Its all great if everybody comes back healthy and stays healthy (and pitches up to their expectations). It seems that those who don't want to make a move are banking on that... and unfortunately, given the nature of some of these injuries, I'm not quite ready to say this will be the most likely scenario.
Gray had a 3.80 SIERA in 2015. He has a 3.80 SIERA in 2017. Quite frankly, maybe that is who he is. Is that an upgrade? Yes. It isn't just last year. I think he is overrated if being treated like an ace. He's been a very good pitcher, and I'd have him as my #3 starter ahead of Peacock based on track record, but I'm not buying him at an ace price. We won't have Dallas Keuchel (unless we re-sign him). We'll lose others, but good luck finding another Dallas Keuchel. Getting improvements is the right move, but I don't want to give up a lot to get a little. I don't know what it will take.
And yet, since the beginning of June, Fiers has a lower ERA, lower WHIP, and better strikeout rate than Gray. The good version of Fiers has been better than the good version of Gray this season. The regular version of Peacock runs circles around the good version of Gray as well. I've already stated he has a better track record. That's why I put him in the same category as Peacock and Fiers - our guys are pitching better now, while Gray has the better past. It's a total crapshoot who'd be better the rest of the way this year. And that's exactly my concern. Gray gets upgraded because of his name, whereas I don't think that necessarily makes the team better. It's the same decision making that led the Astros in 2015 to start Kazmir over Fiers. Perhaps if we run out the guy who's actually pitching better instead of the better brand name, we win that series and we look back on that season differently. If Fiers or Peacock are pitching better at the end of the season, I'd rather have them starting in October. It's not like Gray has any kind of postseason pedigree to fall back on. As it stands, we're already going to bench one of Fiers/Peacock/Morton next week with Keuchel coming back, despite all 3 of them showing significant promise, and two of them pitching like #1 or #2 pitchers for the past 8 weeks or so. I don't want to bench a second one and not have the chance to see which of these guys can excel as a starter. I have no problem picking up Gray as additional insurance to injury or in case these guys don't stay good. But I'm not paying any significant price for him because his improvement to the team is marginal at best and we're not even necessarily guaranteed to be better. We might be worse pushing Peacock to the pen so that Gray has a spot in our rotation because you're not going to bench Gray even if he doesn't pitch well (ala Kazmir).
Yes. He wasn't ideal, but he didn't lose that series. Their offense, which died did. If Dallas Keuchel isn't healthy, I don't like our chances at all. Simple as that.
If you could guarantee that every year there would be a Springer->Correa->Bregman->Tucker pedigree of prospect being graduated to the majors, just one per year, then I would take that, and I would sell the ENTIRE FARM for a guy like DeGrom. Not Sonny Gray, but DeGrom or Chris Sale...that caliber of ace. Other than that, having a farm system of 5 prospects in the top 100 and 25 that could possibly one day get a chance to prove themselves in the majors is worth more than whatever deadline expiry you can lift off a collapsing team to give you two months of mercenary work. Baseball empires are sustained by their farms. I have no doubt that Jeff Luhnow is going to continue in the model of the Cardinals of the past 15 years.
But we don't NEED one graduating every year. Our team is so young and controlled we are fine for a couple years. And yes, I would bet anyone we replace Fisher/Martes/Whitley/Tucker by the time this core is needing to be replaced.
No; I'd wager he gets upgraded because of his *track record.* If he continues his '17 improvement, he'll post his fourth (of five) well above-average season, the one outlier being an injury-plagued '16. He's a very good pitcher. I don't want to nitpick small-sample-size decisions, but Kazmir left his game in the b6 leading, 4-2. Bullpen was the problem; not necessarily Kazmir over Fiers. He's healthy; that's his value. But I do agree with the team being cautious. I don't think this team needs to necessarily deal away future valuable resources for a pitcher like Sonny Gray. At the same time, yeah - I mean, the Astros are on pace to win 105 games: I'm not sure there's a pitcher in baseball who makes the team *better*. But is there a guy available who a) is healthy; b) I'd trust more in October over Fiers, Morton and/or Peacock?..... Yeah, I think there is.
