Yeah, I would. I don't hoard/covet prospects; my attitude is much closer to, "they're dime-a-dozen." I understood the Astros' perspective (which I think aligns with your thinking) - but, yeah - there aren't too many catchers in Lucroy's league and that provides a competitive, as well as financial, advantage that would be very enticing. Here's the thing about prospects - two things, actually: 1) the Astros have made their system a priority, from drafting to international scouting to minor league development; 2) they've shown a knack for being shrewd judges of talent and for effectively working the system. Combined, I don't fear the well is going to run dry and, thus, I don't have much hesitation to trade unproven assets for proven ones. Oh, I agree; dumping assets into what's essentially a 3-out/night position is a waste of resources, IMO. As Feliz has demonstrated, I think end-of-game relief is easier to fill internally than finding an All-Star caliber catcher - even if it's just for 1.5 seasons. If he had been a pending free agent, I'd agree with you. But having him next year... yeah, that's an absolute justification of the cost, IMO. They have to take advantage of their Altuve/Correa/Springer window; adding Lucroy to that mix, even for a season and a half, helps maximize their potential. I thought it was a missed opportunity but I understood their thinking.
A couple of things... -- Whoever we sign as a catcher is probably going to cost significantly more (and perform worse) than Lucroy's ~$5 MM option , which could be used to replenish the farm system (see for example, Braves picked up Touki Toussaint for the taking on $10 MM of commitments to Bronson Arroyo) -- If we lost Lucroy at the end of next year, you'd likely get a first round pick to compensate -- Giving Castro a QO is scary proposition -- you could very well end up paying him $16-17 MM to platoon.
FO had the same thought process re: Gomez. The fact is, you never really know. LuCroy is a heck of a player, and I [obviously] would have welcomed him with open arms into this lineup. He addresses a need, simple as that. But I also understand the hesitancy in moving top prospects for a 31 year old catcher with an injury history.
The player to be named later is expected to be a fairly significant part of the trade. Ultimately the front office was not comfortable trading the players requested (Musgrove, Martes, Tucker, etc.) for 210 games of Jonathan Lucroy. There will be catching option available like McCann and Norris in trade that will not cost a lot in trade. The Astros can also get a mediocre offensive catcher to platoon with Gattis IF the Astros address other offensive holes. Last year the Astros removed some glut in dealing for Giles. They will likely do the same this off season for a major piece.
I think now that the farm is stocked mainly with guys that Luhnow drafted himself, he is going to have a harder time letting go of them Just hope when we cut through the glut of prospects and promotions we make all the right decisions. Gonna be a tough way to build a championship contender at the big league level, it's certainly possible though
Odd. I see Luhnow having an easier time letting go prospects as the MLB team fills up with Luhnow guys and guys Luhnow likes despite not bringing them onto team (e.g. Altuve).
For me, this is the pressing question of Luhnow's tenure as GM. He's proven his farm-director ability to build up minor system with talent. Now he's got to prove he can utilize it to make the big league team better. I'm happy he's confident about his player development and believes in his guys, but he's got to crack a couple eggs and trade prospects while they're near the height of trade value.
Would be curious to know how much input he really had into those promotion decisions in STL. Apparently he butted heads with LaRussa on several player promotion/draft/trade decisions, and ultimately TLR and the GM outranked him. Its also virtually impossible for him to not have some sort of bias on *his* decisions...and that includes trades and the insistence on continuing to play struggling/underperforming players.
He's definitely re-made the organization in his image, but becoming GM obviously hasn't magically changed his judgement. Although it would be semi-neutering him, maybe he would benefit from the LA/Boston type move of bringing in a former GM in some high-level advisory role. LAD has something like 4 former GM's in their FO. Just something to balance him out, because all of 'his' guys like Mike Fast, Goldstein, and Mike Elias are going to agree with him on most things. EDIT/ADDENDUM* The Dodgers have at least 5 former GM's in their front office by my count: Andrew Friedman: President of Baseball Operations/the GM's boss (Former TB GM) Ned Coletti: Senior Advisor to the President and CEO (former LAD GM) Josh Byrnes: Senior Vice President, Baseball Operations (former AZ GM) Gerry Hunsicker: Senior Advisor of Baseball Operations (former Astros GM) Alex Anthopoulos: vice-president of baseball operations (former TOR GM)
He's already cracked a couple of eggs last year. He'll give up low level prospects for rentals. He'll give up more for team controlled MLB talent. He's traded prospects for Gattis, Gomez, Fiers, Conger, Kazmir, and Giles. I don't see him giving up a Bregman-level prospect. I don't see him giving up significantly more expected WAR (as calculated by Astros) for lesser WAR from an MLB player without much club control. I don't see him trading 5 good-great prospects for a MLB player. I don't see Luhnow taking on much cost for players past their peak.
