I'd say you only see the negative risk in prospects. Just last year, Astros had several prospects miss their projections. Guess what, the Astros prospects still outperformed their projections as a group. Keuchel, Gomez, and Rasmus were probably the top under-performers on the team based on expected WAR before the season. Quintana's benefit to the Astros is that he likely provides a lot of value in 2017. Top ten MLB pitchers are "busts" about 15-20% of the time two years after they are a top ten pitcher. Getting 4 years of a 5+ WAR starting pitcher in Quintana is an optimistic future of Quintana as it is very hard to keep that performance up for a pitcher...even one with his track record of being awesome the past 4 years. Not saying it won't happen, but there is a real chance he gets injured as well and is worth nothing after a season. I also don't agree that it is easy to get a Tucker or a Martes. The only prospects of their caliber traded recently that come to my mind were done by an idiot GM (who was fired due to it and putting too much faith in a top 10 pitcher continuing to be a top 10 pitcher) or it took Chris Sale. Farm system will rebuild if trade happens, but there is a lag. These guys as a group are likely to help a lot in late 2017 and on even if 1 is a bust. Spreading the risk among several prospects that have a significantly higher combined expected value (expected value is not ceiling, but is average value) is less risky in my opinion. I do know that most people view risk than I do. Overall several deals, actual value produced will regress to expected value even with busts here and there as some good players come out of prospects as well. I don't care if some prospects fail as long as the combined actual value for all prospects averages out to the combined expected value. If the Astros aren't good enough to accurately, but not precisely estimate expected value of prospects, the front office needs to be changed. I think this front office is much better than me at estimating value and they appear bullish on Tucker and Martes. As such, I'd take my numbers as likely being under what Astros expect from them....and I'm expecting almost twice Quintana's value.
Absolutely. And beyond; even if he regresses, at his price, he'll be providing excellent value (unless he goes Gomez and falls completely off a cliff). His lowest WAR for a full season was '14: 3.5 - that has a value of $27M. He's making $7M, $8.9M, $10.5M and $11.5M the next four - prime - years. I didn't say it was easy; I said it was "easier" than finding a 5 WAR pitcher. The Astros will have five drafts before they'd play a season without Quintana; again, the chances they'll land comparable replacements for three of their prospects is much greater than one of their prospects becoming as good as Quintana.[/QUOTE]
Because you are trading away 7 years of Musgrove. And Musgrove's ERA was under 3 until he got lit up in one start pushing his ERA over 5, he pitched very strong very consistently. It's not the right to time to trade K Tucker, he looks like a future starter on this team. He could contribute this season if Beltran is primarily a DH. Plus, Beltran and Aoki are FA's after the season. That's how you plug holes and have sustained success in going after championships not a championship, having a cheap team controlled player who destroys the value of his contract and gives you money to spend on other needs. I feel the same about Martes. Musgrove, Martes, Paulino & Whitley. Not all of them will pan out to the expectations the front office has in them but 1-2 are likely to do so that's a fantastic group paired with Keuchel, McCullers & Morton
[/QUOTE] To get a prospect of Tucker's status in addition to draft (which happens regardless of whether Astros trade or not), Astros would have to trade Tucker, Martes, and Musgrove for Quintana...and then trade Quintana...and get less value in prospects back because Astros had to outbid other team. I don't see how that is easier. The five drafts don't replace anyone. They are additional talent that comes in regardless. To get the combined value of Tucker, Musgrove, and Martes from outside the organization and future drafts in prospects, they would likely need to trade Correa, Bregman, or Altuve. Even then, going rate is 20% more expected value in prospects than players. CWS wants 70% more. [/QUOTE] Again, the chances are greater than 50% that the combined value of the three prospects exceed that of Quintana. One player does not have to be as good as Quintana for Astros to win more games from the three prospects. Heck, one player barely has to be over 1/2 as effective as Quintana per year to help Astros win as much as Quintana would by himself..it just doesn't happen as concentrated as Quintana would provide. There is nothing magical about having all the value tied up in one player unless you can't get other players in the game. Astros are not close to having a team loaded with 5 WAR players so it doesn't matter if value is spread among a few players as long as players can get in the game. An ace would be nice and does have a little extra value in playoffs. That value goes away if you don't make the playoffs.
The Astros SHOULD have addressed the #1 starter issue at some point over the last three years. They did attempt to get Cole Hammels but neglected free agency. Having said that, the Astros don't have to address the #1 starter issue this spring. There will be opportunities at the deadline and there is possible internal growth. I would love Quintana but not if the Astros scouts are strongly of the belief that Martes will be a 2+ WAR player and the same for Tucker.
It's a good thing the Astros aren't competing for theoretical World Series titles. That was some pretty fuzzy analysis Joe. You'll never be on board with trading prospects for anybody with that fixed viewpoint. The bottom line, in the non theoretical world, is that they do have a fixed elite window based on their current stars. Maximizing that window each and every year with trades/free agent signings, as long as it exists, will be the difference between them being like the Cardinals or being more like the rays/A's.
What? The guy is 19 years old and has never played above A ball, and has a 0.750ish OPS at that level. What on earth makes you think he could contribute to the team this year?
Luhnow made a comment last year about each team having their own prospect ranking in the minors. We can assume to know how they pan out, but obviously the saber metrics might be something completely different than we even fathomed. Oh and just because a lot of prospects falter does not mean they are chopped liver. Getting a prospect trending up, is quite the valuable asset to a team. They aren't easily replaceable. There are too many question marks to go all in just yet. My personal opinion, is let's see where we are at in May and June. The glaring holes could be outfield help, and not starting pitching. Shoot at that point you may have to over pay, but at least you get what you are needing. Who would have predicted last season out most glaring hole was Carlos Gomez....
It wouldn't surprise me. He certainly finished the season great (his last month of A ball and his time in A+). Very encouraged that in his 19 Lancaster games that he had more walks than Ks. They'll probably start him back at Lancaster though, which would make him being her in 2017 an extreme long shot at best.
Yes I know last year was his only year and that's why it was the same as his career. I was just trying to show no matter how you looked at it, he was worse than Quintana, by a lot.
Buies Creek for the win! Tangent: there are some random towns and team names in the Carolina league but the rangers new affiliate "Down East Wood Ducks" in Kinston takes the cake.
