Don't try to bring to much rationale into this thread. This seems to be a logic-free zone, for the most part. Since Luhnow has made 2 good moves and had a draft that was deemed to be successful (even though we actually have no real clue right now....) the best thing we can do for our team is trade. Just trade, trade, trade and fill the minor leagues with players that can't get enough time to develop because we are adamant about trading away any player that may hold value. WE ARENT IN CONTENTION. Anyone who is good is useless to us if they are on our team and playing baseball. Nevermind the fact we may not get good value for them or the fact Crane and Luhnow might find it advantageous to field a team worth watching every once in a while. We are now the front office masters of major league baseball....
I see where you are coming from, and I respect it. However, in 3 years, Lowrie is not going to be as cheap as he is now, and that to me is one of his big advantages. Also, I'm not so sure the drop-off between Pence and Lowrie is as much as you might think. As stated previously, Lowrie plays a much more premium position than Pence, and is a lot cheaper (and will be for at least the next 2 years) than Pence was when we traded him. Sure, I agree with you that he is not as established as Pence, but the aforementioned points in Lowrie's favor at least offsets that in my opinion. But I guess my question boils down to this, in 3 or 4 years, would you rather have a.) Lowrie at SS, Correa at 3B, and our current pitchers or b.) Hoping one of our SS in the minors (Villar, Mier, Fontana, assuming he signs) sticks at the major league level, Correa at 3B, and an additional ace that we would receive from the Lowrie trade leading our current starting pitching prospects I would go with b, and I guess my overall point is that I feel like we might have enough depth at the SS position in the minors to make Lowrie more expendable, if it addresses what I feel is a huge weakness in our minors; not having that ace-type pitcher we can rely on every 5th day. Obviously, the top 30 pitching prospect we get in this hypothetical Lowrie trade can flame out or get hurt, but that is the risk you take in any trade, and I would be willing to take that risk. But I totally see your point, and I do agree with you that having Lowrie on our current MLB roster does have value, and if he keeps this up is by far the best SS the Astros have had in a long time/ever. Either way, this is a very nice problem to have, and unfortunately as Astros fans we really haven't had a chance to have this sort of discussion in a long time!
I don't think that's true at all. While I'm with you and cardpire, in terms of holding on to Lowrie (your first post was dead-on: you don't trade young, cheap players for young, cheap players) - there *is* merit behind the idea of striking while the iron's hot and seeing what, if anything, you could possibly get for him. As cardpire noted, he's the same age as Pence and he brought back a giant haul. Granted, he'd had a better career than Lowrie - but Lowrie plays a premium position. If another organization offered us their version of Singleton/Cosart for Lowrie... that would have to be considered.
Listen, if we get 3 top prospects from a club. I'm game. But what we received for Pence last year is baseline (like others have said). I agree with the sentiment that no one is untouchable on this team....but then again because of the nature of our team and how anonymous all of our players are right now, I don't believe we could get fair value for any of them. With the exception of Wandy, Myers and Lee because they are all known commodities.
our payroll is probably going to be like $25-30MM at that point. i don't think crane bought the franchise expecting to never pay anybody. if lowrie is worthy of a sizable contract at that point, that's a good thing. a really good thing. you are saying that the pitching prospect we receive is hypothetically the next verlander or halladay? then B. if not, A, by a landslide.
Everyone assumes the Astros are years away from contention... and they probably are. But looking at their everyday line-up... I see two legitimate All-Stars (Altuve and Lowrie); a former #1 pick who looks like he's putting it together (Castro, who's OPS is now over .700 after dipping to a low of .374 on 4/17); another #1 pick who has been raking since his call-up (Wallace; yes, I know: small sample size but it's encouraging) and a top 50 prospect who is ripping at CC and could be a year away (Singleton). And that nucleus is surrounded by what's been a surprisingly competitive pitching staff, which includes a top of the rotation ace and an elite closer. If any of this is legitimate... and we won't know for months - we might *not* be 3, 4 years away. I think they'd be smart to hold on to Lowrie right now and let this play out.
Wandy has value and would net a decent (though not great) return. I would guess the market for Myers and (especially) Lee is neglible. Myers might heat up as we get closer to July - but he's owed what amounts to starter money and has no closer pedigree. So right now, Lowrie is our most intriguing prospect - but I agree with you: he has more value to us than virtually any other team in baseball. I wouldn't trade him (minus a Pence-level return).
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but again I only concluded to my 3-4 years away from consistent and sustained success from our draft strategy. Maybe we just drafted the guys with the highest ceilings (which come with the highest risk, and are usually high school kids), but taking our overall draft strategy into consideration, it certainly looks like Luhnow and co. see this has a 2-3 year process.
Shoot, I think 100 out of 100 people take getting the next Verlander. How about a second-tier ace (if there is such a thing!), i.e. Matt Cain, James Shields, etc. And by no means am I calling your opinion wrong or that I even disagree with you (because I do like your input cardpire, quite frankly), I just find it to be an interesting decision.
