I don't know if Luhnow can make it any more clear about his philosophy and the Astros position going forward.
I hope its a lesson learned. If your trying to build a WS contending team, you NEVER pass on a TOR guy like Sale if you can stomach the price. And although the price seemed too high at the time, MOR guys are almost fetching that price right now. A real lost opportunity.
All these metrics... all these stats... all these precedences... all these trends. The purpose of all of them is to try and make decisions/predictions based on what could happen.... and to try and optimize conditions as much as possible. I agree... the sample size sucks... but if those above mentioned "still likely" scenarios do happen, and this team doesn't win it all, THAT will be the never-ending narrative that the 2017 team will be left with.
From my standpoint, a WS title is worth it. Far too many people here concerned with the owner's pockets... if he's unwilling to spend what it takes to consistently field a competitive team, this is not going to end all that well, nor will it be fun competing every year but coming up short due to nickle/dimey type moves (or non-moves). And frankly, owners/GM's change in response to failure as well. If they come up short this year, or next year, and they're faced with impending free agents that may soon leave... I could see them changing the "philosophy" drastically in order to try and salvage what's left. Obviously at that point, all this logic and forward-thinking could go out the window. Luhnow may not want to be here forever.... Crane may not want to be an owner forever. All factors that can influence decision making going forward.
You're not wrong, and it will be aggravating hearing how we "weren't built for the postseason", but there's just not a lot we can do about it. We can shoot the works like you want and go all in like you want, but it won't truly move the needle on our chances. That 01 Mariners team didn't lose because of mediocre pitching as has become their legend, they lost because their spectacular offense went cold at the wrong time. The worst enemy of a great baseball team is the nature of the playoff format. If our offense goes cold for a few games, how in the f**k are we supposed to have stopped that?
Pretty defeatist attitude, IMO. My biggest concerns are pretty significant... Keuchel's health, Fiers not regressing, Peacock continuing his resurgence. Those are all pretty big if's. The 01 Mariners also had some issues (no real #2 or #3 pitchers with post-season track records)... but like this team, they were so good throughout the season that they stood pat. Again, we're not here to rehash all the problems that can happen in small sample sizes... but their #2 pitcher (that wasn't really a #2) did have an awful post-season where he regressed back to his career norms. If theres anything that can be done to improve this team both now, and for the post-season... I feel it's worth it. Especially this year. Especially if you're giving up guys that are unlikely to be a part of this team's core over the next 2-3 years.
While I get what you're saying, that could've been a very different story. Sale is enjoying an absolute career year after 3 years of increasing FIP, and the Astros offense is hitting at a historic level based on unexpected massive improvements from Yuli, Springer, Marwin, even Jake, plus McCann resurging at an advanced baseball age...with almost no one underperforming expectations, save for Beltran and Bregman 1st half (but coming out of that now). If some of those things were different--say, Sale performed somewhere in the range of his 3 year average (still a #1 guy, but not top of the ML), Bregman was traded and tearing it up for the White Sox, and the Astros offense had some overperformers and some underperformers and came in average...this team could have ended up worse after the trade in the standings. TLDR: I don't think it's necessarily an absolute statement in the way you're making it seem. Things worked out that way for sure this year, but I don't think it was anywhere near a guarantee in many ways. But I do agree that prices are typically inflated mid-season vs. offseason.
That's pretty funny coming from the guy that is assuming all of our starting pitchers are more likely to suck than pitch like they have all year long.
That's not the question, though. If it guarantees a title, of course it's worth it. No one would argue that, but it's also a complete strawman. The question is whether going from 25% to 27% chance of a title is worth losing core pieces that could be vital for the next 4-6 years.
I never said that. And I don't think I'm being overly egregious with my concerns that I've already stated. Also, if I had to go back to the beginning of the year with all the experts b****ing about Peacock still being on the 40 man roster, it would make quite a few here look foolish.
Of course. IMO, you're either a buyer or a seller at the trade deadline. Statistical models have overwhelmingly suggested that the Astros should be buyers in order to optimize their WS chances. The stand-patters are either so flush with talent/quality that they don't have any possible way to improve, or they have zero minor league system to speak of to make moves.
I know its not fair that success or failure is judged by whether or not this team wins a World Series... but it ultimately is. They're not going to get an award for competing consistently. They're not going to get an award for doing well on a small budget. They're not going to get an award for developing the best damn farm system possible. All we know right now is that this season represents the best the Astros have ever been at this point in their franchise history. I don't think its irresponsible to be a tad more aggressive now, vs. other years, and not simply look at 5-6 year windows down the road in terms of making all decisions.
So far, we've seen Quinatana and Robertson traded. We may see Gray and Darvish soon change teams as well. I would take any of those guys right now... even more so if some of my previously mentioned concerns come to fruition (Fiers/Peacock sustainability, Keuchel's durability, LMJ's on/off again effectiveness).
We have no idea how aggressive they have or haven't been. They need to be responsibly aggressive. They could probably have been aggressive and traded Martes, Tucker, Whitley, Fisher and Perez and gotten Qunintana or another pitcher on the market, but that is certainly not being responsibly aggressive.
"We want to win, win now but I have to look at the next 3 years & foreseeable future. We've got these guys together for a few years. They'll be playing together for 3-4-5 years. Foolish for us to take big chunks for the next few years away to marginally improve this year. We want to win & would love to be celebrating in October." Luhnow is answering the question, plain and simple. They are not going to go after a big name ToR guy at the expense of our farm system. They want to be responsible and build a contender consistently. We are a comparatively small market, so in order to accomplish that goal, Luhnow is going to follow the Cardinal model and be very conservative when it comes to shelling out big money for big names. He sees a consistently profitable baseball club as a consistently successful one on the field. He knows giving big money to big names would not allow that profitability in the long run. Folks are just going to have to get over the fact that we will consistently see BOS/LA/CHI/NY making the huge splashes. Just know, this does not mean we won't be able to compete with them this year, and it should ultimately give us the flexibility to compete with them for several years to come, as opposed to limiting our window to the next couple of years.
Yep. If you are in the running for 3-5 years then the possibility of winning the big one increases. Let's not act like we aren't one of the best teams in baseball. We will make a move or two at the right price. I trust Luhnow.
