@Nook when you stated Verlander went to the Astros because of the Rangers, do you mean cause of the trade that the rangers did or am i missing something? I'll hang up and listen.
Nook, thanks so much for this and all of your posts! It's so awesome to have insider info to get a glimpse of what/how the brain trust is thinking. Only on Clutchfans!
SD mgmt was bipolar as heck... in the end they ended up becoming buyers. smdh Regardless, the Astros atleast got a big starting pitching boost (Framber and Javier have been somewhat shaky recently). 2017 without the trashcan BS would be real nice. Lets go Stros'
If the Rangers don’t get Scherzer - it’s very doubtful that the Astros get Verlander. The trade of Max is what prompted Verlander to speak to the Mets GM and owner and request a trade. The Scherzer trade also acted as the template of the Verlander deal. The cost of Verlander financially was too much until the Rangers had Scherzer’s deal paid down by the Mets - after that it was a matter of the Mets not dealing Verlander to the Dodgers (respect to Cohen who went out of his way to make a deal happen with Verlander’s top choice). The Astros didn’t want to give up two of their top 5 prospects - but once the Mets increased their financial commitment, the Astros had to do it. I’ll also point out that there are some Astros fans claiming Crane over paid- consider that just about the whole baseball community views the prospect the Rangers gave up for Scherzer to be far better than Gilbert or Clifford. In fact I have had some with the Astros say that Acuna is better than Gilbert and Clifford - yet the Astros got a better player in Verlander and more money back from the Mets.
Completely agree. I figured this would be the way we'd get him from the beginning (since Scherzer) and happy that Verlander had a big hand in the destination.
So cool that we have Nook in these boards always openly giving us all this behind the scenes insider insight, and equally awesome that all the great members of the board keep it in here and don't blast it out for the droves on twitter and wherever else. Amazing Stros forums we have here.
If you take the modern view of deadline trades where the buy-side teams value targets based almost entirely on their expected value during playoff runs (meaning they view rentals equal to players controlled from the beginning of the season, and they view Verlander as coming with equivalent of 3 seasons, not 2.3), the Verlander trade looks a LOT better. Consider that rather than signing JV for 2yrs plus an option, they let the Mets pay him over $20M from April thru July (while Verlander was mostly hurt and the Astros got France established as a quality big league SP), then had the Mets pay down his remaining salary by almost 60%. So there’s logic behind valuing the Mets contribution as taking off over $70M of what Verlander’s “market value” was for 3 playoff runs. I am a prospect hound and think very highly of both Gilbert and Clifford, but it’s hard not to think that getting $70M in return for those 2 prospects is a pretty good deal for the Astros.
I said the same thing. If before the season Crane was asked to release 2 of his prospects but in return he'd get Verlander for only $39 mil total over 2.5 seasons (and that .5 season would be the second half of this one) he'd do it in a heart beat. Crane got a steal of a deal today and shouldn't feel like he made a mistake by not matching JVs contract for a 3rd year earlier as this is definitely the better scenario.
We are getting Verlander for 2 prospects even if they become Mike Trout and Derek Fisher, Astros had to do it. We won't get an golden opportunity like this ever. I thought we would be trading proving starters in JP, or Hunter, but for prospect OFs that is an easy Go. OFs are readily available, pitching not so. Some might have said it already, but it can be said again that Verlander preferred his destination to the Astros. I'm sure the Mets got better offers for Verlander, but his no-trade clause took him to Houston.
