The Dodgers were not getting Yu Darvish if they got Zach Britton. That is why I said Darvish was plan B. Both the Astros and Dodgers had needs in their rotation. The Astros needs were not limited to the bullpen. The fact that the Astros made offers for Darvish back this point up. The Dodgers were able to get more done than the Astros because they offered more and because they made the strategic determination that the Orioles were not going to move Britton. Had the Astros been able to acquire Gray or Darvish, they would have been in a position to move Peacock or Morton to the pen. No, the Astros negotiating skills certainly are fair game for criticism...... they stuck with the Orioles when other teams walked away, they made the decision to not move any of their top 6-7 prospects and they let Wilson go and locked in on a single player. Those all are negotiating decisions and skills. It isn't the end of the world, but it was a bad deadline for the Astros.
Wait - why not? If they felt SP was a pressing need, then getting Britton doesn't change that any more than getting Watson and Cingrani does.
In the end, experience matters. Per Rosenthal's synopsis, the Cubs and Dodgers suspected the Orioles would go dark... like they've done in the past. The Orioles have also only been sellers one time since Angelos took over. Luhnow expects most of these teams to operate in good faith... but again, he's only really been a serious deadline buyer twice (2015 and now). Next year perhaps they move on earlier... or circle back again sooner. They set their sights, were ready to complete the deal, and then waited.... and waited... and then it was pulled.
I'd say the Astros were looking for innings. Darvish or Gray push someone to the pen. If Astros got Britton, it keeps a guy as a starter. The starter obviously adds a bit more. Do you know if Astros were looking to dump salary or have other team pick up some of this year's salary in a deal? I'm curious on how tight a budget Crane is giving Luhnow (i.e. has it increased any since the off-season?).
Verlander is an expensive risk, but is he that much more of an expensive risk than say Luis Robert? It's not my money but I think it's the only move that could reverse the narrative and accomplish the mission of making an impactful move prior to the playoffs.
Some of the prospects that went to the Rangers were going to the Orioles in a Britton deal. You make a good point though, it IS possible that the Rangers would have accepted a different set of prospects if the Dodgers were willing to increase their prospect pool. I don't think the Dodgers would do that as they protected their top couple of prospects, but I have no information one way or the other. I do know Calhoun would have gone to Baltimore.
I don't know if the Astros were looking to dump salary at the deadline. I didn't hear anything about that one way or another. I do know that the Astros front office this summer was very concerned about the budget with an eye on saving money to sign players currently on the team to future deals. If you mean Verlander, even the Cubs were not willing to pay all of his contract. It is just my educated opinion but I would believe that adding Verlander (even with the Tigers paying 20/25% of it) would likely limit the Astros ability to make moves in free agency. The Astros did scout Verlander and there must still be something left in his arm because the Astros, Cubs, Yankees and even Dodgers all had discussions with the Tigers. I am curious what the prospect cost would be if the Tigers were to pay 25% of his salary and what the Astros would offer. Would they offer a Fisher or Perez? My gut is no, but I have no clue what the Astros front office is thinking the last few days. It usually takes a big event (deadline) or a long homestand for me to hear something.
