No; I was responding to a poster's hypothetical proposal. So I continue to wait for the post in which *I* said the Astros were interested in JD Martinez and made an offer for him. There is zero evidence to suggest they wanted JD Martinez. Or any other position player. Their general manager listed pitching as a priority and confirmed talks progressed around pitching. At no point did he mention any dealings for position players. It's your revisionist whining that they SHOULD have pursued/traded for JD Martinez because you KNOW they could've easily topped Arizona's offer.
It is funny because both of us have posted about top prospect guides and lists being dated, that the information is usually somewhat accurate but stale. I brought up Giolitto as an example of a guy that was held up as a top prospect, when in reality the bloom had started to come off. Prospect evaluation does have some fluctuation and someone can move up quickly, but for the most part it is the same names, just reshuffled some until they either fail or succeed at the big leagues.
#1 Who the hell said the Astros WANTED JD Martinez? I don't think anyone has said that. People have said the Astros should have made a run at him based at the low cost in prospects the DBacks gave up compared to his level of production. So I don't know what mythical person you are arguing with. You are the one saying the Tigers didn't view the prospects they received from the DBacks were "lesser prospects". Then who are you comparing the deal they received to? We were discussing the Astros. So cut the nonsense and just own it. #2 No it isn't revisionist history that the Astros could have topped the offer for JD Martinez or any number of other players that were moved at the deadline. What IS revisionist history is this absurd idea that the A's, Rangers, Tigers and others all magically and collectively decided they didn't like the Astros prospects. What HAPPENED was the Astros didn't make offers that the A's, Rangers or Tigers wanted....... which is consistent with what the reports have been, the Astros GM REALLY falls in love with his prospects, and the Astros were not making competitive offers, not that the Astros couldn't make competitive offers. The Rangers GM said the same thing.... that the Astros offer was so non competitive that he didn't feel it was productive to return their call. The Astros and Luhnow have reasons for the decisions they make. However this idea that the Astros made competitive offers, but ALL these other teams preferred the prospects of the other teams is a real stretch not supported by any of the facts. I will let you go back to your angry ranting.... I am done with this issue, people can draw their own conclusions.
Guilty as charged. You guys have to remember that Vernon Maxwell and Cris Dishman may be my favorite athletes of all time. Cosart was a Houston kid with an attitude. I'd still defend the guy, just because he was from Houston
I take my original post back! The Astros have a historic offense and there is no reason to spend resources to improve said offense when they can use those resources to improve our unreliable pitching. Happy they didn't use those earmarked resources because they wouldn't have been able to acquire.....oh, right. Now, everyone only post about the things they know for certain.
I know for certain the Astros have never won a championship in their 55 year history. I know for certain that only 2 other franchises (which happens to include the franchise now known as the Rangers --SUCK IT RANGERS!!) have a longer championship drought. I know for certain that people here get really frustrated at me for being frustrated by the above 2 facts. I know for certain that my grandparents were amazing Astros/Colt .45 fans who were convinced that the city of Houston became a "real city" when it got an MLB franchise. I know for certain that they died without seeing the Astros win a championship. I know for damn ass certain I'd LOVE to see the Astros win a championship before I die I know for certain that them winning anything ever is completely beyond my control. I know I find the last fact very frustrating because I preach about not letting things beyond your control bother you...and for the most part I'm really good about that!!! Except when it comes to Houston sports..and especially the Astros, who are my favorite pro sports franchise.
To the posters who were offering "equivalent" prospects. That's make believe history; at no point did I say that. What I DID say is that just because YOU think the Astros could have offered better prospects doesn't necessarily mean that, despite your extensive prospect knowledge, those teams would agree with your evaluation that the Astros' prospects were better. I know it's crazy but maybe, just maybe......... they really liked their prospect haul. Why is that so impossible for you to believe? BTW, note, other than Gray, I believe most of the big names switched leagues.... there's a reason for that that cuts both ways. Teams are more reluctant to help competitors. If you're the Astros, are you in any hurry to bolster a depleted Ranger system for 11-ish starts from Yu Darvish? Again, it's a complex situation with a lot of different angles to consider; not as simple as "Derrr, Baseball America rankings." When did I say that? Was it in the same post where I said they pursued and made an offer for JD Martinez? Or maybe the one where I said the other teams didn't like their offers? You're like another poster on here - read what you want, make-up the rest. What I DID say is that it's never as simple as, "They traded for team X's 6th best prospect, per Baseball America; therefore, all the Astros had to do was offer their 5th best prospect and they could have had so-and-so." There are a lot of different angles and concerns. Says the guy still b****ing about all the players the Astros could have easily had 17 days after the trade deadline.
