Great question OP, and I think the discussion has been great so far. I think the draft approach by Luhnow and co. says a lot about the timetable they see us competing again; or at least when they envision the talent pipeline through the minors start to come through. I think they are looking at a 2015 or 2016 timeframe to hopefully be a legit contender in the AL West. This is just my assumption, but the fact that they draft Correa (a 17 yr old SS, who I am very happy we went with), then players like McCullers Jr., Rio Ruiz, Virant, Hinojosa, etc. it seems like they took risks on a lot of high school players with a lot of upside. Obviously it still depends on if we can sign everybody, but regardless, I think their draft strategy was telling. So I thought about this last week as well, because to me, if our front office has really deemed 2015 or 2016 (or 2014 if we are being aggresive), then to me it makes a lot of sense to trade Lowrie now while his stock would seem to be sky high. Reading cardpire's and others thoughts on what he would actually net us in return seems to be the real question at hand. I personally thought we should look for 3 players in return; a top 30 overall pitching prospect (which would give us that much-needed ace in the minors), a top 100 position player, and then high risk, high reward young prospect (preferably a LHP). However, reading the discussion here, that might be way too aggressive. To me the good thing here is that we are in the drivers' seat, and we can very easily say no thank you if we don't receive the haul we are looking for. So, what exactly does everyone think we could get in return for Lowrie? I personally think that although it is aggresive, it is definitely in the realm of possibilities for a contending team to offer the deal that I am looking for. But please correct me if I am wrong or expecting too much in return for Lowrie, there are a lot of great posters on this board that know much more than I about trade value and minor leaguers.
If you are going to trade Lowrie, I think it will be in the offseason. It lets him prove he can make it through an entire season (despite him starting the season on the DL), and players under control for that long are usually offseason moves. You never flat out dismiss trading a player, because you don't know the return. If the Angels offered me Mike Trout (I'd take him over Harper), I'd have him on the first plane to Anaheim. Of course the Angels wouldn't do that, but it doesn't mean some team won't severely overpay.
While yes, the Astros should absolutely be focused on the future (and should consider any deal that blows their socks off) - they can't allow their major league product to atrophy in the interim, IMO. They're losing consistently, they have no face of the franchise, and there's a juggernaught 4 hours away that's grabbing a lot of would-be next-generation Astro fans' attention. Your fan base is quickly eroding and 2-3 more years of losing isn't going to help, especially if it's being done by a bunch of has-been, never-were AAAA players. It's a delicate balancing act but, IMO, you have to show your fans that you're moving in the right direction, and guys like Lowrie and Altuve are important bridges to what you hope is the next generation of winning baseball. So while Lowrie probably is gone in 2.5 years, I don't think you can dismiss how important those 2.5 years are to your MLB franchise.
It's also what has made teams like Tampa Bay and Milwaukee able to keep their superstars like Longoria and Braun for the long-haul. Granted, those are more proven players - but you also pay them more as a result. If you're always paying fair market value for players, you'll never be able to build a consistently great team unless you're the Yankees. Any other team has to take chances with deals that give them upside. Certainly another valid option - the risk there is if this is his peak, you're losing a lot of trade value. Or if he gets hurt again, then the "he's injury-prone" angle becomes a real problem. The issue is not his age - it's that he will be a free agent when the Astros are truly competitive. So the Astros still have him at age 33, it either means he regressed to being not-so-great (in which case, who cares if we have him), or we're paying him a fortune - which you could easily do when he's a free agent anyway if they really want him at that point. I agree to an extent - but that was the same logic used to keep Berkman, Oswalt, etc longer than they should have. I think in the long-run, the strategy is flawed. The fan base - as the Rangers are demonstrating after a lifetime of futility and lack of interest - will quickly come back if and when you win. And anything short of winning, and your fanbase will not be there - so the only goal should be to win, and build an organization that can continue to win. If a decade of success with the Astros isn't enough to keep the fans from turning to the Rangers, then the same will be true in reverse when the Astros become good - they can easily go back and reclaim Rangers fans. Youth and looking to the future is great for building a fan-base - and on Altuve, I agree, because the Astros can say he will be here in 3-5 years when the team is hopefully good. Lowrie is not in the same position. He's not home-grown, he's not young enough that we're watching him grow up, and he's going to be a free agent soon enough that he's not guaranteed to be part of that future core. He's much more expendable, and the team is going to suck with or without him for the this next 1.5 years.