No offense, but I don't think there's anyone who goes to the ballpark thinking "I get to see Jed Lowrie!" Trading him would have zero impact on ticket sales. I don't think I've ever referred to him as old. No I'm not. Nowhere have I suggested getting rid of Altuve, for example. I'm proposing making decisions on players that don't result in them either getting paid a fortune or walking away as a free agent at the time the team actually needs them. Either commit to him or move him - but there's zero point to keeping him and then having to pay him fair market value in 2.5 years. I want the team, when it's good, to have the best ability to stay good - that should be the only goal, in my opinion, and the way to do that is to ensure that you have a constant supply of discounted players when the team is good. If they really want Lowrie at FMV in 3 years, they can always sign him as a free agent at that time. Trading him now or keeping him doesn't change that at all. That's part of what makes him have trade value. Good teams are regularly looking for offense and pitching at the deadline to take them to the next level. There aren't many good SS's out there, which is what creates value for him. At the very least, the Dodgers, Angels, Bluejays, Rays, Braves, Mets, and Giants all have terrible SS's. While position players trades are rarer than SP trades (due to need), they do happen regularly with superstar players. I would hope that the FO doesn't consider the fact they got a steal in making a future decision. What's done is done - the only thing that matters is, starting with what they have, how to best move forward. Whether it cost them scrubs or Lance Berkman to get Jed Lowrie should be totally irrelevant to the decision making.
Yeah I was under the impression we had Lowrie under contract for more than just this year (thought it was next year as well). Just looked that up and I have to agree, you either extend him soon or trade him by the deadline. While I still believe in his value as a player who is worth watching (even though he isn't a household name yet, he looks to potentially be getting there) matters a good bit to Crane right now, if you don't feel like you can get an extension for where you want right now, you gotta trade him. It's a little disappointing to have spent an hour of my time realizing my justification were a moot point but....yeah, **** happens. I'd love to see a reasonable extension because I'd like him to man SS until Correa has time and then reassess. I do believe he is the real deal and I want players worth watching while we wait. But even if we trade him now....he is a professional that has only been here one year, I'm sure he would appreciate the chance to contend for a few months and still not be bitter for being traded, possibly even appreciative, when FA rolls around.
if we are hypothetically saying that the return nets us somebody who will be one of those guys, sure, i'd take that too. needless to say, a guarantee like that is impossible. while i'd take a haul like the pence trade that would be too loaded to refuse, look at the highly regarded pitcher that we got in that. expectations seem to be reducing steadily, and there are already rumblings of possibly converting him to closer by the time he makes the bigs. that's less than a year after we had hopes of him eventually being our ace. he's the caliber prospect that you would probably want for lowrie in your best-case scenario, and i wouldn't trade lowrie for cosart today.
You were actually right from the start, I believe. My understanding is that he's club controlled for the next 2.5 years, so they might have to go through arbitration or whatnot, but the Astros do have him locked up for that period. My point was that 2.5 years is about when the Astros are going to be getting good, so the focus should be on the couple of years after that. I think the Astros have to decide if they want him in that period. If they do, they should try to lock him up now because it's going to be more expensive to do so later, and they'll have to get stuck with the downside of his career with a long-term contract. If they don't think they'll want him at market price, then they might as well start looking to move him. That doesn't mean they should move him for crap - but they should be actively exploring trades in that scenario. I just think sitting on him for 2.5 years and then having to pay him if turns out good is the worst of their options.
several of you seem to have it in your minds that paying a good player is a penalty. tough to win a world series with a sub $50MM salary. (insert some reply about the Florida Marlins here)
I agree. It's hard finding club control information and I couldn't find anything except this most recent arbitration hearing. I knew I wasn't crazy.... The only thing I think we differ on slightly is whether his value is maximized. While he is under club control, we will only have to pay him peanuts for whatever he is truly worth and when that is over in 2.5 years, we can just let him walk if Correa is ready, he doesn't want to play 3rd and/or he just isn't worth the money to the team (either we still aren't good enough to justify the price or we have better option at better prices). Now of course, these are all pros for another potential trade partner as well. I personally think his value would be stronger this summer, if he puts together a full year of his current play. And I believe it is worth the risk to hope he stays the course. Contenders seem to overpay for pitchers during the season out of desperation to keep up, it doesn't seem like position players fair as well mid-season.
Myers definitely has value and he has closed before (quite successfully, back in 07 I believe). If he keeps pitching the way he has, we can expect to see a return almost on par with Wandy. There aren't many teams that are sellers that have a closer worth trading. Contenders always want relief pitchers and every year, one or two teams have iffy closer situations....I think Myers has more value than you give him credit for. His contract isn't completely out of line with other closer contracts. **Edit Let me rephrase what I said above....his contract is rough this year but there is a club option for any year after. We would probably be willing to eat a large portion of that salary for prospects....seeing as we are at the very bottom of payroll in the league this year.
Once Wandy, Myers and Lee come off the books here in the next few months....our team salary for this year will be 18 million. Seriously. I agree with you, we shouldn't exactly be completely salary adverse right now. If we can get Lowry on a reasonable extension. I'm into it, we can always trade him this offseason if his value around the league starts to adjust to what his value is to the team.