All true - but you also argued that it was the wrong move and that the Astros shouldn't be holding him back. As it turns out, it was 100% the right move because we're probably losing him in free agency, and that extra year helps extend our window. No, definitely no: But again, my point is not to second-guess *you*. I wasn't a fan of the Reddick signing or McCann trade. I thought Quintana was ace. I wanted to throw a truckload of cash at Chris Davis. All of those, looking back, I was likely wrong. My point is simply this: you and I and everyone else here is wrong a lot. A whole lot. I have no problem with disagreeing with the front office - as I said, I do it all the time. I have a problem with the endless harping on it. They did something different than what fans want. Fine. We won't know who's right for years, and maybe not even then since we'll never have access to the alternative reality where the other decision was made. Why keep b****ing about it endlessly? It's been 2+ weeks since the deadline. Every time we lose, there's a "see, they are depressed! we had to make a move!" post that is frankly based on nothing at all except what people want to believe. Or a "the front office blew it!" tantrum. Or a "they're going to lose the whole fanbase!" etc. It's just silly and gets old. And looking back at the previous times we've disagreed with front office decisions, we are the ones that have been wrong more often than not. This is a great example - I b****ed about him not being a starter over Kazmir in 2015 when we were discussing who should start. I said it was a mistake to start Kazmir. I got over it after it happened - for all I know, Fiers would have been worse, so there's nothing more to argue. This year, I am arguing a future hypothetical this year with him and Peacock and whomever else vs Sonny Gray or whomever else - I wasn't debating the front office because they haven't made a decision yet on who starts in the playoffs. But if they start or don't start Fiers or Peacock or whoever, I'm not going to harp endlessly on the decision after the fact or blame it for for our loss or anything else. I move on - because the front office has reasons for what they did, and they obviously disagreed with me. I argued hard for Quintana all offseason. When we didn't get him, I didn't keep complaining for months, or posting after each good start about how we messed up or whatever. Once it's done, it's done.
It is slightly hypocritical that you make a big deal how you've able to move on from things, without prolonging things, or continuing to bring things up... yet you're bringing up issues from things that were said/discussed years ago, again and again, in order to try and make some sort of point? As far as Springer goes... I can easily argue that delaying him may not have been the right move. First of all, I'm fully expecting the club to try and retain him... as most (yours) response at the time was to look at how the Rays developed/retained Evan Longoria. Secondly, as Springer was likely going to develop into an MLB stud regardless of his extra year+ in the minors... that's one less year of both earning potential and MLB development... which leads to him being better in 2015, 2016, and now. The potential replacement in Tucker is probably still a couple years away from being an everyday MLB player (although he'll probably make it up before then)... and as we've seen with our current stars, it takes another 2-3 years of MLB AB's to take a young promising player towards superstardom. Basically, we're probably not seeing Tucker in the position that Springer is now till about 2022-2023. As I said... I hope they try to retain him. As far as my Cosart quote... that's a far cry of calling for a lynch mob on Luhnow. But yes, at the time I'll admit I didn't like trading for more prospects. I've also since posted several times how fortunate things have been to have it work out. But yeah... keep bringing that quote up if it fits your narrative. Ok... Look... I understand you don't like negativity towards them.... but at the end of the day, Luhnow did have a bad trade deadline. When your direct competitors and other contenders are all able to make moves (Nationals, Dodgers, Cubs, Red Sox, and Yankees ALL made moves)... and you aren't able to do anything, it doesn't deserve a pat on the back. By no means is it the travesty of all travesties... but it was a disappointment for all fans following this team..... and only the staunchest of blindlessly following front-office supporters would admit otherwise. This is a team that even before the season began, needed more pitching help. It was even more evident at the trade deadline of a need for that help. You don't get a lot of shots at this thing... and I don't think the window is as open as some would like to believe. First of all, short (and long) term longevity of Keuchel and LMJ are now valid concerns... and the young recently promoted AA pitchers are still likely 1-2 years away from being MLB starters... and another 1-2 years away from being full-fledged stars (if they all stay healthy and make it)... and that unfortunately coincides with the remaining time-frame of Springer/Altuve/Correa. Its unfortunate that in the epitaph of this season, short of making it to a WS, the trade deadline will be the #1 looked at culprit... but it is what it is. I also see those same type of supporters take offense to the actual players basically saying what they think/feel. Again, I don't see anything wrong with players being honest to the media... but I see those that will always defend the front office simply "not wanting to hear that"... because it likely makes themselves feel bad about the obvious failure, and by extension, it makes the front office look bad. And now, when there is still a discussion about why trades did/didn't happen (or what trades could still possibly happen)... the responses are more about inventing every possible reason to defend the front office at all costs... and much like you said above, its just silly and gets old.
I heard on the broadcast last night that the team should have a deal in place to acquire some SS named Carlos Correa before the 8/31 deadline.
Hypothetical. Tucker for Verlander? Kicker: Detroit pays off the REST of the contract. I know it would never happen, just seeing where some of you value the prospects.
Not me; no way. Kyle Tucker's career >>>>>>> two years of Justin Verlander for free. I'd like to see them find a way to bring in Verlander, but I also want them to minimize the cost. Frankly, $56MM for two years of a 2.5-3 WAR pitcher isn't too egregious. He'll likely be worth ~$26MM this year.
Right. The Astros aren't giving up Kyle Tucker for Verlander. They could do much better than that if they decided to loosen the grip on him.
What about comparing Verlander to Hamels when he was traded? Including his option, Hamels had $85M/4yrs left on his deal when he was traded. Assuming Verlander requires his 3rd year option to be guaranteed, he will have $84M/3yrs left. If Detroit were to pay it down to have the same AAV as Hamels had (meaning Detroit kicks in $18M), would Verlander be worth the same as Hamels was? Philly got 2 atop 50 prospects, plus 3 grade 50 guys. However, Philly also took on Harrison's deal, chipped in some addl money, and gave up Jake Diekmann. Plus, Hamels had the 4th year, which was a team option. With all that in mind, I think Verlander and $30M for Perez, Alvarez, Cameron, Sipp, and Singleton is a good deal for all sides. Verlander would have to forego an opt out to make that work.