I don't blame him for not trading Bregman. Top 10-15 (A) level prospects rarely get traded. The statistics show the failure rate of elite prospects is significantly lower than 2nd tier/B level prospects. That being said, the failure rate of the top 30-60 prospects is not significantly better than the top 60-100. (i.e. the failure rate of B+ level prospects is not significantly lower than B- prospects). By refusing to trade some of these prospects, he's eating a lot of risk and downside. All you have to do is look at the trades he already made to show that prospecting is a high risk/reward game. None of the guys in the Gattis trade have made a significant ML impact (yet). As bad as the Gomez trade looks in retrospect, the Brewers have gotten nothing significant at the ML level (yet). Heck even the Giles trade is probably coming down to Giles vs Velasquez. And Velasquez was a semi-proven ML pitcher.
Agreed. The Astros do have Nolan... but I don't know how much Luhnow values his advice nor how much day-to-day impact he has on things. Its never a bad thing to have former big league GM's with war experience... Luhnow still doesn't have much of that, and the moves/trades he's made thus far haven't been universally positive (nor will any GM's... I am happy that he's yet to give up that Bagwell-ian type prospect) I think he'll get it and learn from some past mistakes... but I agree that if they continue to have Tucker-like promotions, or even if Reed never gets it, it will put a damper on the "process" they so wildly champion.
Yes, there is a lot of risk in 1 prospect of reaching X (X=expected value of a prospect). There is a lot less risk in expecting 10 X-level prospects reaching 10X as some exceed expected value by a lot even though most will bust (i.e. median value of a prospect is less than the average value of a prospect). He is doing the shotgun approach. Trading 10X worth of prospects for 6-7X of MLB talent isn't risky....it is guaranteed long term failure unless you are a big market team that can spend money to fill in discrepancy. Short term it could work. Astros are not to the point that short term is all that matters. Lucroy is really the only guy that really helps the team outside of a couple of rentals. Rangers gave up more than I expect Astros would. I like the Astros team. They might not make the playoffs this year, but still overall have a good team in my opinion.
If Bregman realizes his potential (and he's showing flashes) and Gurriel has anything left in the tank... this will be a significantly better team next year. Good enough to potentially start Marisnick in CF everyday, in fact. So they'd basically lock down 3B, DH and CF. It'll also free them up to address the rotation. I don't know where they sit with Keuchel but his regression, combined with McCullers' injuries, makes acquiring an ace a priority this offseason, IMO, and man - is that easier to do if you don't have to spend significant resources on your offense.
I'm not sure I'd say DH is locked down. I expect Gurriel in the field. Same with Bregman. Just don't know where these guys are going to play. My guess is one is in LF and the other at 3B. Hope they can hit. For all the talks of Chris Carter's fluctuations, Marisnick is the most maddening guy to me for fluctuations. Marisnick at one point was fighting over worst player in baseball this season. Now he's been an above average hitter over the last month with some nice defense. Still been an overall horrible season, but it looks a ton better now than it did a month ago.
I don't think they signed him for his glove. And if they're this worried about his transition, makes sense to remove half his obstacles to realizing his potential. Marisnick is a plus-defender, though (fast, too, btw); Carter added one thing and he was maddeningly inconsistent with it. If you have 5-6 productive bats in your line-up, you can live with Marisnick hitting 9th.
The shotgun approach was fine in 2012; I don't believe it's still valid in 2016 given the current state of the Astros. There's a limited number of spots on the 25-man and 40-man rosters. It's optimistic at best to think a team with 30-40% rookies can legitimately compete for a playoff spot. I bet a lot of other GM's think he's a fool. Over a long term, I have little doubt his ability to generate minor league talent. The A's have traded a lot of minor league talent over the years and they proved a team can have sustained winning even trading a lot of talent. I argued against this before and will repeat it. Winning matters, particularly for a team that hasn't been winning. The best FA's the Astros have signed recently were Rasmus, Fister, and Lowrie. All flawed players who took the best offer to rebuild value, but likely not the best chance to win. Multiple reports said the Astros made top dollar offers to Andrew Miller and David Robertson; they likely went to what they considered better chances to win. Similarly difficult to prove but reasonable to think: when it comes to no trade clauses, are players going to want to come to Houston? How the Astros conduct themselves/compete will entirely reflect on their ability to attract talent in the future.
I heard Luhnow say recently that they wanted to get him where he could physically play 9 innings without needing off days. I took it as meaning they wanted his glove in the field as it doesn't take much conditioning to play DH. Granted, I could be reading things into it and Gurriel could just really need the work.
Question for the masses: If Luhnow was fired this off season and say Alex Anthopolous was hired, how would you feel about that? Luhnow is coming up on 5 year mark on his tenure. He has completely remade the organization from bottom to top. His teams have made the playoffs only once but figure to be playoff competitive for the foreseeable future. I'd expect Anthopolous, or any new GM, to immediate start cashing in prospects for major-league ready talent. Or to aggressively sign veterans to patch the holes at C/DH/3B/LF/CF. Would you be mad? Happy? Disappointed Luhnow didn't get a longer look? I ask this because I'm wondering, if one more season goes by, if Luhnow just becomes the next Sam Hinkie.
The Sixers never won anything. The Astros should have been in the ALCS, and still are a good team with a bright future. Firing Luhnow would be a mistake. It could have short-term benefit, but long-term consequence.
