Yulieski Gurriel agrees to 5/$47M deal with the Astros

<iframe src='http://www.milb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=1060465183&width=400&height=224&property=milb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

 

True

But to sign one of those guys is going to require giving large salaries in years they

1) Won't likely produce up to that salary

2) will cost a lot when our own guys start making big money

If one of the few big names was going to be willing to take a 3 year 80 million deal then I would agree with you, gonna take more years though and don't see us going there

Others will though, if that is what it takes

And also, we should be a bit of a "destination" for a FA now with all our young talent, but if it is close for someone the fact that we only sold at the deadline probably won't make them believe Luhnow is "all about" winning right now

 

Wait... his words, as in Luhnow admitted he intentionally led us wrong to distract from his inability to make a deal?

 

While coming to a team with a lot of young talent seems logical from a team building perspective, I feel like it'd take a particular/special kind of FA.

Most veterans probably want to play with other veterans, not with a bunch of extremely inconsistent, possibly immature youngsters. Who wants to steward a bunch of newbies?

Winning obviously supercedes most concerns. If we were still in the thick of WC race with the 40% rookies we have it'd be more tolerable.

 

That is nice to see.

 

Fully agree

A deadline acquisition would have not just made us better this year, but possibly help the image among veteran FAs

 

But a lot of the times, in baseball, players have discretion on where they are traded. Just look at Cole Hamels last season. Philies said Astros had the prefered package of players, but Hamel nixed it.

And then you have teams that don't really want to trade a guy, but will do so for the moon. Astros did that with Cosart a few years back.

It's apparent that any help for veterans who would be significant was going to involve Reed, Bregman, Musgrove, Martes, etc., and this was probably for a guy having a below average year from tampa bay.

Trading away Feldman was probably a bad message to send the veterans and group as a whole, pretty much says were throwing in the towel. Bottom line, it was a good deal, but probably affected the team negatively. I'm glad Musgrove got called up, he looks legit; but it probably burst a few bubbles of confidence.

 

What???... That is, WADR, silly.

Since (just before) the trade deadline last year, the Astros have traded for Kazmir, Gomez and Giles and signed Gurriel to a substantial FA contract.

You know what helps the image among veteran FAs? Depositing a lot of money into their bank accounts. That's it. Do you honestly think a FA is going to turn down money to play with Altuve and Correa because they Astros couldn't/wouldn't pull off a deal at the deadline?

"Here, top free agent, is a contract for $100MM."
"That's nice and all, but you guys didn't make a trade at last year's deadline; you're obviously not committed to winning."
"Uhm... what do you call offering a FA $100MM?"
(silence)

 

I think playing in a veteran-clubhouse or big city is a much bigger deal for free agents than Astros fans think. It's hard enough to get players with a choice (top FA or potential trade acquisition with a no-trade clause) to come to a non-major market.

Houston fans consistently overrate certain aspects of Houston FA appeal such as the lack of state income tax or a young/up-and-coming team.

 

The problem I'm seeing with this is, on the Astros, who are the players who are letting everyone down? Generally it's those same hired gun vets. If anything it's our young guys who are keeping us competitive. The process of figuring out which young guys are legit is painful, but it seems like the only way these days.

Baseball has quickly gone from that cerebral sport where mind could make up for body into a sport more akin to basketball and soccer. 30 is the new 40. I don't know why this is, it just seems to be th case these days. Which High priced free agent lives up to his contract? I have always been on the boat that the Astros need to spend more money, but as to where to spend it I have no good answers. Maybe the next CBA needs to renegotiate the arbitration/years of control structure so that it's the guys in their 26-28yo seasons doing the heavy lifting who actually get paid, instead of the 30yo+ guys who are already past their prime.

 

Can't change city. Trading young guys for veterans is a recipe for losing lots of games in a small market in large amounts. Astros appear to be developing a culture that attracts Latin players and were successful in signing Gurriel. I'm guessing Astros sign the other one as well.

As far as attracting FAs, winning is best thing besides money Houston can do. Winning short term isn't going to do it. It is going to take winning over years to erase it. A short term trade that costs wins over long haul isn't likely going to affect things too much. Making short term trades every deadline and offseason is though.

 

There truly aren't a lot of reasons beyond "offered the most money" - BUT... the Astros are building a foundation that could have sustainable success - that *does* resonate.

I think the Astros' biggest issue, frankly, is that they're starting to run out of space. Their infield is, more or less, locked down: Altuve-Correa-Bregman are set. Reed is going to be given every opportunity to play 1B/DH, and they'll give Gurriel every opportunity to find a spot. Springer is a lock in the OF. And I think Gonzalez and Marisnick are near-locks to be UI and 4th OF. That's six every day spots and 8 overall roster spots that, at least in March of next year, will be slotted.

