I heard on a podcast (Can't remember if it was Fangraphs or Ringer) that statcast revealed to the Cubs FO that Fowler played CF too shallow. So that seems to reason he could be a decent CF regardless of ballpark. EDIT: Found the article explaining it: http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...stats-help-dexter-fowler-improve-center-field
Possibly. Playing in a shallow park helps him. Even with the improvement in playing back, he was still 15 in DRS on deep balls.
Valbuena, yes. Castro, not so much. But then again, the FA market for catcher this offseason is so barren. Castro will get a multiyear deal from someone and the Astros will thus earn a compensatory pick.
From AstrosCounty ... Danny Worth elected free agency in the last week and presumably will not be returning to the Astros organization.
I know those salaries are out of whack with what rest of the team makes, but that is basically the price of a 2 WAR player. Valbuena has averaged being a 2 WAR player over the last 4 years. Astros may or may not do it, but it likely comes down to wanting to spend money elsewhere (Valbuena probably not a 2 WAR player outside of at 3B) instead of Valbuena not being worth it. Granted, the Astros don't like paying market value for free agents and will likely pick from bargain bin after other teams have spent their money.
This. It's actually a cheap way to sign a 2 WAR player for a year. A 2 WAR free agent would typically want a longer term contract, something like 4 years/$60M contract. The team obviously takes the risk of the 2 WAR player regressing as he ages over the course of a 4 year deal. Astros assume little risk with a one year QO deal.
Except the math doesn't work out here if you build your team on market value of WAR players. Let's say a replacement team starts at 60 wins and you're trying to win 90 games. You're suggesting you'd need a payroll of $510 million to accumulate your 30 WAR (if you fielded the entire team at market value). That's beyond ridiculous. Mike Trout has a WAR of 10 but no one is going to pay him $80 million per year if he was a free agent. If Altuve were a free agent, he's not getting a $50 million per year deal.
The advanced statistics are obviously very important; but ultimately they do not tell you everything. If the Astros offer the qualifying offer to either Valbuena or Castro, it will be a mistake. The Astros could package the money saved and sign someone else that fits their needs better. For example, Carlos Beltran had a WAR of 2 last year. JD Martinez had a WAR of under 2. Do you think that Castro or Valbuena helped the Astros more than either Beltran or Martinez would have? Finding a playable catcher to replace Castro is easier than finding a middle of the order bat. Hell, trade for Cubs reject Wellington Castillo. On a side note, I was talking to one of the former writers at fangraphs, and he has been researching the value of a line up without easy outs and at this point he said it makes a bigger difference than the conventional wisdom, especially with the DH. He was talking about that being what makes the Cubs offense better than some of the others. The Astros actually have the ability to do that.
Market value only applies to free agents and it is about 8 million per WAR on the open market. Guys under club control (i.e. pre free agent years) are not on the market and this is why the Astros have so many of them. A replacement level team is 48 wins by fangraphs and BR. 40 million has been thrown around as a rough guess of what Astros can spend above what they have under club control and contracts. Looking at your math explains why the Astros love prospects. It also explains why trading 6 prospects for Sale probably doesn't work....the Astros need a ton of WAR to come from pre-FA players. Trout is going to be getting 33 million a year at a huge bargain for giving up his first few free agent years. Harper was talked about as a potential $500 million man over 10 years before this season.....That guy should have signed an extension before this season. Stanton's contract is $325, he's no Trout, and that was a couple years ago. Trout would totally bank right now. Usually, free agents of Trout's level sign for a long period of time so years that aren't expected to be as good lower the dollar per year. Altuve's next contract if signed today would have huge regression that I wouldn't expect for Valbuena who has been pretty stable. There is a reason the Astros offered Rasmus an QO last year...it was market value for a one year deal, but they expected him to reject it to sign a multiyear deal.
Valbuena helped Astros more than Beltran or Martinez would have last year as he got in most of his production when the Astros needed a 3B. There is a long time between now and opening day. If Astros need a 3B, Valbuena at the QO is fine. I think saying Astros would deserve to lose by offering Valbuena the QO is a big overstatement. I doubt they do it because I think they have more than enough 3B. However, it would not be a ridiculous move if the Astros make other moves that get him PT. Castro...I'm not sold on either way. I'd guess his value is someplace around 12-15 million a year, but it is tougher to quantify the worth of a catcher.
We shed contracts to make it happen. Do we actually know the finances and how much we are actually trying to spend? How do we know contract specifics? Will Chapman want a longterm or will he be willing to take a three year deal slightly above market value? Another one year deal for Cespedes? We don't know, but moves like these signal an all out pursuit for a ring. We could at the very least deal for Sale and sign one of them... at the very least.
If the Astros don't really want Valbuena or Castro back at $17,000,000... they better not offer them the QO like they did last year with Rasmus. The Astros never expected Rasmus to accept and it cost them in free agency. If there is a position that the Astros are set at, it is third base. Which would mean that Valbuena would be playing primarily 1st base. Valbuena isn't worth $17,000,000 for a team that has a limited budget. Last year was the best season of Valbuena's career, other wise 2 WAR was the best he ever produced.
Valbuena has played a lot more games than last year and still was 2 WAR last year. 2 years ago he played a lot more games and better defense and was worth nearly 3 like he was headed for this year. Astros thinking Rasmus would think he could get a better deal on the market that QO is an indication that Astros thought QO was market or below market even if they intended on using money elsewhere.
I agree with Nook and the "no QO" crowd. I've been saying we will not make QO's to anyone for most of the season, but nobody listens to me (not that they really should, haha). Don't look at the dollars per se, although $17.2M is a pretty ridiculous number for either Castro or Valbuena. But look at it from a percentage stand point. If they both accept, assuming our total payroll will be a little north of $100M, both of those eat up about 33%, a third of our entire payroll. Neither player is close to having that kind of impact to justify their cost. It's not even close. I personally think it's a no-brainer that neither receive a QO. There was a time when many people thought Fister would get one too. I disagreed then, and I still do. I firmly believe no Astro will receive a QO. The potential benefit simply doesn't outweigh the cost.
That's also why right now, where most of the Astros + WAR players are playing on cheap pre-arbitration contracts, is the time to perhaps spend "enough" to get players that can contribute now and supplement what they have. Before EVERYBODY gets expensive and they're going to either make trades,
This isn't necessarily true. It could mean that they thought Rasmus would get and prefer a longer term deal that's worth less per year, simply to lock in the money. That's what most FA's do - very few are going to earn $17MM+ per year outside of true stars. If Valbuena or Castro go onto the FA market, they aren't getting $17MM per year. But they might get a 3 year deal worth $30 or $40 million and the guaranteed security & stability is worth something.