It wouldn't surprise me if Fiers/Peacock were terrible in stretches either the rest of this year or in the playoffs. It wouldn't surprise me if Gray was decent to good in the playoffs (doesn't he have experience there?). Despite the regular season success, it actually would surprise me if Fiers/Peacock were consistently as good as they are now in a more pressure-packed, "every pitch matters" environment of the playoffs or World Series.
Well, they actually won that series... but he was their #2 pitcher that regressed more to his career norms throughout the playoffs, vs. what he was in the regular season. That is the crux of what concerns me in regards to pitching a Fiers/Morton/Peacock during the playoffs. We all know offense is fleeting, regardless... hence why healthy projectable quality playoff pitching should be the most sought after commodity. So, why even rely on the "But we're the best team in baseball without him!" argument as a reason not to make moves... either this is a super team that can win without him (or any other moves), or its one that can use more help at pitching in case their current guys who are oft-injured... stay oft-injured. This sounds like the defeatist attitude that people had when defending last year's inaction... which wasn't necessarily wrong, just hilarious how it can work both ways. ("this team wasn't going anywhere anyways, so no moves needed"... now its, "This team won't win the world series without Keuchel, so no moves needed.")
Makes complete sense to me. We aren't the same team without him and he is irreplaceable. I'm more in favor of a move with him then without him. Everyone has been in favor of a move on here. The difference is some care about cost while others do not.
Some are ready to complain about "any" cost. And at no point are people advocating selling their top 3-4 prospects for just one guy. But at the same time, the purpose of having a deep farm system is that it does help fill needs when you have a better than average shot of winning the World Series. The farm does get replenished every year with plus prospects. They're not all going to make it. Everybody also loves the "playoff baseball is a toss-up" comparison when the better team loses.... so with that logic, why would you presume the season is done if Keuchel never comes back? Getting more viable starting pitching now does improve the chances of them doing well in the playoffs... and nobody is saying they should sell the whole farm for it.
SIAP, but here's an article from 538 about the "science" behind the trade deadline. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-buyers-and-sellers-guide-to-the-mlb-trade-deadline/ A few years ago, my colleague Nate Silver and I developed a statistical framework for trade-deadline strategy: the Doyle Number (named for a certain pitcher the Detroit Tigers mortgaged their future to acquire at the 1987 deadline). Doyle represents the number of future wins a team should be willing to part with in exchange for adding an extra win of talent this season. So a Doyle of 1.00 means a team should be indifferent to buying or selling — a one-win improvement this year adds as much to its current World Series odds as a future win would add over the long term. If its Doyle rises any higher, it should probably be buying (since wins this year are more valuable than future wins); any lower, and it should be selling. The Astros are tied for first with a Doyle number of 2.2.
I believe he's saying while Gray is a better pitcher, Peacock and Fiers are pitching better right now and is Gray enough of an upgrade to really matter. Just because someone is better than a current player doesn't mean he'll make enough of a difference to be worth the trade.
If healthy, which Gray appears to be, Gray is a difference maker. Look at his last 3 starts. Shutout the Indians for 6 innings. That could certainly help eliminate the Indians curse.
I would disagree. In the playoffs, aces are difference makers. Marginal 2nd or 3rd starters aren't that. Right now the Red Sox have Sale, Price, and Porcello lined up with Kimbrel in the bullpen. You think Sonny Gray is a difference maker against that? No.
Pitchers who aren't fazed, have a decent track record, and not smoke/mirrors stuff are usually the ones who can translate regular season success to the playoffs. Sonny Gray has actually had 2 playoff starts, and pitched well in both. That's more evidence than anything that Fiers, Peacock, or Morton can provide. They may all be good... and 2nd comings of Brandon Backe (who also wasn't an ace)... or they may subsequently fall short.
He did shutout Cleveland, who the Astros are likely to face in the playoffs. 3 years ago he was great in the playoffs. The last 2 years he's been injured.
