They're going to spend a ton on upcoming arbitration raises for their core (e.g. Keuchel, springer and the younger guys once they enter after next year) and ideally locking some of altuve, correa, springer, bregman, mccullers and/or keuchel up long term. Even with their relatively low payroll, they need to be judicious with their budget if they want a legitimate shot at extending those guys (esp the first 3). Last thing you want is to repeat the 90s errors where they splurged on Drabek and Swindell, and then couldn't afford arbitration raises for Caminiti and Finley.
They need to be judicious in what guys they target as well. To me, Altuve and Correa followed by Springer would be my list. I would wait on most of the others. I too want to avoid a Drabek/Swindell scenario.
Are you guys honestly bringing up free agent signings from 25 years ago as a guide for what not to do now? Surely there's been at least one good free agent signing since then.... that ultimately was worth it. Also, last I checked, the 90's Astros still developed into a contender despite the FA signings... if anything, they proved that its very hard to win it all with primarily home-grown guys.
In that case, I'd look more at the 2000's A's or the 2000's Rays as an illustration and a reminder of what being set up for a "decade of dominance" can turn into, if you don't supplement payroll and free agents for teams that are on the cusp. The 90's Braves and 2000-now Cardinals did re-sign their own players... AND signed/traded for established players quite a bit... in order to facilitate their prolonged run.
Look, here is the fact of the matter. If Lunhow really thinks holding on to the prospects is more important than getting insurance for a deep playoff run when it is painfully obvious the team needs to make a move.. then it really isnt going to matter how much the Astros can spend when Altuve, Correa, and Springer hit free agency. We'll lose them. There is no way I would pass up an opportunity to play for a team who is willing to do whatever it takes to win the world Series. Clearly Lunhow doesn't fall in that category.
They don't have to wait until the player hits the market to extend them; in fact, it'd be wise to get ahead of it, assuming the economic environment is favorable.
Jesus Christ, dude................ He tried to make a trade; he didn't believe the deals were favorable. That doesn't mean he favors holding onto prospects; it means he's capable of balancing short- and long-term priorities. There were a lot of people, into this year, who championed trading Alex Bregman. We should all be thankful they have not, nor will they ever be handed control of one of our favorite teams. Because those people are (mostly) idiots. The Astros' front office is not compromised of emotional knee-jerk fans; they do not view this as a possible end to 50+-years of suffering. They do not see this as the team's BEST chance to win a championship. They see it as their FIRST chance to win many championships.
But, you do admit that it is the first time in their existence that they far/away have the best record in their league... and there's plenty that is out of their control (how other teams do/perform, injuries, random regression) that can happen from year to year to make THIS first not necessarily a given.
Sure, or he put all his eggs in the Zach Britton basket when the Cubs and Dodgers saw the smoke signals and backed away. Yeah.... Bregman is coming along very well and will likely improve. However, most of the people that wanted to trade Bregman, wanted to do so to get Chris Sale. There is room to disagree, but having the opinion that 3 years of Chris Sale is better than 6 years of Alex Bregman is not necessarily an opinion held by "idiots". The Astros have had a lot of things click well for them on the offensive side this year. Baseball in the future is always filled with uncertainty. The Astros have a 2-3 year window with this group. The club can likely compete beyond that and possible even be elite, but it is going to require signing some of their own free agents and having their prospects pan out. Luhnow has stated before that he views the playoffs as a crap shoot and wants as many shots at it is possible to win World Series. That is fine, and I don't necessarily disagree but the prospect cost for players like Darvish and Gray and Martinez were very low.
I will say Luhnow likely values prospects more than most GMs. Luhnow probably also values making moves for short term value less than other GMs. If one falls into the "win-now" camp, he's going to annoying. Of the GMs, he has to be near the top of those least willing to trade more expected future value (but less predictable) in exchange for less, but more predictable expected value today.
Re Britton: I haven't kept up with everything, but wasn't it reported that the Astros had a 2nd deal with another unnamed reliever that was vetoed by ownership? If so, it's hard to say they focused exclusively on Britton. Second, I think they are well set up for a much longer window than 2-3 years. If nothing else, just look at the division competition. All of them are currently mediocre at best and have some combination of aging core, debilitating contracts, or small markets. And except for maybe the As, all of them have bottom 5-10 farm systems. Simply put, the competition isn't good now and it is hard to see it getting appreciably better anytime soon. The future is bright.
I thought the thinking was the Britton deal was likely vetoed by the Orioles ownership.Not heard there were two deal vetoed by opposing ownerships. I do agree that the Astros likely have a window open longer than three years due to other division teams not generally being in a good place.
I'm worried about the starting pitching between now and whenever Martes/Whitley/Perez/PTBNL finally come into their own.
I respectfully disagree. The lesson from the past two decades should be on the value of homegrown talent--and holding onto that talent. They were a perennial playoff contenders for ~10 years primarily because of the biggio-bagwell core that was later supplemented by homegrown talents like Wagner, Berkman, and Oswalt. But, as good as they were, i think they would have been remembered on par with that generations' Braves or even Yankees if they held together Finley, Caminiti, Gonzalez, Kile, etc. to supplement Biggio and Bagwell. Instead, a lot of their financial flexibility was blown on "go for it" free agent signings. That obviously doesn't mean it never makes sense to add extablished talent. Just like the Astros did with Reddick, McCann, Beltran, and Morton this very year. But, when we're talking acquiring 50+ million contracts on a finite budget, the trade off isn't just about the minor leaguers traded. It also may affect the team's ability to hold this core together over the medium to long term. And,imo, that is Luhnow's most important charge.
Here's the link the mlbtraderumors summation https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017...astros-lost-britton-why-padres-held-hand.html Apparently Rosenthal reported that in addition to the potential Britton deal, the Astros had another deal lined up for an unidentified "high end" reliever that would have "shocked" the industry. But that was vetoed at the ownership level. Eh, s**t happens, but it's not like the Astros didn't try or focused exclusively on Britton.
