I'm not a Teoscar fan. But I get your sentiment and would do a similar deal. Trading Framber would carrying risk because his talent is undeniable. I know this opinion wont be popular, but I think he's a bit of a headcase.
I think that when Dusty is gone Frambers problems go with him, he was used and abused this season. He is our Ace and should not be on the market as anything less. 2024 has some potential for a pitcher or two to be traded at the deadline the rotation will be full to overflowing with 10 or more potential starters J Verlander, F Valdez*, C Javier, J Urquidy, H Brown, JP France, L McCullers, L Garcia, C Gordon*, & R Kouba. If they are all healthy and they all work out, (they won't) we could run out 5 pairs of tandems in the last half of the year.
I actually think trading Tucker should not he "off the table" But very unlikely. But a Soto-like return of players that Brown approves of would need to be the return. Washington got 5 players with 6 years of control. SS C J. Abrams was 21 and #9 overall prospect by mlb.com. In his 1st full season, this year he finished w/ 3.4 bWAR Sp McKenzie Gore was 23 and #86 overall prospect by mlb.com. In his 1st full season, he had 2.0 bWAR this year. OF Robert Hassell III was #37 overall prospect by mlb.com. The 8th overall draft pick in 2020 spent 2023 in AAA and has fallen some but still the Nationals #8 prospect with a 50 scouting rating. OF James Wood was 2nd rd pick in 2021 and the Padres #5 overall prospect at the time but outside of the top 100. He has yet to make his MLB debut and has risen to the overall #7 prospect at mlb.com. P Jarlin Susana was 18 at the time and the Padres #19 prospect. He is currently the Nationals #12 prospect with a 45 rating. With Tucker being a slightly less regarded player and only having 2 yrs of control instead of 2 + a playoff push the Astros would get less back. Complicating this is that the Astros would be looking for players who could help immediately instead of 2-4 years away. Not to mention there are few teams who have the budget, need a slugger for the middle of the order, and willing to give up young established players. I would think 2 pre-arb players at the 2-3 WAR level (hopefully with projection remaining) and 2 more 50ish graded prospects. Is that enough to give up 2 seasons of an all star run producer and dependable starting OF?
Genuinely curious how you think Baker used and abused Valdez? He made the same number of starts as '22 but threw fewer innings & fewer pitches this year.
I’m in agreement on him not being untouchable; If you aren’t going to extend him you have to listen to offers. I also agree it’s unlikely the Astros will get an offer that makes sense. I was reacting to the general tone of the thread and the “trade this bum” type comments. You put a lot more thought into what that return value would look like. The Astros are in a championship contention window so that makes it harder to trade someone like Tucker for future value or even multiple productive players without being able to directly replace his production now. Washington was willing to just give up any near term championship goals.
When he obviously needed to be shut down or at least depressurized in August his load remained unchanged and it left him too frazzled to handle the inevitable playoff pressure. If you watched him instead of comparing his stats to last year it was pretty obvious. He has not been much use in the playoffs and is unlikely to improve without some consideration to his condition.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh... I should've WATCHED him........ In his final 16 starts, Framber has not been good. But I don't know how a team already down two starters + McCullers, with Javier struggling even more than Framber (5.34 FIP, June - Aug), can afford to shut down Valdez, especially if the idea is to get him "right" for the playoffs. There are no playoffs if your rotation is AAAA pitchers and an exhausted/struggling Javier. And for all the people who lose their **** on a daily basis because Chas or Diaz aren't in the line-up, the idea of Baker sitting Valdez to "depressurize" the guy who clinched a ring for us less than a year ago would've likely led to a violent overthrow among the know-everything fans. At some point, you have to step back and realize this team just isn't as good/deep/healthy as previous teams, and whatever your Baker objections, he was absolutely handicapped by it. There really is a damned if he does/doesn't permeating among too many fans. "Don't sit your best players - it's too close a race! Expect your best pitcher! He definitely should sit him!
