Sorry... history of the game shows that pitchers aren't as effective with as many innings has Hamels has pitched as time goes on. He'll come here... if his entire contract is picked up (including the option year), and the Astros will be stuck with him. I'm all for what he can bring now and next year (which is all the numbers everybody is posting)... I'm not a fan of being stuck with that contract beyond that. Also not a fan of the "extra" prospects it would cost to get somebody like him. Hence why if they're going after a big stud, I'd rather it be a rental.
Haha fair enough. But if you read what I said, I am not viewing Price as merely a rental (if it ends up being for just a rental, I agree with you that it is way too much). In my above post, I mention that we would need to re-sign Price, and then sign Kazmir. That is how I end up with the rotation of Keuchel, Price, McCullers, Kazmir, and McHugh. That rotation is so deep and talented, who cares if we had to trade away Appel and Velasquez to make that happen? We would still have a ton of pitching depth and talent in the minors (which would only be needed in case of injury, because all 5 of those starting pitchers are very good). I personally think that trading for Price would help our chances in re-signing him. He'd get a test drive with us and our clubhouse, and would hopefully find a fun and talented team led by Springer, Correa, Altuve, and Keuchel. We also know that Keuchel discussed the Astros with Price at the All-Star Game. Price was well aware of the bright future of the Houston Astros, which would be appealing to most players (except Hamels apparently). So the undertones are most certainly there. I am also glad another poster mentioned the Cardinals have been able to sign their big rentals (i.e. Holliday, and another big player that escapes me at the moments). So I believe Luhnow does value that. Lastly, we will no longer have to over-bid by a considerable margin to have a big free agent even consider us. I think we are already a destination city for free agents, probably a year or two earlier than I thought. This is great. That means we can offer similar money, and after you consider no state income tax, and the plethora of talent that we have, we have a compelling sales pitch to the guys we really want. Lastly, the way that the Nationals structured their deal, they actually paid Scherzer a ton of money up front (too lazy to look it up, but something like $40M signing bonus), so then they just have to pay him something like $15M per year (as opposed to the poster earlier saying they are paying him $30M a year, which is not correct). Something like that could work for us, and we saw them do it on a smaller scale with Feldman (12,10,8). Ultimately, there are options and ways to make these fat contracts more palatable.
Not worried about him this year... worried about the years beyond next, when this team expects to be in further contention and doesn't need to be saddled with regressing overpaid players approaching their mid 30's.
I know you are dead set on that thought process so not trying to argue with you about your beliefs on pitching (although I completely disagree) But the problem is, with that mindset, you will always be shuffling in new pitchers, if you are always worried about pitchers hitting their career wall at age 32/33.... It's gonna be tough to be a world series contender year in and year out, if we decide we are going to solely count on the pitchers we develop and never sign any long term once they approach the age of 30 I seriously doubt Luhnow will take that approach so i'm not really worried about it I would though, be interested in your research on how pitchers regress and deteriorate at age 32
Yeah, that's been about as poorly reported as any facet of this story... some people point out the "no-trade" list (which there isn't one), some people still stick with the original story about him approving the Yankees and Rangers. A lot of mis-information... the only thing I would believe is that he is looking to get his option year picked up as a contingency of any trade. Meanwhile, in the basketball world, we have GM's talking players into guaranteeing their option years are NOT picked up. Crazy.
Hard to say, you read so much about the situation it's impossible to know what is true and what is not. Who knows what to trust when you are just reading from a lot of different sources.
Did I ever say they "hit their wall" at age 32 or 33? No... but are they expected to not only pitch as effectively but also avoid the arm/shoulder trouble that typically starts to set in as a player gets older? That's also unlikely. If you look the "year-in/year-out" world series contenders, they all feature cheap/club-controlled/YOUNG pitchers that grow with the team... with the occasional trade/free agent signing ace to push them over the edge. The Cardinals model exemplifies this perfectly (which is the most likely route this team takes). Its tough enough to be a world series contender year in and year out as is... but the most common aspect of all the ones that have been there in the past is club-controlled pitching (the Phillies/Rays/Giants being the most recent examples). They are not all building pitching staffs with a bunch of 30+ year old starters... and if you do, you probably only have a 1-2 year window as is (like the mid 2000 Astros found). Also, its not "my" research... it was done by the BP guys that actually work for the Astros now.... who Luhnow hired.
Cool, thanks. I just have never seen that research and thought maybe you could provide it (or a link to it) since you do quote it so much And for the record, I have never said we should build a pitching staff around "a bunch of 30+ year old starters" as that would be stupid. I just don't think you should completely avoid them and their contracts as you seem to want.
Sorry folks, now I am wondering if I am posting in the wrong thread, and if I should be in the minor league thread, haha. Also, I think Steve Cishek would be a great buy-low candidate to add to our bullpen. Since his brief minor league demotion, he has been pretty good. His acquisition cost should be pretty low as well, considering this year.
Yea, depending on what happens with the bigger deals, a smaller deal for Cishek/Prado could boost a couple of spots and improve us. I think deals for guys like that could help us make the playoffs, but not sure it would put us in a better position to win once we get there.
We won't be "avoiding them"... remember, Kuechel is about to start his arbitration years (and is age 27), and I'd like to lock up a guy like him long term sooner rather than later, as he has no history of arm trouble (and doesn't rely on overpowering stuff to succeed). McCullers, since we promoted him so young, will be a free agent BEFORE he is 30, with even more impetus to get him locked up prior to that if he continues on this pace. I would hate to lose a homegrown player due to budgetary concerns because of money tied up in a player(s) that are no longer worth it. I'm sure this front office values that flexibility as well, thus I don't see them offering out contracts like Max Schezer's is now, or Justin Verlander or CC Sabathia received prior.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Astros?src=hash">#Astros</a> not ruling anything out for next move(s). Could use bullpen arm, another bat. Priority, in words of one team official, is “talent.”</p>— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) <a href="https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/624322170001321984">July 23, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Seeing what we gave up for Kazmir, if that shows what the market is going to be like, I would definitely like to see us add an arm for the pen and a bat. We have the depth in the system, hang on to Appel, Phillips, Reed....and the rest are on the table
