Diaz is our only optionable offensive player, so odds are definitely not “basically zero”. Also, keep in mind we got Diaz for Thornton. It’s not like we’ll get anything all that valuable if we do move him.
Marisnick can be optioned. There's a non zero chance they option him just to delay making a real decision by opening day.
Kemp started 27 games in CF last year when the Astros had Marisnick and Straw in the organization. Last time the Astros made a decision to have just one of Marisnick, Kemp, and Straw on the MLB team, the Astros picked Kemp. I'm not saying Kemp definitely makes the team. However, it should not be hard to see him as an option when he played more than Marisnick last year, played enough in CF that Astros see him as a viable backup there, and even started a few playoff games when Altuve went to the DH. I think there is much better chance than most that the Astros delay making a decision on trading an OF until they call up Tucker. People get hurt. The longer the Astros delay, the more likely the situation works itself out on its own. Caveat: I did not think Marisnick looked good last year, and I worry that he becomes unplayable outside as a defensive replacement/base-runner due to contact issues again. I think the days of him being able to maintain a K% in the upper 20%s all year are gone. I'm hoping he can keep it around 35%.
Kemp has had a good size mlb sample of 470 PA. He has 0.3 fWAR and 12 SB in 173 games. He carries a .245/.327/.359 line good for a below average 93 wRC+. Defensive metrics do not look kindly on him, as a 2B or LF (much less CF). He is 27 years old and 5’6” 165 lbs; there’s no projection left in him. He is not an everyday player on any good team. He is a great clubhouse guy who you would love to have as your 13th position player. You don’t mind running him out to left or 2B every once in awhile and you don’t panic if he is your 3rd CF. You may even tolerate him as an everyday 2B or LF for awhile as long as he hits 9th. But being out of options is especially poisonous to players with his profile. Luhnow should hang on to him through spring in case Brantley or Altuve gets hurt, but if a team offers anything of value, Houston should be all over it.
If you weight data from 2016 equally with 2018 data, this is the picture you get. If you look at projection systems like ZiPs and/or Steamer that weight data recently more than data from three years ago, the picture you get isn't much different. He looks a little better defensively than he was with more experience in the OF. I don't think he can play 2B based on how the Astros have played him. A little better with the bat such that he's almost an average hitter. That 0.3 becomes a 1.2-1.5 WAR if he was a regular. In other words, he's probably about as good as Marisnick except one plays offense w/o options and one plays defense with an option left. On CF metrics, 27 starts in CF says Kemp is capable of playing CF as the 2nd CF even if it isn't played well. 2018 UZR suggests his defense drops by the positional adjustment from LF to CF (i.e., his overall value, WAR, in LF or CF would be the same). Career UZR suggests Kemp is a better CF than a LF if you want to weight data from each year evenly. DRS isn't as optimistic and he would be about 0.5 WAR worse over a full season in CF than in LF. As a backup, you are talking about a 5-10% chance his defense in CF is so bad that it would cost the team a win over what he do in LF. Granted, these numbers are all based on averages. It is more likely Kemp either sucks or is an average player than he is a 1 WAR player. Personally, I don't think optioning Marisnick is that big a deal and should be done to try to find out more about whether or not Kemp is decent or not. I'm not sure what Astros think regarding whether Kemp is worth a longer look.
https://sports.yahoo.com/justin-ver...broken-bs-teams-arent-spending-211142851.html seems like theres definitely going to be a work stoppage in a few years. hopefully we can another ring before that **** ruins our chances like it did in the 95
For those arguing Jake over Kemp because if defense, if we were talking about a playoff roster I would agree But for a regular season grind, I think Luhnow values Kemp and would take him over Jake. Especially when you have Straw sitting there as a defensive stud. If taking Kemp over Jake means you eventually lose Jake, Straw can provide the quality OF defense when you get to the playoffs if that is a need And yes I know Jake is an absolute stud in CF, I just have seen them value that more in the playoffs than for a long grinding season
Hes debating that its bullshit that owners are milking players rookie contracts then ditch them when they can. Rookie players need to have a opt out clause after the 4th year because the current super 2 is bullshit.