As an example of signing Lowrie now, you get the benefits of 2.5 years of club control and signing him when he's unproven. These numbers are entirely made up, but let's say you can sign him at the end of this year for 5 years at $35 MM ($7MM/yr). For him, he gets a lifetime of security well before he'd be a free agent. The Astros get him from ages 29-33, meaning he's a free agent when he can still sign a decent contract for good money if he turns out to be good. The risk the Astro take is that he sucks for the next 5 years - but even then, $7MM/yr is not crippling. Tulo, for comparison, signed a 6 yr, $31MM deal after 2 years that covered the first 2 years of his free agency. Braun signed an 8-yr, $45MM deal. Longoria signed a 9-yr, $44MM deal. Each of those were more highly regarded, but not entirely proven, but they also had a few more years of club control left. On the flipside, let's say you play out his contract. He's now 31 and you have a great idea what he's going to be. If he's crap, then you let him go. If he's great, then you might be out $90MM+ / 6 yrs (Tulo was $135MM / 7 years), assuming he wants to be here and there are no higher bidders. And you're going to get him from ages 31 to 36. The benefit here is that he's more proven and you're only going to be paying for the years the Astros are likely competitive. But you're also paying market value meaning you have less money to spread out to address other needs.
Production and age are different, though. Berkman and Oswalt had both shown decline and were older than Lowrie; Berkman, in fact, was 4-5 years older. So we’re talking about two aging superstars whose best years were behind them (and were making a ton of money) vs. an in-his-prime potential superstar (current pace) with fewer miles and a brighter future who’s under club control. Agreed, of course. But there’s collateral damage in the interim. Take, for instance, kids born here in 2003+. They’re 9 years old now and have only seen (remember) futility from the Astros. I’d be willing to bet… they’re probably way more into the Rangers (or Yankees, or Red Sox, or Cardinals…). If you spend 3-4 more years trading off your best players and playing for the future, you risk alienating an entire generation of fans. It might seem small, possibly insignificant – but if your rebuilding process fails and there’s another 5-10 years of mediocre (or worse) baseball……. Only if said fan base is comprised on die-hard baseball fans, which most aren’t. The average fan, with a discretionary income and a frontrunner mentality – which, let’s be honest, is the majority of fans; if it wasn’t, they wouldn’t be drawing 9K/game – they don’t care about youth and the future. They’ll care when the youth and future finally arrive and the team is good – but they’re not going to support a rebuilding team in the meantime… unless said team can develop bridge attractions. And having the best SS in the game is a pretty good place to start. I would absolutely, positively take a socks-blown-off offer for him. But anything short of that (and how likely is it?), and I’d much prefer they ride him and hope he’s the first piece in rebuilding baseball in Houston. Plus… while, yes, I’d be wary of dumping a load of money on him – he’s 28 without a ton of miles on the tires. There’s no reason to think that, if he really is this good, he can’t still be a productive player 3-5 years from now.
I think most here agree that if the price is "right" then you do the a trade. There should be NO ONE on this team that is untouchable at this point. ESPECIALLY if another team comes knocking with a stud 3b,catcher or pitcher prospect. These are easily the weakest positions from top to bottom of this organization and if trading a Jed Lowrie helps one of these spots, you do it. Ignoring the farm/future because of something good that's happening in the present is what has haunted this organization for years now. Luhnow is hear to change that.
You look for cheap young stars in trades. I don't believe you trade cheap young stars looking for other cheap young stars. It's not like Lowrie is showing to be fool's gold potentially or just playing out of his mind. He is getting his numbers in a extremely consistent way, one that gives good reason to believe he will continue doing so. It's not like he wasn't projected at one time to be this type of player, he was....it just looks like now he is finally getting there. If he wasn't so highly thought of before hand or he was just getting his HR's in bunches or his game was really sporadic....maybe. But I can almost guarantee that he is a more valuable player in every sense to the Astros than he would be to anyone else. So a trade doesn't make any sense.
I realize he isn't exactly 23....but he doesn't have a lot of miles on that body. If you have a SS that is young enough to make it through a contract (there is no reason to believe he can't make it another 3 to 4 years), hits close to .300 with 30HR potential, all while playing pretty damn good defense....you don't trade him because you are hoping to get the same numbers at a different position. I think some of y'all are a little too empowered by our successes and a potentially good draft. Just because our all our moves have seemed to fall into place as positives for the franchise this past year....doesn't mean you start getting cute. I don't think you guys realize how rare Lowrie's line is for a SS. Tulowitzki is one year younger, putting up the few less homerun and making about 8x more salary. Tulowitzki....the same guy people throw out as possibly the best player in baseball right now. Now am I saying that Lowrie is Tulo....nope. But you don't just trade the guy that everyone has been saying for 4 years "just needs a chance" for prospects that you hope eventually turn into the same thing. You go ahead and feel comfortable and blessed with the guy already showing he has the capability of doing it. Lowrie BA HR RBI OBP SLG .289 12 28 .365 .533 Tulowitzki BA HR RBI OBP SLG .287 8 27 .360 .486
You know what would be a really weak spot if you traded Lowrie for the potential of a 3B of C? Shortstop. Sorry, you were the closest guy in the thread but this is a prevailing theme throughout it. Some of you guys don't understand the concept of SS being a premiere position and when you have a guy hitting for power there, you value that. Oh yeah, especially when he is one of the 2 guys on your team with power. Apparently, Correa is ready to just step on up? Even Luhnow said 20 would be what you hoped for with him. That gives you 3 years to ride with the MVP of our team right now and then when the time comes, move one to 3rd base. Y'all are just drunk on successful moves right now.
