Am I blind or are we the only team this writer left off this article? https://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/st...rade-deadline-reaction-biggest-winners-losers
I am sooo tempted to bring out all the receipts from this thread on all the folks that were just dead wrong about how this team's approach on the trade deadline.
I enjoy both of your posts regarding present and future of Astros baseball. You aren’t quite legends like nook, sky gods, Marshall bryant or Cangrejero, but you do bring some knowledge and interesting thoughts.
Fangraphs playoff odds ALW Champs 7/1: Astros 26.9% Rangers 61.2% 7/31: Astros 50.0% Rangers 39.8% 8/2: Astros 61.2% Rangers 33.5% Playoffs 7/1: Astros 61.3% Rangers 85.3% 7/31: Astros 78.1% Rangers 75.0% 8/2: Astros 87.7% Rangers 77.9% World Series Championships 7/1: Astros 4.8% Rangers 6.6% 7/31: Astros 7.9% Rangers 6.3% 8/2: Astros 11.2% Rangers 5.3%
From the quotes from Brown, it seemed like the Mets willingness to pay a significant chunk of Verlander's salary changed the Astros approach. At least the approach the front office was planning. Regarding surplus value, the Verlander trade may have been one of the most even for a starting pitcher. I will say that I didn't think the Astros would get a starting pitcher because I expected supply and demand to skew the market too much. The Angels paid prospects almost the equivalent of the Astros sent out for 2 months of Giolito and Lopez and likely no playoffs while the Astros likely get 2 years 2 months and 3 postseason from Velrander. I was a little disappointed the Astros weren't able to get a reliever better than Graveman.
I am already making adjustments to my prospects by position and projection lists. Looking for the possibilities at 2nd and third catcher, replacing Clifford as the 1st baseman of the future. I have just as much fun fooling around with that stuff as I do watching actual games, well regular season games.
Astros public comments on the tradeline before things are done should be taken as seriously as their injury reports. Don't need a reliever when whoever is bumped off the rotation becomes the de facto long reliever and pushes your non leverage guy off the roster.
Yep. I wouldn’t say just as much fun for me, but I find it more interesting than games as a thought exercise or something to ponder.
Now that the trade deadline is over, what was once a competition between Julks and Meyers to see who gets traded, it's now a competition to see who gets sent down or left off the playoff roster if Brantley is actually able to play this season.
Yeah - he has struggled against lefties in the big leagues so far. He has like a 400 OPS, but it is only 60 at bats. He also doesn't do great hitting as a DH (700 OPS) or on the road (700 OPS). He destroys righties at home, and when he is the starting catcher (1000 OPS).
Having read your posts over the last few years, I think you just always go out of the way to find something to complain about - which is sad because this is very likely the most successful run of sports in Houston that you will see in your lifetime - maybe try and enjoy it.
@Nook do the Mets only pay the 2025 option of JV pitches 140 innings in 2024? For example, assume he is at 130 innings but the Astros want him to rest up for the last 2 weeks of the 2024 season, but mutually agree to vest him for 2025. I assume the Mets won't be on the hook for paying part of his salary for 2025 under that scenario.
I was mostly refering to the post trade deadline comments when there is no need for the Astros to lie (though I think most public comments prior to the deadline are about managing fan expectations and not about lying to trick other GMs). On reliever, I was hoping for a high leverage reliever at the level of Abreu and Pressly.
That I don't know. My understanding is that IF the option vests, then the Mets pay half. As far as I know there are no qualifers, which means that the Mets should pay it under any circumstances in which it vests.
I don't think the Astros and JV can agree to vest the player option with him at 130 innings within that contract. Adding a year (i.e., player option doesn't vest) would be an extension that is outside the contract, and the Mets would not have to pay for it.