That leaves C, CF (or RF if they move Springer) and then whatever position Bregman/Gurriel don't take out of DH, 3B and/or LF. So, three, likely to be wide open positions; two if we remove C.

And they have Kemp & Hernandez, who may earn longer looks...

My gut tells me the Astros are going to make a major, like 8-player trade to clear-out some of the glut. I'll put my early money of Freeman with a hope-against-hope they can catch Arizona on a bad day and pry Goldschmidt out of their cold, dead hands.

 

I'VE ALREADY ASKED PEOPLE TO STOP PLAYING WITH MY EMOTIONS.

 

I say give 1B to Marwin/Valbuena unless they can snag a lock in 1B, Im kind of over Reed/White.

Marwin/Val - 1B
Altuve - 2b
Correa - SS
Breg/Gurr - 3b/LF
Springer - CF/RF
NEW GUY - RF/CF
NEW GUY - C
NEW GUY/ (whoever is out of lineup:Valbuena/Marwin) - DH

NEW GUY
Keuchel
McCullers
McCugh or Fister
Musgrove

Leave the Pen alone.

That is why I think it was sad we didnt go harder for Lucroy. That would have filled a big position of need.

 

Cosart was going to be moved, he had pissed off the FO, it wasn't a "we were overwhelmed" deal. In fact the main target of that trade isn't the top one from it now as Martes was a very low level guy then. Luhnow has shown a great ability to find those low level pitchers dor sure

If trading Feldman sent a bad message, which I agree with, I don't see how it was a bad deal when we are in a pennant race. It's not like we got a top 50 prospect and just "had to do it". Hope it works out, but shouldn't be sending that kind of message at this points

 

No idea what WADR is and don't really care to know

If you think we will just outspend people for FAs, not sure what to tell you

 

With All Due Respect

What does outspending have to do with the idea that no trade at the deadline damaged our image?...

Players care about money above all else. From there, the list is: 2) winning; 3) location. There are very few other factors that really play a consistently large role, and, most assuredly, front office machinations have almost zero impact.

 

You've said this multiple times and I don't disagree with the concept, but I don't think its true. The Rangers have repeatedly traded prospects for veterans successfully for a few years now. While there have been ebbs and flows in their minor league organization, they've banked (successfully) on their scouting/development to continue developing trade assets and ML players for themselves.

Their pro scouting has thus far been phenomenally good and while I don't think the Astros pro scouting is nearly as good (see Gomez/Fiers) I do entirely believe the Astros can consistently trade prospects. Seemingly every year, there's a new Martes/Musgrove/Paulino/Franklyn Perez who makes the jump.

I'm not saying I don't believe in our prospects, but as has been mentioned before there is a significant time components of clusters peaks. If they traded AJ Reed for Lucroy and played Ty White at 1B for the next 1.5 years, I don't think the 1B numbers would be all that different. But Lucroy would be matching up with what might be Altuve's peak season. We may have passed Keuchel's ace window already.

Who said every deadline and offseason anyway? I'm concerned with the here and now. If they were 20 games out I wouldn't care. But they were 2-3 games out.

 

Well if you were saying it all about money then yea, it's about outspending people

For what it's worth, I don't think you have to be the biggest spenders to win and history has proven that. You do have to spend in the upper half/third to sustain long term bigtime success though

I think you are being a little dramatic on the conversation, I never said it was the biggest factor

What I'm saying is this, we offer a guy 120 million and so do the Rangers, and obviously it's a long term contract...isn't crazy to think a guy could say "damn last year the Rangers went out and got Lucroy and Beltran and the Astros dumped salary, year before the Rangers got Hamels too. I'm gonna be here a long time and I know the Rangers will address needs at the deadline, not sure about the Astros, they might but they also might just continue to try to win by adding kids"

They want to win, as you said

 

Okay. The Astros are not likely to outbid everyone. The Astros are not consistently winning and the location is the location. That paints a bleak picture.

My opinion is that 'front office machinations'/leadership/management play a much bigger background role than you think.

Tuve is playing on a contract that he KNOWS is drastically underpaying him. At some point the prospect of an extension is on the horizon. Does he re-sign with the team where the GM never surrounded him with enough ML players/veterans to consistently contend?

Would FA Bob All-star prefer to play for consistently winning teams like CHC or TEX who always continue to bolster their team or play for Houston where the GM would rather bet on a unproven guy?

Maybe I'm just jaded but I do think this stuff matters.