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

Your reading comprehension is poor, and that's ok

I didn't call him a prospect, I was referring to the point that Luhnow's main goal in the trade was getting a guy who was controllable for many years, like a prospect would be, as opposed to simply finding the best guy to help the team now. I also didn't say that was a dumb idea, just saying in response to his current vision, he is still in semi-rebuild mode not win the WS right now mode

As for me being Anti-Luhnow, i'm actually one of the most "in the middle" guys on this board when it comes to him and the FO. Luhnow has done a great job with the farm, MLB roster building leaves a lot to be desired right now. Time will tell, but hopefully at some point he gets out of rebuild mode

 

seems to be hitting AAA pretty well. Doubt they will keep him there for long.

Does make me question whether the competitive pitching landscape in our AA league is better than that of Fresno's.

 

The Texas league is a pretty hitting neutral league while the PCL is definitely hitter friendly. It's probably why a bunch of our hitting prospects have done well at AAA and stunk it up at the ML level. Fresno overstates their true talent level.

 

So we're now b****ing that the Astros aren't fully committed to winning because their big offseason acquisition was one of the best relievers in baseball but that he was signed for multiple years? The Astros would be more committed to winning if they got a similar player, but who wasn't signed for quite as long? WTF is wrong with this place?

 

seems like both Reed and Bregman are finally making the transition. Hitters figure it out over time - just takes some realignment. Though personally, I would prefer a hitter neutral league for my AAA and AA

 

Pretty sure Luhnow is on record saying he went hard after the Giles deal particularly because he had a lot of cheap control left. No doubt Giles had a dominant season the year before we acquired him but closers are notoriously fickle and he closed for a terrible team.

Kimbrel had/has a much longer track record of successful and closed for some decent Braves teams.

I think most people, all things equal, would have preferred Kimbrel (and his track record) to Giles. That being said, making the move to get Giles in the first place was huge.

The Texas league is pretty much perfect from a development standpoint. Hitter/pitcher neutral and the small size of the league means multiple looks necessitating season-long adjustments.

The PCL is overall hitter friendly but both Fresno and Round Rock are below average for the league in park effects. The International League (the other AAA league) is considered neutral but the Astros haven't had an affiliate there since 1979.

 

I've seen this argument used as a negative again and again to describe Giles, and I simply am not buying it.

Closing on a bad team seems like it would be much harder to do so consistently, let alone with a level of excellence. For one, its a bad team... worse defense behind you, less margin for error. Secondly, the opportunities are going to be far less consistent as the bad team shouldn't really be in a position to get a lot of regular save situations.

Even this year... he happened to pitch pretty poorly when this team was also playing some pretty bad baseball. Now, some of that went hand-in-hand, but April was not all his fault. He's pitched better and better as the team had its turnaround, and stakes are no less now.

In the end, they acquired a 25 year old established major league pitcher with elite K stuff (something they also sorely needed in this bullpen), and who happened to showcase the ability to handle the very different 9th inning.

And, he has club control.

 

My friend... I'm not sure you know baseball. :grin:

(I got nothing else, just wanted to inject some humor into the day.)

 

Incredibly small sample size at work more than anything

 

Is there some kind of history of closers for bad teams going to good teams and sucking? Any more so that closers just randomly suddenly sucking in general?

That's certainly true. But Giles was good or better than Kimbrel in both 2014 and 2015. 2 full years is not exactly a small track record. And he's cheaper, meaning it leaves the team more flexibility to acquire more talent.

They paid more in future prospects for Giles than they would have for Kimbrel to get a more valuable player. I don't see any way that this shows a lack of commitment to winning, either this year or in the near future.

 

If you read the entire thread (or at least from where this discussion started, you would understand that we aren't b****ing about the acquisition of Giles)

I for one was very excited about the acquisition when it happened, and still think it works out well for us

The conversation (for some of us anyway) was about where Luhnow's mindset is right now, I put one line in a post using the Giles deal as a minor example of something along those lines and Hey Now felt like arguing (he actually argued both sides)

 

Are you saying you felt like Giles was just as likely to be a lock down closer coming into the year as Kimbrell?

The same Giles who had 16 career saves coming into the year? (18 now)

 

I've properly quoted you each and every time:

I understand the greater context you were trying to communicate - unfortunately, it is abject bull****, based on a non-existent premise, this idea that Giles was "almost a prospect." He finished 4th in RoY voting two years before the trade, ferchrissakes.

The "point" was not dealing for a "guy who was controllable for many years;" the point was acquiring one of the best relievers in baseball between 2014-15, which is why I brought Kimbrel (also dealt last offseason) into the mix. Giles was, in many areas, statistically better than Kimbrel.

That he that good and was a "young controllable guy" made the acquisition *better.*

It's only through a retroactively faulty, bull**** premise that anybody can re-frame that deal. Find one article, post, et al, from that time (other than mine!) that didn't sing the praises of that deal in direct conjunction with it being a pivotal next step to the Astros reaching the World Series.

I have no general opinion of you, re: Luhnow - but your "From the end of last year through the deadline this year" take has a faulty negativity running through it. Again, not only are you attempting to reframe the Giles deal as something it wasn't - the Gomez deal had *everything* to do with what you were posting about

The Gomez trade, which your arbitrary timeline conveniently excludes, was both a present and future solution to make the team better. The thinking behind it mirrored the exact thinking behind this year's Lucroy deal, right down to the same team dealing him. To ignore the acquisition and *then* state everything since has been "semi-rebuild mode" is wildly disingenuous. It would be like complaining the Astros haven't looked for a shortstop since the end of last year through the deadline this year - oh, well - they must be in semi-rebuild mode.

You're applying more revisionist history - I'm guessing because Gomez was a titanic bust; as if the result invalidates the acquisition. But make no mistake about it - Carlos Gomez was a massively significant trade, and to pretend it doesn't exist absolutely brings your objectivity into question - at least on this topic.

 

I'm arguing both sides? In what way am I arguing Giles was an "almost prospect"?

I've been pretty clear and one-sided: you're incorrectly reframing (or flat ignoring) Luhnow's moves to push a faulty narrative ("semi-rebuild mode")

 

When did this thread become about Ken Giles?

 

someone just got owned.

 

Anyone wanna talk about the Cuban?

 

Playing left field tonight

 

With the playoffs quickly being pushed further from the 'Stros grasp, hopefully we bring up the Cuban sooner than later. Might as well throw him in the fire and see what happens for the last bit of the season.

 

I agree, Gattis becomes a catcher only and Gurriel DHs and plays some LF/3B.

Send White to Fresno till rosters expand.