Exactly. No one is suggesting Altuve must be moved, I think the point most are trying to make is that there isn't anyone on the big league roster that should off the table completely.
Yea I know, but if Springer and Singleton are in their 2nd full year, and are not without a doubt all-star quality, it will be ok to move them for prospects?? I just don't get it. I was fully ok with the youth movement, with moving all of the veterans for prospects and starting it over from scratch. I AM NOT ok with starting to move the quality young players once they reach the majors though, not at all. I'm a little surprised that i'm the only one here that thinks it would be a bad sign.
Beard, I think I see your opinion on this, but I respectfully disagree. IF the talent you are receiving is greater than the talent you are trading, then you pull the trigger on any trade. This notion of untouchables should be non-existent for our current state of the organization. This should include any and all players, even minor leaguers. Granted, trading away prospects like Springer and Singleton would need a TON of talent back, and would probably never happen because of this, but to simply tell other teams that "We would never trade Springer or Singleton" would not be prudent. For example, if the Cardinals call and offer us Oscar Taveras and Shelby Miller for Springer, I think everybody pulls the trigger on that deal without hesitation.
Those 2 do have better physical tools, allowing them to have higher ceilings. Look at what happened with Hunter Pence, who was a very good player, but not great, and still under control for 2.5 more years. We moved him for a great value. The same couldn't be said for Michael Bourn, who we should have kept and tried to find something better over the next 12 months. Trading a player like Altuve (or Castro, who I value more due to position), says nothing about the team's willingness to spend money, because Altuve would be replaced with someone making equal or more money. It would be purely based on talent evaluation.
Sure: Robinson Cano Dustin Pedroia Jason Kipnis Matt Carpenter Brandon Phillips Ben Zobrist Jedd Gyorko Howie Kendrick Injured guys: Ian Kinsler, Aaron Hill, Chase Utley Then you have a couple of guys having terrible seasons but with a solid track record: Rickie Weeks, Dan Uggla (he's still better than Altuve, even this year). Then you have the recently called up hotshot prospect in Nick Franklin, but he's unproven as of yet. That's not to say Altuve can't or won't improve - he's easily the youngest of this bunch (except Franklin) - but he's not "easily" a top 7 2B right now.
I think two ideas are craching into one another here, so let's reset. If Luhnow traded Altuve and/or Castro, I don't think you, or anybody else, should take it as a sign that we're entering a perpetual cycle of grooming top prospects only to trade them away for their prime. It's more a case of him not wholly valuing two resepctable prospects who did not come up through a Luhnow-run system. Is that significantly important to him? Probably not. But if he's blown away by an offer, that disconnect potentially makes it easier for him to part with them. I would guess he has greater connection to Springer and Singleton who, while not players he acquired, have been in his system now for a year or so. Should he trade them? Here, I think I somewhat agree you - at some point, the team can't *completely* pretend its fans are irrelevant... though, having said that, no one is going to pay money to watch either guy with even semi-regularity. I think both guys are pretty pedestrian, and I would guess - at least when it comes to Castro (a first round pick), that Luhnow probably wouldn't have had interest in him initially.
My view of Crane likely skews my view here, because I really think Crane is going to run this as a strict investment and isn't going to be interested in building a long term world series contender. I really hope I am wrong, but I am EXPECTING our guys to be moved as they get to arbitration years. I know Altuve isn't there yet, but he is closest of any of our guys of true value. I also think Altuve is better than most people on here think he is, and that makes a big difference also For those that think Crane will build a 100 million + payroll when the time is right to do so, i'm sure they aren't as worried about moving guys like Altuve/Castro or even Lyles. Another part to consider is timing. IF they are going to truly try to build this into a serious contender, do they want to try and compete by 2015 or 2017. If they aren't worried about being truly competitive by 2015 it would be easier to move Altuve and Castro as we would have plenty of time to find replacements at 2b and C
Who says having a 100 million payroll is the determining factor in bulding a serious contender? I see more high payroll disappointments this year than I do success stories. As long as they continue to draft the best players available, and sign them, there's not much else they need to be doing right now to prove things one way or the other. Also, you only resign guys (or make big splashes in free agency) when you already have a somewhat successful core in place. If there are better/cheaper alternatives out there, you go with that. You don't have to be labeled a frugal penny pinching owner to realize that 6 years of club control for a player who likely will be just as good (if not better) at a much cheaper price is the way to go, vs. a player on the wrong side of 30, who's best years are behind him, and yet he commands a huge salary.