Perhaps they'd have pulled back due to the combined prospect cost of both deals happening simultaneously, but I think it was very possible. That's not how I've seen the negotiations characterized at all. The Dodgers didn't circle back to the Rangers. Arlington simply lowered their demands, came back to the table, and accepted the parameters of a deal that had been known for some time. In the minutes leading up to 3:40 p.m. ET on Monday, the Los Angeles Dodgers’ brain trust was lamenting a missed opportunity. The Dodgers hoped they had the pieces to complete a trade for Baltimore Orioles closer Zach Britton. At 3:35 p.m., they were told there would be no deal. Earlier in the day, after more than a week of the posturing and pretense that defines conversations leading up to Major League Baseball’s trade deadline, they had abandoned hope of getting the other available elite pitcher, Texas Rangers starter Yu Darvish, too. Then Farhan Zaidi’s phone rang. Zaidi is the Dodgers’ general manager, and the voice on the other line had grown familiar in recent days. Jon Daniels runs the Rangers, and with 20 minutes to go before the deadline, he was ready to make a deal. ... The last conversation between Houston and Texas was an hour before the deadline, and the stalemate was obvious. https://sports.yahoo.com/inside-frenzied-12-minutes-led-dodgers-deal-yu-darvish-061433584.html The Dodgers didn't make a strategic decision to move on from Britton and turn their attention to Darvish. They made a strategic decision to move on and turn their attention to Watson. Then, Texas called LA — they didn't call Houston — and a deal happened quickly because the parameters were already known and at least tolerable to the Rangers. The Astros did make offers for Darvish, yes — lowball offers. According to the Rangers, they were so weak that it wasn't even worth a phone call to the Astros in the final minutes because it'd have been a waste of time. In other words, the Astros didn't really prioritize Darvish. The Dodgers gave up on Britton at ~2:30 and turned their attention to Tony Watson. Around that same time, the Astros were reported to have shown interest in Bud Norris, likely a similar backup plan: It's a huge question as to whether Peacock/Morton would be elite in a bullpen role — in fact, I personally doubt it — and thus, the Astros didn't want to go this route. My preference, of course, would have been for them to acquire BOTH a starter and elite reliever. Yes, it's a bad deadline, and I suppose you could question them on the Wilson negotiations — though personally, I was never that high on him, given his ERA/WHIP in 2014 and 2016. However, the Dodgers ending up with Darvish (and the Astros not) wasn't the result of them having some sort of negotiating masterstroke, or Luhnow getting played. It's because the Dodgers saw SP as a greater need all along and were more aggressive in making quality offers, and that's why the Rangers circled back to them and not Houston. Again, I'm in agreement with you that it was a bad deadline and that Luhnow should've made SP a higher priority. But at the end of the day, that is where the mistakes were made.
More in general. For Liriano, Astros dumped Nori to save some money. Astros likely could have got Liriano for a lesser prospect if Nori wasn't in the deal. I am curious if there were just some guys Luhnow didn't go for due to budget constraints placed on him by Crane. In other words, is Luhnow pushing the budget so much already that he has to find a way to dump salary/get cash in a deal to accept significantly more contract than he sends out? Sounds like you don't have a specific answer for this year, but that future commitments may be a concern for guys with longer contracts.
I don't have a specific answer for this deadline. I can tell you in the past Luhnow has fought to save every single penny with the hope of using it on the future free agency and arbitration salaries of his players in the past.
Two weeks ago, if I'd asked you to list the Astros' biggest needs, it would have absolutely included a left-handed reliever. Well, the Astros acquired one of the best pitchers v. LH in Liriano. Additionally, other than the Yankees and maybe the Royals, what other AL "rival" significantly upgraded their team, keeping in mind no team is within 10 games of the Astros. The Indians got a low-level RP. Reed was a nice pick-up for Boston - but they didn't address their two biggest needs (SP & 3B). The Rays did add Duda (1.2 WAR) but also dealt Beckham (1.3 WAR). The Yankees were the one definite exception; they stocked their bullpen and nabbed one of the 2-3 best starting pitchers available. And while they'll probably make the team better (I guess), I'm not sure Melky Cabrera and Trevor Cahill get Kansas City over the hump. The Astros didn't do anything flashy. And I wish they'd done more (still irked they didn't pursue Quintana with more urgency this spring). But the experiment with Liriano has the potential to be gangbusters. He's truly been exceptional against left-handers. If he transitions to the role seamlessly, he becomes a very valuable weapon.
I cringe at the notion of deals being characterized as money-saving when there's clearly an advantageous baseball component to it. Yes, sure - they saved money - but it also gives Fisher, who has been the better player (and has the potential to be a much better player), more opportunities to play everyday. For all his year-to-year consistency, Aoki was not very good with the Astros.