I get your point but the "cheap young stars" I'd be looking to trade for are roughly 7yrs younger than him. Within the realm of professional baseball Lowrie's not young but rather right in his prime so you'd be trading a cheap, "potential" star in his prime for a cheap, YOUNG, potential star. I don't see how he wouldn't be as valuable to other teams especially those who are either contenders or are on the cusp of contending and have a glaring need at SS. His value on this team for the next two seasons is best summed up by this past Saturdays 10-1 blow out by the Sox where the lone run came from Lowrie in the 9th.
This doesn't make any sense. Why is he so valuable to a team that's not in contention and really is in the midst of a "throwaway year", but he wouldn't be nearly as valuable to a team trying to make the playoffs or win a World Series?
I'd agree with that - but if you wait until he proves that, you're going to have to pay a fortune to him 3-5 years from now, and you're likely to have to sign him to a contract that takes him well into his declining years. If the team thinks he can be productive 3-5 years from now, they should sign him now to a reasonable deal that gets them those years without getting them stuck with an albatross contract.
Is it wrong/bad to say I really like Lowrie so I hope they don't trade him? Because I also really like LOWRY and I hope THEY don't trade him, either.
First, I'd still feel better about SS even if Lowrie is traded than 3B or C. I know JioMier and Villar aren't studs but they are both better than what's happening in the farm at those other spots(exception of maybe Matt Duffy). The power at a premium position thing I get but I've got to see the guy do it for an entire season. He looks like he can sustain it but who knows. And ironically the deal that brought Lowrie here is one of those intoxicated moves you referred to....Luhnow power!
Haha! A tale of 2 Lowry/rie's! Who'd of thought both would be the biggest bargaining chips in Houston??
Hmmm....let's see. He is valuable because he is one of the few players we have that is at the top of the league at their position in production. He is one of the few things worth going to see right now, from Jim Crane's perspective. He isn't all that old....like I said....he is one year older than Tulo. Do you consider him old? I understand the whole "We aren't in contention business....". I want Wandy, Myers and Lee out of here by the deadline. But you are basically proposing the idea of getting rid of any player that is worth a damn until we are in contention....do you see how this doesn't work? Yeah so he isn't 22 years old....he isn't running out of baseball life, he has barely played for the past 3 years. Is he expensive? Nope. And your whole World Series team looking for a SS scenario is a pipe dream and unlikely scenario. Any team contending for the World Series has a good enough team that even if they are looking for an upgrade at short (rare, but possible I assume)....they won't be looking to mortgage their future on an all-star. Typically those teams look for an affordable upgrade. Listen, if some type of prospect-rich deal comes along, maybe. He obviously isn't untouchable, but like I said before and I stand by....with him being one of the few guys that gives the average fan a reason to watch consistently and the fact that he is cheap and the fact that his numbers are quite astounding right now....it makes more sense for us to right this out. I can guarantee that us riding out this steal of a trade matters more to our FO than just turning around and shipping him off for a guy who is 6 years younger but hasn't proven a thing.
This is what I am hoping happens. He finishes the year strong and we sign him to a reasonable 3-4 year contract. Having players that are fun to watch matters, even when rebuilding, especially from the team's perspective. And right now, we'd potentially be selling low to any team as I'd be willing to bet the name Jed Lowrie hasn't exactly became synonymous with All-Star level SS's who hit for average, power and play D (there are only about 4). At the end of the year, that might be a different case altogether.
your return is pretty much the exact haul we received for pence. he was also 28 at the time of trade, but (obviously) way more established. i think it's a fantasy to think that anybody would pay that price, but i also agree with you that it's the minimum that i would accept. one think i disagree with is, if you think we are going to contend in 3 years, that would make keeping lowrie and taking a shot that he can sustain his production that much more prudent. i just don't see how anybody can possibly think that unknown prospects being contributors on a contending team in 3 years is a likelier outcome than lowrie continuing to be productive. correa can always move to 3rd, and may do so anyway. aside from him, you can't just assume that we will be able to find another slugging shortstop in the next 3 years. you can pretty much safely assume that we won't be able to though. hang on to lowrie, and pray.
one other thing...everyone says we should play for all the kids to come up and win. More often than not, there are a few vets on those teams to help mentor and be less affected by jitters and all. Sure, we would sign some FA's. But I'd be happy to have a veteran starting SS with a bunch of kids (and an Altuve in his prime) around him. We don't need to have our payroll at the bottom of the league. With all big contracts going away and none coming up soon, Lowrie projects to be one of the few on the books the next few years, barring a massive signing (but if you don't think we're contending soon, then you also don't think we're signing a high-priced FA in the next 3 years)
