If we are not competing and we can get a lot for him, yes. Now, Harris is an all star pitcher for 2 years in a row, that one is untouchable
No one should be considered untouchable if the right offer comes along. Luhnow likely has a price on everyone, just some prices are more attainable than others.
Unless they add a catcher to replace them (like Lucroy or Vogt), I don't think Houston should trade Castro or Gattis. Gattis has good value and 2 more years of control left, and with a good 2nd half I think Castro is a QO candidate anyway. The rest of those guys could easily be traded, and the young player who replaces them may even represent an upgrade: Marwin:Bregman Valbuena:Moran/Bregman/Reed/Singleton Rasmus: Tucker/Fisher/Kemp Gomez: Marisnick/Kemp Fister:Musgrove/Feliz/Devenski/Rodgers Feldman: Musgrove/Rodgers/Hoyt Neshek/Harris/Gregerson: Hoyt/Gustave/Jankowski Sipp: Guduan/Shirley/Chapman/Holmes/Cotton
Why wouldn't Sipp be a must sign for 2017? Has he regressed? And, incidentally, using the qualifier "we can get a lot for him", every single player in baseball is tradable.
I just find it intriguing, that a guy who cangrejero said the Astros must sign (not should sign, but must sign) is suddenly tradable by him. Based on his comments in the off season, I was under the impression Sipp was the entire key to this season.
While I'm only reading your part of the conversation, I think it is rational and logical to want one of the better lefthanders on the market before the season and want to trade him once your team is 10 games back in the division. He's worth something and you can always sign another good lefthander next offseason when not in the hole. If you want something of value, you generally have to trade something of value. I still think Astros have a shot at the wild card so I hope they keep him as long as there is a chip and a chair, but if Astros drop further back...I see the Astros selling veteran relievers.
Fangraphs has Houston at 29% chance to make the playoffs. The GM said earlier this season that they needed to be at .500 by Jun 15th in order to contend. I would be very surprised if they were buyers and I think they will be open for business, especially for pending free agents.
Why can't they be both? Their targets ought to be young, club-controlled Major League players who can redefine the roster and help in both the short- and long-terms. No more prospects.
Young, club-controlled Major League players who can redefine a roster are the most sought after players in baseball. I suspect Astros will look at those type of guys, but are going to have to settle for prospects unless some team is willing to give up a lot for Bregman (only guy I see Astros possibly trading that could net one of those guys).
Nah; I'd bet - for the right package - Freddie Freeman could be had. He's 26 and, while it's huge, has a contract through his age 31 season. I'd rather him, frankly, than the "promise" of Reed.
But would you do Reed, Martes and Fisher for him, or something equivalent? Cause that is probably what he would cost. I probably would
Yes, the Astros could get Freddie Freeman in a trade but it would cost a number of prospects above and beyond Reed. Freeman is a good player, but his production has been on the decline the last three seasons. Also, I don't think it is likely that the Astros trade cheap, under long term team control prospects with a lot of upside for Freddie Freeman and the right to pay him over $110,000,000 the next 5.5 seasons. Not with the Astros payroll limitations. I do agree with you that a young veteran bat, that can hit 3-6 in the line up, under long term team control is the type of thing the Astros need to improve.
money shouldn't be a problem. we still have a very low problem. if money is a problem then crane might be cheaper than I thought.
So would the Braves and every other MLB team. Basically, Bregman is the only prospect Astros have close to his value. Freeman is probably worth at least double what Reed is right now even with the contract difference.
you have to think further than 1 move. Money isn't viewed as a problem by anyone if you take on 1 contract. But if you trade 3 prospects who were viewed as future ML starters, then you're replacing 3 cheap players with 1 expensive player. Which means, your payroll goes up to get equivalent players, or you settle for lesser bench players or supporting players as a result. I think that's where the tradeoffs start to happen and where money starts to come into play. Big picture, multiple players, the trickle down effects of trades
Not if the Astros are willing to swallow a large chunk of his contract. Let's keep everything in perspective; first things first: if we apply any significance to your premise of year-to-year decline, what year do expect him to stop drastically outperforming our current 1B? Or, what year do you expect Reed to be putting up equivalent numbers on a consistent basis? Secondly, here are his numbers the past three years: .396 .501 .897 .386 .461 .847 .370 .471 .841 He's declining only in the most literal use of the word; his last two years, specifically, are nearly interchangeable - and would rank 7th among all 1B. This year, his numbers are off - he's had a rough 20-ish games. Not sure why (I pay zero attention to, well, any team that isn't the Astros) - but prior to, he was, while down slightly, still upper echelon (.265/.357/.463/.820). I would be willing to gamble a trade to a better team/environment would help him, assuming he's not hurt.
Yea I don't think taking on Freeman's contract would prevent us from making a deal there. We could easily take that contract on. We were willing to take on Hamels last year he just didn't want to come here. The key would be, do you take on that contract AND give up Reed along with probably someone like Martes and more, for the right to take on that contract? Would be a tough decision if these kind of talks ever actually happened. Freeman seems to be the "type" of hitter we could use. A fairly high average hitter who walks a lot so should get on base. Before this year his on base percentages going back were .370, .386, .396....but right now he has a .341 OBP which would rank 5th on our team behind Altuve, Springer, Castro and Correa...his 69 K's would be tied for the most on our team. But, he is only 26 years old, and likely would improve a lot if he was put into our lineup. Springer, Freeman, Altuve, Correa sounds like a pretty good top 4
Well, no - not every other MLB team. Those in need of a 1B. And among that group, none are as desperate at that position as the Astros. The Braves are a terrible team; Freeman is worth more to them as a trade chip as he can accelerate the replenishing of their farm. Absolutely no reason to have a $20MM/year albatross around your rebuilding plans. Not with that contract; you've narrowed your potential suitors down even more. The point is - there are guys, like Freeman, that the Astros ought to be kicking the tires. They really don't need more prospects; they have a window with Altuve/Springer/Correa and should be actively looking to take full advantage.
White I agree they should see what they can get for Freeman, I doubt they are looking at this as a 5 years away senario. So if they think they can be competitive in 2 years, Freeman would be 28 and in his prime at that point. So yea, if the price is right I bet they would move him. But they certainly shouldn't feel any urgency to do so and just take the "best offer" Also, they probably see him as the face of their franchise as they move into their new park next year
