And I don't think the Astros have a tendency to overplay their hand. They've shown the willingness to trade fair compensation for proven players. The Giles trade and Gattis trade were very well received by the Phillies and Braves. Luhnow isn't Daryl Morey, whom other GM seem to want to avoid as he generally WIN most of his trades.
I just dont want to get in a hole like we did last year because we didnt go get starting pitching...We may have more time and not in immediate "win now" but its not like Quintana was a one year rental.. he would be a good edition to the core.
That's a fair point, and I would warmly welcome Nate Jones (mainly because I have no faith in Tony Sipp, and if we obtained Jones, I would simply cut Sipp and take that sunk cost). The reason why the idea of Jose Abreu intrigues me is mainly because I think the potential choice of Abreu + keeping the 1st round pick vs losing the pick and signing EE is fascinating, and I'm not sure which one I'd eventually settle on. On one hand, Abreu is much younger (29 vs EE's 33), and although since he opted into arbitration, he's not on that team-friendly contract, he will still be way cheaper via arbitration than dropping $60-80M for EE, and as I mentioned earlier, the loss of the additional prospects it would take to get included in the deal is mitigated by the fact that we would get to keep our 1st round pick. EE, on the other hand, is more of an offensive force for the immediate future (but could also regress in the next couple of seasons), and he would "only" cost money plus the loss of a mid-to-late 1st round pick. Since I still view Abreu as a stabilizing force in our lineup, considering their hypothetical acquisition costs, I'd lean Abreu. And as a minor point, how cool would it be for Yuli and Abreu to be teammates, maybe that would boost each of their production, and would become even more beastly?
Wasn't he just acquired last year? In a year where they didn't have a high draft pick? This is exactly what Hey Now is referring to when he's explaining how the farm system can be reloaded each/every year. I know some here are debating that point... stating that those players are going to be added regardless, so you're still losing players in the farm system if you trade them... but I feel that's where some tend to lose perspective. Some would be willing to take their chances with a perennially strong farm system, regardless of how close or how far the MLB team is... and that's a little unsettling. Worrying more about production 7 years from now from a group of farm system players is extremely unsettling. Ideally, they could hand on to (hoard) all prospects and just buy every high priced free agent... but they can't. Trading prospects is going to be their currency to get proven MLB players that can supplement the current core.
I agree with you. But Hahn is looking for a Sale type deal for Quintama. 2 possible SP's with high potential and the farms best hitter is a price I wouldn't pay for Sale. Due to the way he throws the ball and his drop in velocity. While I really like Quintana the price is too high. I expect Luhnow to wait until the deadline to trade forr a SP1. The price probably will be about the same and he will have a better feel for who Martes/Musgrove are and see how Tucker is progressing. An added plus is waiting mitigates against injuries.
I agree too. Price seems high from an Astros fan who really follows the farm and is biased towards their prospects. Doubtful the exact same package could have landed Sale over what they got from the Red Sox. Also, waiting to see what happens can also have the opposite effect...especially when talking about prospects who could struggle any given moment with a level change. For the record, I was totally against trading AJ Reed last year.
Among top 100 prospects, position players bust (WAR > 1.5) ~60% of the time; pitchers almost 80%. Due to that volatility and uncertainty, I would much rather the Astros invest in Quintana's known, immediate value. In terms of why I keep mentioning replenishing the system... you've continually treated the future value of Musgrove+Martes+Tucker as irreplaceable. As long as the Astros remain committed to their pipeline, and assuming Quintana maintains his value for the duration of his contract, the Astros have four years to find, develop and promote the next Musgrove+Martes+Tucker. And they'll be able to do that by... replenishing their system. Much of the hesitant hand-wringing, I sense (generally, not necessarily with you), is rooted in the late stages of McClane's tenure, where he irresponsibly gutted the system through bad trades and signings and de-prioritized the draft and international signing. I get no indication the current regime will ever so recklessly disregard its pipeline so I have much less anxiety around dealing prospects. I get this perspective. 100%. My issue is you seem convinced that the team that drafted/traded for/developed Musgrove+Martes+Tucker is incapable of drafting/trading for/developing the next Musgrove+Martes+Tucker. While I think the Astros have their fair share of question marks, none are bigger than Keuchel's performance and McCullers' health. They have to find a way to mitigate one or both issues reoccurring. You'll recall, they had a similar issue last year with first base and thought they could throw prospects at it and it didn't work out. I don't want to see the Astros stall and sputter because they pinned their 2017 hopes on Musgrove becoming a 3-3.5+ WAR pitcher in his first full Major League season. He might... just like AJ Reed might have been the next Ryan Howard. Jose Quintana will.
