... that's a little bit too reactionary for what you call a pretty level-headed front office. I wasn't looking for them to trade away every blue-chip pitching prospect they had... nor would it have required such a heroic haul. But I do want a front office to be quick to recognizing strengths/weaknesses, and constantly attempting to improve those throughout these long seasons where the team has a chance to compete. This isn't 2012... there is no room for long 1-2 season plans to take action. There's barely room for a half-season plan to take action. And again we seem to be at odds about the *historic* turnaround they were in the midst of. There is no doubt that teams go on streaks/runs over the courses of seasons that are not sustainable... but when you really break down what was not working in April, and what was working in the months of May-July.. you will notice that it wasn't really that much more than Valbuena starting to hit, Gomez/Gattis making some cameo appearances, and the bullpen roles being shuffled around (which was probably due for more shuffling). The starting pitching, even given the regression, has remained this team's biggest strength. No doubt they rightly should have tried to acquire more... but there was not much out there at a decent price. The hitters did seem cheaper, and now seems to be the biggest weakness this team has as they attempt to stay in the race (there's still a ton of games left... as you can see, a lot can happen in 2 weeks.)
The Astros' starters' ERAs v NY and Det: 6.95. Again, you keep extrapolating a tiny sample size. Three of our five starting pitchers have been (well) below average (based on ERA+) for the *entire* year; that's a greater percentage (60%) than the five holes in our every day line-up. You have *no idea* what the Yankees and/or Brewers were asking nor do you have any idea how much they value the prospects they did receive. Your opinion here - and, frankly, Baseball America's, et al - is irrelevant. If the Brewers view the players they got from the Rangers as A+ prospects.... they, yes: it would have required a heroic haul, whatever a heroic haul is (Superman?) Being realistic about diminishing playoff chances is, I would argue, a fairly commendable perspective; I'd much prefer that to, for instance, an organization that reacts to moves other teams make. How would you define a 113-win pace? You're focused on parts and ignoring the whole. It doesn't really matter how - we know that a 113-win pace is not, over four months, sustainable. Exhibit A: the Astros since July 25.
That's exactly what you're doing right here! If you really want to get technical on the small sample size, that stretch featured a dominant start from ace-in-waiting LMJ, who seemed (at that point) to be getting stronger and stronger as the season was going on (as was Keuchel). Not saying the rotation was flawless... but it was not out of the realm of possibility that they went into October with a threesome every bit as potent as last year's.... unless they truly believe that Keuchel is beyond repair (just one start removed from a complete game shutout). Going straight from Luhnow on this one... they had a chance to make a deal, but didn't want to give up what the Rangers gave up. Its not the first time they've been reported to hold back on a possible deal due to the prospects *they* covet. Again, you're insinuating that I suggested they only make moves in a reactionary way. I stated that they make moves because they needed reinforcements... and it just so happened it would have had the beneficial effect of weakening their direct rival as well. One that lasts all 6-7 months of the season. The 1998 Astros at a 22-7 month. The 2004 Astros had a 36-10 run. Yes, those are historic win paces that could never ever be matched... doesn't mean it wasn't part of the cumulative 162 that really separates the good from the bad. They wouldn't have had to maintain that pace to still finish with a better record than they had last year, and continue to have a great shot at making the playoffs. What they couldn't' afford was to bottom out (which they have). And you're ignoring the context of why they're struggling now and in April... and why they were good. Did you think it was a fluke? Or was it merely players playing up to expectations... and when said players get hurt or disappear, would viable replacement options keep the overall team afloat?
The Brewers obviously coveted them, too. Takes two to tango. No; I'm not insinuating anything; you point-blank said it: On July 24, the Rangers were pace to win 93 games. Toronto, who was the second wild card on July 24, was on pace to win 90 games. To overtake the Rangers, the Astros would have had to play 99-win pace the rest of year to finish at 94 wins. Altogether, that's a 117-game stretch of 76-41, or a 105-win pace. Since 1969, 8 teams have won 105+ games. To overtake the Blue Jays, the Astros would have had to play 94-win pace the rest of year to finish at 91 wins. Altogether, that's a 117-game stretch of 74-43, or a 102-win pace. Since 1969, 25 teams have won 102+ games. In terms of the Astros' own history, they've hit 102 wins once in their 53-year history. So, yeah - pretty historic. And, again: this assumes the Rangers, Blue Jays, et al, don't have their own prolonged streaks and increase their pace. All this for a team that limped to 86 wins last year. I just don't think being realistic at the deadline was that problematic or a continued symptom of their ways prior to '15. What would you be willing to give up for a 40% chance?
