James Paxton just got hurt and Seattle is desperately clinging to a playoff spot. We need to start bracing ourselves for the possibility of Verlander playing for a different AL West team.
At this point the Tigers have all the power in any trade talks and no real pressure to budge on demands, whether that's money or prospects or both. Doubt a deal gets done. On other hand, wouldn't hurt to bring in a veteran bat at least. Last year we relied on AAA players to plug holes and we are doing same this year. Better bet is to go with experience over prospects unless that prospect is a Carlos Correa type.
They don't want to hear that. The Astros magically had to offer far more than every other team to get Yu Darvish or Sonny Gray.... Luhnow didn't want to trade his magic non top 7 prospects to Dallas or Oakland... never mind the fact we have dealt with Oakland at the deadline recently! Luhnow didn't want to give up his best prospects... fine, the problem is he wasn't willing to give up his good but not great ones either. You saw what players were moved for Gray and Darvish and Wilson and Martinez and others. They were not special prospects. Yet they stretch reality and actually believe we (and mind you only us) were told we had to give up our special prospects. The Rangers GM said our offer for Darvish was so bad it wasn't even with worthy of a courtesy return phone call. Imagine you are an Astros player and you see the Yankees get Gray and then the team you are competing against for the best record in baseball add Darvish at the deadline for no elite prospects. After having your GM last year do nothing, wouldn't you feel cheated or deflated?
I am big on the farm system and prospects. Had the cost of Wilson or Gray or Darvish been Tucker or Whitley or possibly Martes, I could understand the reluctance. What shocks me is the amount of Astros fans that are defending the inactivity when the cost to acquire players that would help us wasn't our top guys! There is zero excuses for that.... yet I hear it excused.
What gets me is that Luhnow was willing to overpay for Liriano, but not for a difference maker. I've followed this league for a long time, and a pitcher with Liriano's stats and contract should fetch you no more than cash or a PTBNL/low level prospect. Period. Yet somehow Luhnow gave up a great clubhouse veteran who consistently hits .275 and arguably our most major league ready prospect. I'm not saying I'll miss those guys, but the cost doesn't match the return. I'm fine with overpaying if you think the guy can help, but I just can't grasp how someone can agree to THAT trade and then turn stingy on Gray/Darvish/etc.
Have to sympathize with the players. They've been killing it all year and their GM dropped the ball. It's got to be demoralizing to know you're having a special season and watch other teams load up while you don't do anything. Not even a JD Martinez or a Jay Bruce who were had for zilch. Anything. That's just bad management.
And this is getting overlooked as well... excellent point. We traded an actual contributor to our major league club, someone well liked in the clubhouse, and a prospect that actually showed legitimate ML promise for an absolute garbage pitcher that had no business receiving that sort of haul but at the same time we can't be bothered to field even remotely competitive offers for guys like darvish??? Who by the way just threw his second consecutive gem for the dodgers. I've been in situations before where you legitimate question either managements willingness or ability to commit to the company, particularly in ultra competitive environments where if you're not constantly improving you're moving backwards.... if I'm sitting in that clubhouse, especially as one of the rainmakers on the field, I'm absolutely questioning managements commitment to winning.
Unless you have specific inside knowledge on what trades were on the table and which players were to be involved, your making a claim that may or may not be true.
Not getting a reliever is disappointing. Completely excusing Luhnow based on body of work is more excusable than the complete meltdowns we've had over getting one guy or two. If the Astros are as bad as they are playing, the getting a guy or two at the trade deadline won't help. Guys on team before deadline matter so much more. Of the guys I wanted, I'm not sure Astros scraps would be enough for any of the starters. Wilson and Reed may have been able to be acquired for Perez, but I don't know. Not sure those guys help if Astros don't get back to normal or at least halfway close to normal.
I think it's safe to say, based on the prospects other teams sent for guys like Gray and Wilson, that Houston could have acquired one of those guys (or Britton) without giving up any of their top 4 (Tucker, FIsher, WHitley, MARtes)
And if they couldn't, well then honestly that raises a whole new set of questions about Luhnow's ability to make trades.
