Your assessment that it would take something of value is just as silly because it assumes you know the valuations of both Astros and Tigers. My opinion is based on publicly available information from people who talk with teams on the values of different prospects. I admit it isn't perfect, but prospects lists aren't so bad that they can't separate prospects of very low value from high value.
Yes... and that happened with the Gray deal too? The Darvish deal? The Wilson deal? All of the teams happen to magically like lesser prospects? No, you don't even believe that.
By the logic of some of the staunchest front office defenders in here... the Dodgers shouldn't have wasted finite resources on Darvish. The best team in baseball shouldn't need more, should they?
Sure - that's absolutely true. But at the same time, each of the armchair GMs (myself included) has been wrong far more often. So why should anyone think we are right? Remember how you opposed the Cosart trade and thought he was more likely to be an allstar than flame out? Remember how it was sooo horrible that the Astros held Springer back a couple of months to earn an extra arbitration year, because 2020 was too far away to matter? More often than not, the front office knows a hell of a lot more than you or I or anyone else here. So when people come to the defense of the front office, it's not necessarily people *agreeing* with them; it's people basically suggesting that we generally give them the benefit of the doubt based on track record, because they know a lot of things we don't, and fans have a lot of tunnel vision on this stuff. So criticizing every move without knowing the whys and what they were thinking just gets old.
It's a balancing act concerning opportunity cost. Prospect cost wise it didn't make any sense to trade their top couple of guys for Darvish when he is MAYBE in the top 3 of the playoff rotation. When the price came down of course things changed but there's a large chance Darvish isn't a big, impactful addition come postseason.
YOU think they're lesser prospects; the Tigers likely do not agree with your admittedly highly sophisticated evaluation process... of reading web sites written by other people, who, like you, are not MLB scouts. They were not forced to make "lesser" deals; draft pick compensation has legitimate value. The "trade 'em or they leave for nothing" mindset is an antiquated relic of baseball's past.
Glad we're bringing up revisionist history. In regards to Springer, I was always arguing against those who were claiming it wasn't because of the extra year... that he really needed the time to work on strikeouts, and really needed the minor league playoff experience. In the end, the stance of holding him back simply due to money was the most accurate assessement (which was my assessment). I think you have me confused with Max regarding Cosart. I the end, it is possible to both criticize and support . Some always making an argument to always give the front office the benefit of the doubt comes off as pure homerisim and disingenuous.... which would make sense if you work for the organization, but tends to come across as sheepish on a fan message board that specifically exists to be a fan and question (when there's room to question) or cheer. It's also a straw man to say that every move is being criticized without any applauding. You know better than that. Lastly, when you were campaigning for Fiers being a starter for a playoff game, I highly doubt that was simply giving the front office the benefit of the doubt. You were trying to argue with those rightly complaining that he is a mediocre to bad pitcher (which is fine for a 5th or 6th starter, but I highly doubt he makes the playoff roster). There were also some very smart posters here (some who have replied within the last few posts) who were baffled why Peacock was still on the 40 man roster... and now they're applauding Luhnow for getting it right all along. You're right, fans don't know much...
Exactly. I've never argued they should have stayed put; only that I understand why they (likely) did. Further, this notion that a bunch of internet posters have enough knowledge, experience and insight into a mostly private process to draw declarative conclusions is remarkably silly. It's up there with mock drafts, and things of that ilk. I'm going to guess the people that do this for a living - and have proven fairly adept at it - have a much better handle on things than some anonymous posters on CF.net. We don't know what teams want/value, and therefore it's impossible to draw definitive 1:1 comparisons. Just because Baseball America has so-and-so rated wherever does not mean you can simply match the Astros equivalently-ranked prospect and assume the opposing team would have agreed with that evaluation. It's not that simple. We also don't know who's on the Astros' untouchable list - surprise! It might very well be the prospect that the opposing team thinks would be a match/upgrade over the prospect they're being offered. WE DON'T KNOW. So don't confuse me calling you on this as a defense of the regime. Plenty of posts from me dating back to last year advocating a need to improve the pitching. I STILL THINK THEY NEED TO IMPROVE THE PITCHING.
No, YOU are the one making the leap that the Astros were interested in JD Martinez and even made an offer for him. There is not a single report of the Astros attempting to trade for JD Martinez. The Rangers were not even getting draft pick compensation for Yu Darvish...... he didn't qualify. Wilson and Gray were not free agents after this season. The qualifying offer for JD Martinez would be in excess of 18 million dollars.
WE DON'T KNOW! *maybe* WE DID OFFER PROSPECTS BUT THESE PARTICULAR TEAMS <all of them> DID NOT VALUE OUR PROSPECTS AT ALL.
Show us the post, Nook. Go ahead.............. Show us the post in which *I* said the Astros were interested in JD Martinez and made an offer for him. The floor is yours, buddy.......... I didn't bring him up the other day when you did so you could b**** about how easy it would have been for the Astros to acquire him. And I didn't bring him up today, either, when @Rox225 and @Joe Joe made mention of their desire to have him and I told both of them how little sense he made, given the team's offense and what is likely limited resources. But prove me wrong... go ahead:
In order for them to be or not be "lesser prospects" to what the Astros offered.... the Astros had to make an offer. If you don't think the Astros made an offer than you really have no leg to stand on, with you default defense that the Tigers (or fill in team name here ___) didn't like the Astros prospects as much. Your default position falls apart. SO we go back to what I said either, the Astros either did not want Martinez or they didn't want pay him. It is one or the other.
I think Detroit falls in the teams that get a pick after the 4th round now with new rules. Even if it is a pick before the third round, the draft pick compensation isn't that valuable any more for Detroit.
Its silly to also think that they unilaterally decided to stay put. Is anybody really arguing this? Questioning front office/coaching/player decisions at each/every step of the way is inherent to this board and twitter... are you suggesting to never find fault? THAT is the sheepish approach I'm starting to find issue with. Agreed... the amount people salivate over BA prospects rankings as if its gospel... when it is as arbitrary and subjective a process as possible. Its very much equivalent to those dumb weekly power rankings that come out each week regarding the MLB teams. So never postulate? And that's what everybody here is discussing... but its hard to see you complain about people complaining... when at its core, you agree with what you're complaining about.
ENOUGH! Put up or nut up with actual, specific deals you think this FO should have made but didn't. Ie. We should've traded Derek Fisher for Yu Darvish Or I take each of your wives home and make sweet baby-chested love with them. This argument is giving me a hernia.
It is not that simple. He was meant as an example of approximate value. I'm sure the prospect lists just got lucky that Darvish, Gray, Quintana all required Top 100 prospects. Wilson and Reed had decent prospects. I'm sure you are right it is just coincidental that not one Top 100 prospect was traded for a position player while Howie Kendrick is the only batter acquired by a current division leader. Is it possible that when everyone wants pitching, acquiring batters may be cheaper? Supply and demand must not work in baseball.