Well, we definitely view some of these guys differently. I would certainly give you Cano, Pedroia, Phillips and Kinsler as clearly better than Altuve right now, although I do think Altuve's potential is just scraping the surface. I would put him on par with guys like Kipnis, Kendrick, Zobrist. They all have different things they do better than one another, but I certainly see nothing saying those guys are better than Altuve. Aaron Hill certainly is better than Altuve at times, but has health issues and is so up and down. Utley hasn't stayed healthy since 2009 and is 35, no way I would put him above Altuve. Carpenter and Gyorko are interesting comparisons. Carpenter has been marginally better this year and last year Altuve was marginally better. Carpenter is 28 though so i'd rather have Altuve. Gyorko and Altuve have been pretty much on par with each other this year and obviously it's Gyorko's first go around. Gyorko might have a little more upside, although again he is a couple of years older than Altuve. Do you think Altuve has the ability to get better than he is right now, or do you think he is what he is? I think he will get better. As i've said, most guys his age are in AA now, not in their second full season in the majors having success
100 million dollar payrolls definitely don't guarantee success, ask the Angels. But producing players only to move them as they hit free agency isn't a good way to build long term world series contenders either. I'm sure if you are really good at it you can stay competitive, but not dominant. Maybe we view this differently, but I certainly won't be happy if guys like Springer and Singleton and McCullers and Correa DO turn into true stars, and as they hit those big money years they end up playing in New York and Los Angeles and Chicago or wherever . . .to me, that would suck
One more thing on this, IF we do become that franchise that lets their players go as they become stars and will make big money, a guy like Luhnow isn't likely to stick around. If you are one of the best in the business, and I think he has a chance to be that, you would rather be able to develop players and watch them stay with you long term and compete for championships
After sitting through three years of blatant tanking I would think the fans would revolt if this were to happen. We were told money will be spent when the young core is in place and I think that's a sound strategy. To let the youngsters leave when they're hitting their primes would be a slap in the face.
The key is having a team that's on the cusp of competing for championships. There has only been one or two historical examples of teams such as that broken up simply due to payroll penny pinching. Off the top of my head, the Montreal teams with Pedro, Alou could have been great... but playing in that market, and the strike, killed any long term chances of that. The second would be the Marlins SECOND World Series team (Beckett, et.al)... namely them trading Miguel Cabrebra before he hit his prime. Again, Miami was in bad financial situations due to their attendance/stadium issues. When they finally did decide to spend (beginning of last year), it backfired quickly and they're now back to where the Astros are (basically admitting that they would rather take a chance on developing young guys every 5 years, vs spending big money for proven/past-prime players). The A's also fall into this category, but they are so good at what they do that they are basically playing a different game than every other tam. The rest of the teams that get rid of stars all have BAD teams. Is there any sense in paying big $$$ to keep 1 or 2 stars when your overall team is terrible? Its the same logic as to why the Astros don't go after free agents now. If the Astros young guys develop into stars, AND, the team is winning... then the organization needs to do what's possible to keep the winning going. If they're not winning... then what's the harm in trading soon to be big money guys for younger guys that may help build a better team in 3-4 years? Again, if you guys can think of any more teams that were on the cusp of greatness (or had already achieved greatness), and broken up due to simple payroll issues, let me know. The Expos and Marlins had situations that shouldn't be the case in Houston. The Royals and Pirates never had a contender, despite all the high picks. Again, the A's are in their own category. Chances are the Astros are more in line to be like the Tigers, Rangers, Giants, Braves, Cards (teams who became GOOD when their young guys got good), than they are to be like the Expos or Marlins were (teams that were GOOD, but traded their good young players to save $$$).
I agree with what you are saying completely, but the fans have already revolted. With so few even able to watch on TV and the team being so bad, it's about getting the fans who have already gone back i think
I don't disagree with what you are saying, I just don't think the history of other teams has anything to do with what Jim Crane will do. In the case of Florida, I don't think you will ever see a big loyal fan base down there. Too many of the folks who live in that area are "from" somewhere else, and the ones that came from New York/Boston won't be changing allegiances. The Expos are a good example of what I fear. I agree it isn't something that has happened much, but we do have an owner that had a hard time getting into the league because of many business issues in his past. To say the least, he has been a rather shady character in my opinion. Add in the fact that he is making millions upon millions on the team right now, even with so few showing up to the park. He could keep the payroll around 40 million long term and make a mint. I'm not saying that is what he will do, but I do think it is in the realm of possibilities, and I do fear that happening. I sure hope it don't
Sure, but Jim Crane has no history, either. As you may know............ and I don't want to big-time anyone but.... I work closely with the organization. I've been given zero reason to believe the team is headed for the kind of future you're dreading. I've met Crane many times; he is passionate about the team, and he is convinced it'll be fixed and fixed right. A guy like Jeff Luhnow may fly under the radar of baseball fans - but, believe me: his hiring sends a very strong message of their commitment. He is one of the brightest, most respected personnel guys in the game. And Crane has basically given him carte blanche. I have 100% faith in what they're doing. I've been able to work a little with Luhnow, too - he's impressive.
Crane's a baseball guy. He played ball in college...he loves the game. He doesn't strike me as having the kind of background that lends to the idea this is merely an investment for him. McLane bought the team as an investment...he didn't know jack diddley damn about baseball when he bought the 'stros. He ended up understanding it better as time went on.
