As for Montero, the Astros didn't think it was an over-pay. They knew what other offers that were being floated to Montero and he was viewed as the top relief candidate on the market outside of Edwin Diaz and had success in the post season. The Astros wanted to nail him down early so they could focus elsewhere. Looking at the contracts the other relievers got, it seems his deal was for market value. Also, the top teams do not value or judge relief pitchers the same way most fans do. Because of the small sample size, "stuff" matters a lot more than it would for a starter. So, two relievers can have similar stats and one can be viewed as more valuable than another. That was the case for Montero and there were teams that were interested in using him as a closer. That is why he got closer money and the length he did. The Astros expect the market to be more player friendly than the general view in the industry.
I think I'd be more broken up about it if he wasn't 100 years old and wasn't arguably the worst pitcher on the team during the playoffs. I'll wish him well, especially if he heads to the NL, but he's simply not worth anywhere near what he's going to be paid.
Mets have made proposals with a third year, but it is a vesting option and that isn't what Verlander wants. The Mets are also talking to Carlos Rodon and the Marlins about trading for a starter.
I see keeping JV as a small way to right the wrong of losing Nolan to the Rangers. The chance to see 300 wins and the other milestones make it worth it if it doesn't hinder them from other moves. Crane should bite the bullet for 2 years and pay tax. Adding Verlander, Nimmo, Brantley, and Yuli would be the closest to a guaranteed championship we've seen in decades. They run 3 or 4 off in a row then Crane can coast knowing his place in history.
wasn't bassit the A’s all star pitcher who we flew out on our plane so he wouldn’t have to fly commercial? I wouldn’t mind adding him but the length of the deal is the concern…I could stomach a 3yr deal with maybe a mutual option on the 4th year.
The Astros would probably do it on a one-year deal and possibly even a two-year deal with a player option triggered by certain benchmarks met.... but I don't see them doing a 3-year deal or some of the conditions he wants on a two-year deal. People forget that Crane has paid Verlander $91,000,000 over the last three seasons and only received 29 starts. Granted those starts were the best in baseball, but that is prorated to almost 3 million dollars a start. If (or when) Verlander leaves there will be some fans and pundits that will claim that the Astros should have offered up more money to keep Verlander. Having said that, I don't know that many owners would give him what he is seeking. The last deal that Verlander signed was very player friendly. Verlander with the Astros has thrown 650 innings in 5.5 seasons with the Astros and has earned over $140,000,000 from the Astros during that time. Now, he has been awesome (best in baseball) when he has been on the field, but has lost 40% of time due to injury and is 40 years old. Signing Verlander makes a lot more sense for a team like the Mets that desperately need elite pitchers and have finances beyond the Astros. Same for the Dodgers as well. If Verlander gets hurt, the Dodgers will still be one of the three best teams in the league capable of making deals. That is not necessarily the case for the Astros.
What's interesting is this is a bit of a construct -- it's not exactly either/or. There's a pretty easy path to plenty of usage for for Contreras between backup C and the DH/LF/1B spots. That only becomes complicated if you're talking about adding a Conforto/Nimmo/Bellinger as well (I'd throw in Brantley, but think he's not a 140 game player at this point).
During the season he was money and consistent. 28 games started, 6.25 innings averaged. Who out of McCullers, Javier, Brown, Garcia gives us over 6 innings a start next year? That’s what keeps the bullpen fresh for season/postseason.
No team ever does. The Astros are obviously betting that they have figured out how to get Ks and grounders out of Montero and it will continue. I'd guess Montero will be an overpay versus what guys sign after January 1st in regards to regular season wins (evaluating pay on overall market and not on Astros needs). Getting who you want early almost always costs more in $/wins. Great teams have fewer holes; Trying to maximize $/WAR for each FA signing is not optimal for a great team (i.e., rarely is league-wide replacement level the same for what great teams have available at different positions). For what the Astros need/want, I have no issue with the Astros signing him for what they did. For most teams, Montero's deal would not be optimal.
Different A's pitcher -- Paul Blackburn. Bassitt did however say the Astros were a scape goat and were made an example of to stop all of the other teams. Given he played with Fiers and in our division, I give him credit for that. https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/a...lls-astros-guinea-pig-mlb-sign-stealing-issue
The Mets are interested in Luzado.... so are the Dodgers and 5-6 other teams. Seen as a viable #1-2 starter if he can be healthy and consistent in his delivery.
If we sign Contreras and do not play him at catcher, then we have massively overpaid for his services. Surely our front office is smarter than that. Count me in the camp of playing Maldonado + Korey Lee or Yainer Diaz. Every year we need at least one solid rookie contributor and these guys are 2 of the top 3 candidates for 2023.
In regards to regular season wins? I think that is a safe bet to make. The Astros aren't as worried about regular season though. There were teams that were in direct competition and elite that were interested in Montero (NYY and LAD) and others that were going to use him as a reliever. It is interesting, when it comes to relievers there has been a shift away from the concept of focusing on guys that just get the job done in the regular season and assuming they will in the playoffs as well, to guys that have higher upside stuff that perhaps don't have appreciably better regular season success. Montero was very successful last year, but 3-5 years ago, his lack of track record would matter a lot more than it does now. On a side note, while I agree in general that teams do not think they over paid for players - that isn't always true. A classic example is Verlander last year. The Astros front office strongly felt Crane over paid with the option and even Crane internally admitted that he paid more than he wanted or felt value was because of situation. Same thing happened with Brantley as well the last time he signed.
That’s where I am. You can always make a deal for a Vazquez type player at the deadline if nobody steps up. Sign a good bat in the the outfield and try to extend Tucker.
If the Astros sign Contreras (who is waiting to see if whoever loses the Murphy sweepstakes ups their offers) they are going to primarily play him at C and at DH. At least half the DH at bats are going to Yordan Alvarez and the Astros intend to play Contreras 140-150 games. Couple that with Maldonado being 36-37 years old, and last year started basically 110 games, that leaves a lot of games for Contreras behind the plate.
What if you have to over-pay for the outfielder? What if you believe Contreras is a better value relative to the value of the outfielder you can get?
That shift rule change won't cure his 226 Ks per 162 game average. Who wants to watch a dude strikeout nearly 1 1/2 times a game? Hardest pass of all time. HPOAT