Load management, or whatever you want to call it, isn’t the same for position players and young starters coming off career highs in innings pitched The main b**** about Dustys lineups were his treatment of Chas and Diaz. Most is the baseball world agrees with those of us who wanted more of those two. You certainly have the right to stand strong with Dusty and Maldanado, doesn’t seem too smart though
I know exactly what the b**** is, believe me. And I don't disagree with it. My issue with it has always been two-fold: 1) there were much greater issues with this team that no nitpicking of line-ups was going to fix,; 2) fans are falsely assuming a universally positive outcome with those line-up nitpicks, ignoring that all baseball players, generally, fail far more often than succeed. I have seen people add.... 2, 3, 5 - as many as 10 wins if Baker had just played so-and-so, and that is not how it works and certainly not how it often plays out. I hope the Astros move on from Dusty Baker - but, also: I just don't think the lows of this season are entirely his fault, if much at all. This is - manager aside - the "worst" team of this era. They had a poor offseason; they put too many eggs in McCullers and Brantley's basket; too many players have not played to their potential (Abreu) or progressed (Pena, Javier); they haven't been healthy; they're not as deep (which goes back to the offseason)...
All of this is true to some extent. But you must add: 1) Dusty chose (is still choosing) to sit an all star level catcher nearly every day when the starter is very past his prime and among the worst offensive players in baseball history, even when he was young. 2) Dusty sat an OF who was 30% above league average offensively and also an excellent defender 20% of the time when healthy, despite 2 replacements being well below average (Julks 21% and Meyers 16% below average) The Astros won the division and earned the bye anyway, but it was sheer luck. Due to injuries, the Astros had no margin for error but Dusty managed without urgency. The Astros won despite him when making reasonable starting decisions should have given them a cushion. All the reasons you give are exactly why Dusty did a worse job than he should have. Injuries and under performance make it more important that the best players are used rather than sacrificing potential wins before first pitch The Astros look like they will have an even better team next year. Can they possibly overcome Dusty's managerial malpractice again?
I mean... I would prefer Diaz, too - but he's looked awful this postseason, and Maldy's bat last night may have saved our season. None of that erases the regular season - but the idea you're currently mad at it is.... odd timing. I've detailed this ad nauseum: Chas was hurt in April/May & he was awful in May. But from mid-June on, he played "starter minutes." I mean, luck is always going to be a factor in the outcome of games - but what was lucky about pounding the Rangers all season? Or winning 5 of your final 6? The idea that luck - and luck alone - was responsible for how a 162-game season played out is rather silly. Given them a cushion... how? Why - besides the obvious - do you assume every result in question would've gone *your* way? Baseball players fail ~70% of the time. Changing the line-up in no way guarantees a different result. I'm sorry... nitpicking line-ups is not overcoming having to play ~70 games without Altuve or ~40 games without Yordan or losing 2/5 of your rotation and having to band-aid and duct tape the starting pitchers as a result. It's just too convenient, a little arrogant/naïve, and not tethered to any reality I know, to base your argument around the idea that if he had just done what *i* think he should've done, the result would've been success. Maybe! But there are 27 outs in a baseball game and so to pretend these 3/4 were the most important is to pretend the rest of the game just didn't happen/matter.
But playing the best lineups more regularly wouldn't have resulted in 3-4 more wins? Yes, they were short pitching, but they traded for Graveman and JV, plus getting Urquidy back was like trading for another SP3. What more did Dusty need to be successful. Also Dusty was gifted 2 ROY candidates even if he did misuse them. BTW, if Crane wants to continue this run, he's either going to have to trade for an ace or spend the cash to get one in FA.
Management could've easily alternated Blanco and Bielak to skip certain pitchers' starts. The July-September production from the primary rotation were on par with those 2 guys, plus the offense was returning/at full strength. It's very reasonable to think a 2-3 skipped outings would've done wonders even if those skipped starts happened every other start instead of consecutively. I was shocked management did nothing to remedy the situation. And yeah... had Diaz/Chas played more, the team likely would've had 3-5 extra wins over the course of the season which makes finagling rest for certain players that much easier.