Not to mention... Everyone is convinced that our top 3 prospects will be amazing.. Wasn't Martes a "throw in" part of a trade? Who's to say we don't already have some replacements, and we don't even have to rely on 3 top 10 picks to do it. Even though we will have 4 first round picks before Quintana is a FA again...
Just like running the ML team now is significantly different than 4 years ago, building the farm system will be significantly different than in the past. We've generally established that high-picks are off the table for the foreseeable future given that they're going/planning to be competitive. But something that it sounds like you're missing is that trades are going to be very different too. All of those 'out of no where' guys we developed from obscure trade add-in's (Musgrove, Martes, Paulino, etc...) came from deals where we traded ML talent for prospects. We're not going to making a ton of these types of trades in the future. It will be a lot harder to keep a good pipeline of talent in the future. All that being said, I'm fine with nearly any variation of the Quintana deal that just doesn't include all three of Martes/Musgrove/Tucker. I simply think that's too big a package.
That's a fair point, although those trades are still available to us. In fact, they flipped Feldman last July for prospects and Neshak this winter. It might not be the same quantity/quality - but they still have the capacity to jettison parts for younger parts. For instance, I could see them dealing Gattis right now for younger pieces without dismantling the MLB team.
The Astros fan base hasn't always been this way. I think it's an overreaction to the gutting of the farm system that happened in the final years of McLane. Labeling guys like Whitley as untouchable is nuts to me, but that sort of sensitivity around trading prospects is very much part of Astros fan ethos right now.
Among musgrove martens and tucker, we need to get musgrove out of the deal and replace with comparable minor league value. I agree we can find and develop players to shore up these losses. I'm just a believer that musgrove can be a significant contributor this year. Yes, we could just wait and bring up martens and hope he flashes immediately. But this squad is ready to win now. Dealing for Quintana is the type of bold move I want to see, even if we give a touch more than we are comfortable with. As a fan, Such an "overpay" is worth it because it is a statement and I would get to enjoy the process of viewing this team as a legit title contender with no real holes.
I agree. I also think, in a rising tide lifting all boats kind of way, that the NFL draft's skyrocketing popularity, which has led to the MLB draft now being more openly obsessed about and covered - has also contributed to this "prospect culture." I'm glad the Astros are obviously being responsible and diligent. But they need to get out of the potential business. Keep drafting smartly, investing in international scouting; and being shrewd with retaining/acquiring draft picks... and they'll have the resources to continually replenish and augment their MLB team. *That's* what the minor leagues are for, whether it be through contributions or asset acquisition.
I'm falling more inline with this reasoning... Musgrove has 2017 implications. Martes might, Tucker almost certainly doesn't. If you're dealing for Quintana with 2017 top of mind, it makes sense to protect 2017 assets.
No news is good news. Twitter mentions are designed leaks trying to get one side to budge or move or talks are close to falling apart.
I actually mentioned this earlier as another reason why this front office will likely never reach the depths of the McLane era. I see Luhnow being a very shrewd seller in years where this team is basically out of it. We saw glimpses of it when he made the Cosart trade (that had several here up in arms). They probably would have been more of a seller last year had they not been still within a semblance of striking distance of the division. The Red Sox aren't where they are right now had they not been active sellers in their down years. Even the Yankees have adopted that model as well, acquiring key prospects in the Chapman/Beltran trade (then, of course, they inexplicably go and overpay for Chapman again).