Astros did deal to get Liriano. Astros added some salary with deal (unless some cash was kicked in) even with Aoki. Aoki being in the deal was all about money. Fisher should have been in left a long time ago if Astros didn't care about shedding the remaining money on Aoki's contract.
Liriano makes way more than Aoki. Aoki was now the team's 5th OF who wasn't going to play and could potentially be DFA'd when Springer got back. I like Nori, but if the Astros wanted to save money, it wouldn't be to add $3M in cost.
Liriano costs more than Aoki, but having Aoki in deal saves team some money assuming Astros do the deal with or without Aoki. Maybe I should have said Aoki was in deal to partially offset cost of Liriano. Seems to me Astros were hanging onto Aoki solely to partially offset some salary in a trade. I did not intend to imply trade was made to dump overall salary....only that it allowed the Astros a way to include a contract they no longer wanted. I'm assuming Astros are somewhat close to budget given to them by Crane and any contract taken in needs to fit in the budget.
Okay, let's slow down for a second. You're one of the most die-hard fans out there, which I applaud. I admire your love for this team, I truly do. But this fandom causes hyperbole with you sometimes. Let's be clear: Liriano is not some shut down pitcher against lefties. He's just better than Sipp. Lefties are batting .230 against him this year. (For reference Devo, Giles, Peacock, Harris, Martes, Gregerson, and - yes - Sipp are all lower.) I know batting average doesn't tell the whole story, but it tells enough. I do think he will be useful, but I don't want you to think that we just acquired anything more than a 33 year old journeyman with a 5+ ERA. Hoping that he's going to be a "valuable weapon" is probably hope misplaced. Also, the Red Sox did fill their 3B hole with the Eduardo Nunez trade. And if you think that SP is one of Boston's biggest needs, then you really, REALLY must think SP is one of our biggest needs.
His wOBA is 0.262 which basically says lefties aren't walking or getting many extra base hits against him. 0.230 BA without power and walks is very dominant.
He's struck out 17 of 61 LHB; that's a clip of ~27%. And they're slugging .361 against him. And those numbers are actually *higher* than his career averages, which are 28% and .305. He is DOMINANT against left-handers. Those guys are all relievers - good relievers. (Well, minus Sipp, obviously). They don't have to potentially face a LH 2, 3 times a game, where adjustments can be made and/or a pitcher might be wearing down. And if you look at Liriano's splits, he's better the first time through a line-up (.784 OPS) than he is 2nd (.851) and 3rd (.929). So what the Astros are doing, essentially, is creating Liriano's most optimum match-up: a LH who is seeing him for the first (and only) time. It's an experiment - but you can clearly see their progressive, outside the box thinking. Nunez carries a career OPS+ of 94 - same as Aoki this year - would *any* team claim Aoki was an upgrade? He was having a nice year in SF, and I guess - even at 94 - he's an upgrade for Boston, given how decrepit their 3B situation was. But he's a below-average MLB player. Meanwhile, Price is on the DL again (and has been ineffective) and Doug Fister is starting games for them. Yeah; the Astros have issues with their starting pitching - but it's really, primarily, health. Boston has one exceptional starter and........
The mistake was really last year in even a dead year not getting Sale. I don't visit here to know all of the parameters outside of the trade but when an elite pitcher is available at the right time and you miss that is stupid. They could have absorbed him, not signed Morton and been in the same place. They could have also signed Morton, not signed Beltran, and rock with Marwin as the DH. This year Astros needed a starter and a reliever. Liriano, not bad, good deal. The starting pitcher to get was Bumgarner. He got hurt, has problems, and is now untradable until his situation resolves. He had the right kind of contract they would have moved on. The only other starting pitcher was Verlander with the all of the baggage of the contract and age. With what we are seeing right now I believe the Astros know full well that both ends of the deal are garbage with contract and prospects. Detroit obviously wants to get rid of him so the Astros need to do something like Morey and just hang around until they get tired. They are going to have to give something up though. If Verlander is the reason we can never compete again because of budget then we never were anyways.
