I thought it was a risk not resigning Verlander. He could have given the Astros a hometown discount but it wasn’t to be. Bielak? Good luck.
During last season, including playoffs, JV had less than 200 innings. He pitched 223 innings in 2019. Regardless, all those needed innings don't all need to come from the same person. France, Bielak, and Whitley will all have some starts in them this year, and Brown will pitch more. It'll be good to see some of the young guys pitch this year to help determine future years.
You aren't making that up from one person. Verlander most likely won't pitch that well again. 1.75 era is hard to duplicate. Astros will need starters to all pitch solid this year. We can't have McCullers hurt half the season and Brown, Urquidy struggling and inconsistent. That's gonna put pressure on the bullpen. Astros pitchers were spent in 2021 when we hit the WS. Braves pitchers were gassed in 2022 playoffs.
And thus far in his small small sample size, he's more clutch than all of them. Arguably moreso than Correa too
Explain to me why it's better to see the young guys than running the reigning Cy Young award winner out there every five days.
I've read what I wrote a few times and not sure where I said it would be better. JV is gone, not much we can do about that. Would I still like JV on the team? Yes. But he isn't. Sorry, but it wasn't my decision. But with the current roster the Astros have, I would rather see what Brown, France, Dubin, Whitley and the like can do rather than go get a veteran who might not be happy with his role on the team, like what happened with Odorizzi.
For just this season it probably won't be. I imagine Verlander will be more valuable than Montero, Abreu, and our prospect pitchers, but even that's not a guarantee. Spreading talent around instead of one player does give you more of an injury safety net. For the next 5 seasons, if we can establish cheap young talent it will allow us to add or extend talent with the money we save. It the same thing we've been doing when we lose high priced players and it has worked extremely well.
reigning Cy Young winner is 40 on a 3 year deal at 43 million per. Big risk with Verlander at that age and contract. Cohen and his 20 billion took a chance he’s still dominant at 43.
There's no risk. It' just money. It's cheap. The risk is going with a young staff without Verlander. A young staff that would still be on the team even if Verlander somehow didn't match the consistency of his last 17 HOF years.
It's no risk for the Mets since their owner clearly has no issue going over the luxury tax threshhold. But the Astros aren't a team that will routinely do that, so the risk with us is that Verlander starts looking his age, but now we start losing other players to free agency over the next 3 years because we don't have the available cap space that's being filled up by a guy making $43MM and looking like a #3 or #4 starter. I'm not saying it's GOING to happen, but that's the risk from the Astros perspective. Edit: I actually liked it better when there was a luxury tax penalty that had more bite than just financials. Like the draft pick losses. That made more sense to me as a detriment to the rich teams overspending than just fining them additional money. But I guess the player union and the rich teams all preferred the higher spending, so that got eliminated.
We will find out if giving a 40 year old a three year contract works out for the Mets. Cohen I’m sure doesn’t care with his 20 billion… but no other owner is worth that much.
I would have used Montero's money to try to bring JV back and been happy with the risk, because it would have given them their best chance to win a championship. If JV lasts a season and a half before getting hurt again and they win a championship then it's worth the price. Having no GM hurt the decision making process. IMHO
