I don't think the Astros ever would have planned to sign Harper long-term - and that's still the case. That kind of money is needed for all the home-grown players we have coming up. Teams make deals for Harper-like rentals every year.
Luhnow had the opportunity to add a $300,000,000 caliber player for the playoffs for a small fraction of his value (even in a narrow window of time). That is why rentals appeal to the Astros. We haven’t needed them to get to the playoffs, but the potential to add a top 10 player for the playoffs without breaking the bank or emptying the system is extremely attractive to the Astros.
Some teams are too concerned about losing the player at the end of the season or that the total number of games is so limited... I think the rental market the last few years has been very weak for sellers.
It's so fascinating to see narratives take such commanding hold of discourse... Correa hit .316 in the ALCS with a .409 OB%. He didn't slug (.368) - but he did slug considerably more than Bregman (.200) and Altuve (.300). Correa, individually, was not an issue. BTW, while the Red Sox were absolutely avoiding Bregman in games 1-3, he finished the series 0-10 with zero walks. I don't think *any* individual player was wholly responsible for the loss in the ALCS - but if I were forced to rank them, Bregman's games 4 and 5 were far more problematic than any of Correa's shortcomings.
But which teams? I see all buyers (small market, mid market, big market) making these sorts of moves.
Who's the last rental that a team paid dearly for? Chapman three seasons ago? Last year, the Rangers practically had to go around begging for teams to take Darvish. This year, Nationals can't get a deal ownership feels is worth trading Harper. Realmuto, while not a rental, wasn't traded despite Marlins tanking and the best two teams having catcher issues. Hou, LAD, and NYY all seem to place a high value on premium prospects. Not saying those teams don't make trades, they just can't be pressured into overpaying for half a season with as many options as there have been the past couple of seasons. Years of control matter a lot.
Machado? Also, who mentioned anything about paying dearly? We're talking about how different teams value certain situations when they're buyers. The Astros overwhelmingly value going after rentals when they have the opportunity to win it all, as they usually do come at a pro-rated/discounted prospect price for the remaining games of the season... I feel other teams do as well.
Machado was a good deal and what should be expected. I mentioned dearly because the rental market has changed a lot in the past few years (especially the last two). When the buyers are for the most part highly analytical teams, rental prices drop considerably as smart teams don't overpay for rentals. There is a reason the Astros were vilified for hoarding prospects at the July 2017 deadline. While teams have become more analytical, there are still some teams that do stupid things. Those teams in general suck right now or have traded away their most interesting prospects already. Astros overwhelming value getting value. When rental prices are low, they like rentals. It wasn't that long ago that it seemed Astros were all about the club controlled years. Whatever opponents undervalue, expect the Astros to get that.
So, after all that, we are back to my original stance that most, if not all buyers, would value a rental that’s not exorbitant, even if there is no guarantee of keeping him. Also, I wouldn’t tout the 2017 trade deadline as a win when they refused to deal at the deadline. Astros had to make a move. Ultimately did make a move at the owners behest after the hurricane further added to the slump... and that move likely the single handed biggest reason they won it all.... but would have been just as acceptable (and likely easier to pull off) at deadline.
I believe your original stance was "all" and not most in the post I quoted. Even then, the few stupid front offices typically set the rental market. Last two seasons, the teams that don't value prospects correctly have not influenced the market as they are either rebuilding or don't have much left in cupboards after years of trading away prospects. I expect we'll see at least another year until some of the up and coming teams with lesser front offices pushing the envelope on rental prices. Regarding 2017, I still see Tucker, Alvarez, and Whitley listed in the organization so they didn't pay "dearly" (my word) or exorbitant (your word") prices in any trades. Also, the trade they did make would not have happened if they didn't hoard prospects that they needed when a trade came along that they liked.
I'm still confused as to what you're arguing. I don't see a lot of stupid teams out there... teams that are in contention (buyers) are the ones making more of the win now moves, and setting the market. Yes, it helps that they're all analytically savvy thus nobody is overpaying.... but they're still paying. I do see more of a division between the haves (buyers) and have nots (everybody else) which also keeps costs low, but doesn't help the overall parity of the game (if that concerns you). The Astros traded #4 of their "untouchable" in Perez... one year after Martes was seemingly declared untouchable. You know these are fluid targets, as it seems like Tucker is no longer as untouchable. The point was that the Astros still ended up deciding at first not to pay, but then finally did pay (with a push from the owner), but did so at a time where a lot more was out of their control, and they almost didn't succeed... and its clear that they don't win it all without Verlander. Its clear they're out to make trades... as all buyers are (or should be) at this point of the game.
