yep--exactly what I was saying on the last page. Salary shouldn't be an issue. We're not a bottom of the barrel salary type team. If we're going to have some FA's on the team anyway, we may as well go for a young-ish SS who might have a very bright future
With low salaries and everyone coming up at the same time, you risk going from a low salary team to a giant balloon as everyone hits arb / FA status at the same time. You need balance to your salary so that you're in the same relative range and can make different decisions each year, rather than keeping everyone and suddenly having to let half of them go
*Wanting* to pay a good player is a penalty - it may be a necessity, but you don't plan to try to do that. A WS type team can't really afford to pay too many of their players market value. The Astros, for example, had trouble going above 3 market-value high-end players with Oswalt, Berkman, and Lee taking up nearly half their payroll. The Rangers are going to run into this problem over the next year or two, potentially having to let guys like Hamilton go. If the team becomes good, they are going to have tough choices to make down the line because it likely means the team will have several all-stars and they may not be able to keep all of them. Locking into expensive contracts *when you have better options* is a terrible way to build a franchise. That's what makes it the worst of all options. If you want the potential to be great, you want to lock as many potential cornerstones into reasonable long-term contracts as possible. The team should always look to manage their long-term payroll, giving you the flexibility to go out and get additional FMV players as needed. The last thing you want to do is say "well, our payroll is low, so we can afford to make a bad financial decision without too much pain." The Rays are a model franchise in this regard - locking in certain players to affordable deals and recognizing that they have to let others go. The Astros will have more payroll flexibility, but that doesn't mean throwing it away. They still should seek to be ultra-efficient with their money. In additional to Evan Longoria, here's an example with Matt Moore: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/bi...-beautiful-thing-for-the-rays?urn=mlb,wp28357 At age 22, they locked him in potentially to 2020 at a reasonable price. This allows them to build around 2 cornerstones for the next several years without locking up insane amounts of money. That leaves them flexibility to pay money to other players and keep more of their team together.
Me either. But if Luhnow can get 2 top tier P prospects or a P/C top tier prospect then I would do a trade. Anything less and Lowrie would be my 3B when Correa is ready. I would have to get top value if I were to trade Lowrie. Luhnow is in the drivers seat on this one.
i agree with all that, and, to me, lowrie fits into that Rays' model like a glove, and the situation SCREAMS "Do not trade in the immediate future" and "Hold for future evaluation". it's what i've been saying the entire thread: we possibly have premium production at a premium position, and there is no sane reason to think that we will be able to replace that kind of production from somebody in the minors or otherwise. there is a reasonable possibility that he is a perfect player to lock into an affordable deal. I never suggested waiting the full 2.5 years to extend him, although if he is sustaining this production at SS, it's certainly a spot where i'd happily do so anyway if that's what it came to. Unless the offer is mind-blowing, the potential benefits of keeping him far outweigh the opportunity cost of not trading him. it's a situation where i have no problem getting burnt if his production falls off a cliff in the next year or so. a no-brainer of a gamble, imo.
This This as well Here is where I'm at as well on this situation. Unless Luhnow gets a "Godfather Deal", keep Lowrie. I wouldn't be quick to sign him to a long-term contract just yet, lets see if he can sustain this level of play as well as stay healthy. But if a team were to come to the Astros with a ridiculous deal, you'd have to consider trading Lowrie. Lets say the Mets decide to go all in and dangle a package of RHP Zack Wheeler (22 y/o in AA; potential ace), RHP Colin McHugh (24 y/o in AA; BOR potential) and a PTBNL (potentially a position player) for Lowrie, are you saying you wouldn't even consider it? I understand the notion of staying relevant at the major league level, but the general feeling with how the Astros drafted is that they are looking 3-4 years down the line. If you can sell high on Lowrie and get prospects at positions that the farm system currently has holes at (i.e. - starting pitching), maybe you need to make that trade for the future instead of now. I'm all for keeping Lowrie, especially since he is a very good shortstop and has been the best at his position in all of baseball thus far. But if the right package came along, I'd definitely trade him as I would any player on the roster.
back of rotation potential is dime-a-dozen to me, and it would be nice if the PTBNL was relatively significant, but yeah, a package incolving Zack Wheeler would be exactly the type of deal i'd need to be willing to move Lowrie.