Exactly...i keep hearing people say "you don't know what we would have had to give up" Well when you look at the deals that were made, if getting those same guys would have required one of our top players when they were dealt for guys that wouldn't be in our top 6-7....we have bigger issues than what just happened (or didn't happen)
More shocking, at least to me, is that you continue to pretend you have inside information on what players other teams wanted. Do you have a list? That would certainly validate all the vitriol and outrage. All we know for sure is what Luhnow said the day of the deadline: teams asked for players he wasn't comfortable trading, including guys on the MLB roster, which, at the time, would have absolutely included top guys (Bregman, Martes and Fisher - maybe others - but those are the usual headliners). As honest and transparent as I've always found Luhnow, I have no reason to believe he's lying. Additionally, of the players they were reportedly after (Darvish, Wilson, Britton, Hand & a mystery reliever) - only Darvish and WIlson wound up being dealt while other teams corroborated that the Orioles are a pain in the ass to deal with and the Padres were seeking a ludicrous return for Hand. Additionally - and, again, I have no reason to distrust Luhnow - the Astros had two deals they thought were close to being done that were ultimately voided by the other team. How this narrative developed that he wouldn't trade prospects is just........ I mean, he had two deals he termed "90%" done. Were prospects not involved in those deals?... Also, NOBODY believes the Astros should have stayed put (including, it would appear, the Astros). I've been jumping up and down that they should go after Quintana for more than a year now; I was in on Gray, and I'm coming around on Verlander. I've long been concerned about the health of this pitching staff, specifically it's top 2 starters. BUT...... a) I respect, generally, that the Astros are trying to strike a balance between short- and long-term goals; b) I understand why Luhnow would be more protective of his prospects, especially given the financial blood bath that's awaiting this roster. I'm also not so delusional as to believe trades make a tremendous difference. They don't. Nor am I willing to completely, and irresponsibly, dismiss the real risk of dealing a top prospect. We have scores of evidence with just the Astros alone (stealing Bagwell from a team desperate for a reliever; Johnson, Beltran led to zero rings; Gomez was a disaster....) If the Astros can't get out of the ALDS or ALCS, it won't be because they didn't make a trade at the deadline.
I appreciate your ability to coherently express your thoughts, and honestly the vast majority of this post is very reasonable and hard to disagree with. However, I think you lose it at the end. There's a reason the Bagwell trade is still talked about almost 30 years later. Situations like that are so rare, it's almost not even worth worrying about. It would be like someone being scared to drive a car to work because they got in a car accident one time in college. The Gomez trade sure didn't work out, but there is no baseball mind on the planet who wouldn't make the Beltran trade, even in retrospect. And that last sentence is pretty hard to stomach considering the circumstances of the pitcher who started for the other team the last time the Astros played in a playoff game.
Trading for Verlander is complicated. First of all, he's beloved by both the organization, as well as the city - a legend in Detroit. Imagine the Astros trading Craig Biggio near the end of his career to get an idea of how overwhelming it might be. Secondly, he has a full no-trade clause; he can veto any deal. And he has a $22MM team option in 2020 that is unlikely to vest and I can't imagine that's not a factor in his willingness to accept a trade (ie guarantee my option and I'll say yes). And speaking of contract - even without the team option, he's owed a ton of money for what will likely be years of regression, given his age. (Which becomes a bigger concern if you add another year @ $22MM.) I have no idea how the Astros view the money allocation - but his contract is almost certainly part of the negotiations. How much is either side willing to swallow? That's important because the quality of prospect is tied directly to the eventual financial cost. The more you're willing to swallow, the more control you have over the prospects being dealt. If Detroit eats a sizable chunk, they will - and should - demand a much greater return. Finally, Detroit holds all the cards here... again, he's a franchise icon and they're in no rush to deal him. If their offer is essentially: you take his entire deal ($56MM + whatever happens with the $22MM option) AND trade quality prospects, then they're not serious about actually trading him because NO TEAM is going to meet that demand.
To be fair, it's still talked about because we're Astros fans and we're going to talk about it until end times. But it's far from the ONLY bad deal of that ilk. Still, I think that's a fair point. Having said that... isn't it also a cautionary tale?...... The thing about that trade: Andersen pitched really well for the Red Sox. But what emerged, I think, from the deal is questions about the true value of a reliever. I think he pitched... 25 innings? for Boston. I think teams have grown a little more reluctant to overpay for relievers who, frankly, may never see the field in the postseason, depending on how games play out (just ask Orioles fans about that).
When have I ever pretended to have inside information? Please show me one time i've even remotely said or hinted that I had inside information. honestly...if you think making a deal for one of the guys that were moved would have cost us a Tucker or Martes or Whitley or one of those guys, and it didn't require that level of prospect from the teams they were dealt for...you don't think that is a problem?? You are right, I don't know who it would have taken from us, none of us on here do...but I know who they were traded for
And where do you get vitriol and outrage from regarding me? Because I don't think Luhnow did a good job at the deadline, i'm full of outrage? I'm actually about as even keel of a person as you would ever meet. Doesn't mean I have to blindly agree with everything anyone else does
Sure seems like this is the reality of the situation. I think Verlander is only available if someone is willing to do something stupid
When you said, "What shocks me is the amount of Astros fans that are defending the inactivity when the cost to acquire players that would help us wasn't our top guys!" Let me ask you this: do you have internal scouting reports that would confirm the teams that traded players viewed the Astros' secondary prospects the same (or better) than the prospects they actually acquired? I know you obviously think they're equal (or better) - but the teams might not agree with your analysis. Teams don't make trades based on Baseball America rankings; they scout players extensively. They know who they want, and who they do not want. And while the players Detroit got for Wilson might not meet your standards - for all we know, they value them as much as a Martes or Whitley or Tucker.