I think McHugh compares to Brett Oberholtzer so a MoR or BoR guy (which is why I included him), a potential ace (Wheeler) and a PTBNL (maybe another Toney?). I'm not saying that Luhnow should dangle Lowrie out there, but IMO it wouldn't be a bad idea to put feelers out there to see what kind of package he could get in return.
I disagree and I think AIS is used way too literally. We see the core Astro fan right now - it's roughly 10-15K strong. So we know it's the average, frontrunning fan that fills up the park, and it's much easier to draw them to the stadium if there's someone to build around and promote. Assuming he sustains anything close to his current pace, Lowrie - over the course of 81 games (or 162, since he's here for two more seasons) - is more valuable than... Angel Sanchez. Moreso if 5-, 6- and 7-year olds finally have an Astro to love growing up. (Most of us sat through strings of bad Astros seasons but always had a Jimmy Wynn or JR Richard or Cesaer Cedeno or Jose Cruz or Glenn Davis or Bill Doran to pull us through... and here we are.) AIS is more than literally putting As in Ss. Its about building a legacy, a relationship. So Lowrie (again, assuming he's even remotely legit) absolutely has value to the bottom line, short-term, as well as long-term.
So is he old? No, he is in his prime. And to be in your prime, you have to be young. That's the thing with semantics, we both can argue them. Regardless, if you read the rest of the thread, your "insight" has already been discussed and moved on from....
Huh? In baseball terms there is young as in before your prime, prime, and old as in past your prime. You can't be in two at the same time. Your position seems to be that having a player in his prime now is a value to the team because we're bad and we're going to continue to be bad for several more years at minimum but being a little less bad is a good thing. This makes no sense whatsoever if your goal is to become a playoff team.
You do realize "prime" is a subjective thing. It's a players best years....they don't all automatically happen at the exact same age. Sure there is a pretty close range, but it is far from concrete. You obviously still haven't read any of the rest of my comments on what we should do with Lowrie and under what scenarios....so I won't even address the second part. So as of right now....you are the one who isn't making any sense.
Its kinda 2 trains of thought. Trade him now when his value is at its highest and get back at least 1 top prospect. Or we can keep him while he is in his prime and keep some older/veteran stability on the team. I say trade if the offer is a top 20 prospect at a key weak organizational position. Like if we get offered a top 3B prospect and we are unable to sign Rio Ruiz. That might be worth it. Other than a top prospect, I think you keep him and have a be stable up the middle for years to come. Or when Correa is ready to play with the big boy!
Well, let's keep in mind that our payroll commitments next year are $25M before we pay arbitration level players. the Astros have run payrolls as high as $105M out there in recent years. Could be interesting to see what Jeff Luhnow can do with a core of Altuve + Lowrie and $50 million or more to play with in free agency. It's a VERY strong free agent pitching class. Two true aces (Greinke and Hamels) and a bunch of #2-3 guys (Anibal Sanchez, Shaun Marcum, etc).
Do you or anyone else think Crane is going to spend 50M on free agents? We might could get half a dozen solid guys or 3-4 elite players for that kind of dough. If we do sign some FA's, I hope the lions share are pitchers. Especially if Wandy & Myers are dealt. Other than Lyles and Norris, (assuming Wandy is gone) I would be in favor of ditching the entire rest of the starters. Pitching wishlist? Hmmm. 2 starters. 1 closer (assuming Wandy & Myers are gone) and 1 relief guy please. Order up :grin: If anything is left after that, a outfielder. It will be interesting to see what combination of farm promotions, free agent signings, and hold overs complete the make up of who takes the field next year. Cant wait