You sound angry Players and owner are BOTH getting filthy rich, neither are struggling As I've said many times, the next CBA will be incredibly interesting. The differences in the sides are pretty big, but what is the average mlb salary now, around 4 million? In 1994 it was just over a million. How much money are the owners making yearly? No idea but it's a huge number, and it's much higher than it was in 94 I do not think we will see another work stoppage, I think both sides realize they have too much to lose. I have nothing to base any of this on other than my own feelings, but I think we see 1) DH in the NL 2) Rosters expanded to 26-27 3) Reconfigured draft system, particularly the slotting system which is what drives tanking more than the pick order 4) International draft 5) Some kind of change to the way players contracts transform from rookie contracts to free agency. This one is extremely difficult in baseball. It isn't like the other sports where players are drafted and are on the big team immediately. I think a system where once signed after the draft the team holds your rights for a certain number of years, regardless of whether you are up or down. That clock starts immediately. Now the amount you make would be much different when you get to the big leagues, but the clubs couldn't hold you down for control reasons. 6) Speed of game...I think the way that pitchers are changed will change. Something involving the manager not calling time, going to the mound before he even calls for the reliever....look, on this speed of game stuff...none of us on here care (or very few of us) cause we LOVE the game...but to get the young fans to follow the game, they need the pace up....it's not even the actual length of the game, it's doing away with the downtime...and again, most of us love all of the nuances of the game....but we won't be here forever and the young sports fan is a different breed 7) Robo Umps for Balls and Strikes...ok this is just something i WANT, not something I really think will happen More of those issues are on the side of the players, but I think the owners know they are flush with profits right now, more than ever...and they know that if they can get control of a few issues, mainly a system where they are paying up front more for players in their prime but NOT paying on the end of long contracts where the players are not strongly productive anymore. To keep that down, they will give in on some issues... Gonna be very interesting to see how all of it plays out...I just want another title or two before the current one ends
They *could* sign Harper, but why? If you're rebuilding, why pay $30MM/yr and be locked into a player that may or may not be good when needed in 5 years, when your alternative is just to sign that kind of player in 5 years - plus, you know then exactly positions you need to shore up the most anyway. Just like he said owners aren't lowering ticket prices when they don't spend, it's not like masses of extra fans will come for a 70 win team vs a 65 win team if Harper is a 5 WAR player. There's simply not $30MM in benefits to signing a $30MM player for many teams.
The system isn't broken it's just that the players aren't getting what they want. So maybe it is broken from a player expectation side. 10 year contracts should never be expected in any sport.
Was not Verlander traded because the Tigers decided they were no longer in contention and could 1. send Justin to a contender as thanks and 2. not have to pay the full amount of his contract* *Verlander had a no trade clause and waived it for the Astros, Detroit couldn't unilaterally trade him
From what I've read, players and owners have essentially agree to the players making between 53 and 57% of baseball revenues. According to the Athletic, players are still getting between 53 and 57%. However, this appears to be inertia mostly from already signed fat contracts. The player side will drop below 53% pretty quickly if the free agent market stays the way it has the past two years. System is broken. Granted, free agents whining about money is whining. The players that deserve the money that previously went to free agents are those in the minors or under club control. The players agreed to a CBA that didn't increase minimum salaries and arbitration salaries with baseball revenues. As long as that is the case, the system breaking down was inevitable as the price for free agents went up a lot faster than the price for club controlled talent. There are a lot factors that have exaggerated the crash of the free agent market. 1) There were a lot of teams that thought they had a chance from 2012-2016 causing them to spend more than normal (i.e., it delayed the decline in free agent market), 2) Astros, Dodgers, Indians, Yankees, and Red Sox have stocked rosters now causing other teams to spend less than normal/tank, 3) Astros, Dodgers, Indians, and Yankees have stocked rosters with players under club control that are better than a lot of free agents causing contenders not to need to sign many free agents, 4) young players are getting better. Players are basically blaming it on tanking. Sure, tanking is part of the reason free agents are getting less, but it isn't the root problem and would fix itself once the league gets a little more parity.
That’s very interesting about the % of revenue currently going to the players still falling within the agreed range. So essentially (and ironically) the free agents of the last 2-3 seasons aren’t getting paid because the free agents from previous seasons (Pujols, etc) already got all the money. Which means Verlander’s $28M salary is the reason Keuchel isn’t getting paid. So he should probably chill with the criticism. To me the issue just isn’t that complicated. Agree to the range of the % of revenue the players should get; whatever the actual comes in at, the league minimim salary for the next season gets adjusted to account for the difference. Or just pay it out to all players as a bonus based on amount earned the prior season. Either way, as long as the players are getting the % of revenue they were promised, they really have nothing to complain about.
So here's how the opening day 25-man roster looks like as of now... Batters C - Roberto Chirinos C - Max Stassi 1B - Yuli Gurriel 2B - Jose Altuve SS - Carlos Correa 3B - Alex Bregman UTL - Aledmys Diaz OF - George Springer OF - Josh Reddick OF - Michael Brantley OF - Jake Marisnick ??? - Tyler White/Tony Kemp/Kyle Tucker Pitchers SP - Justin Verlander SP - Gerrit Cole SP - Colin McHugh SP - Wade Miley SP - Josh James RP - Chris Devenski RP - Will Harris RP - Brad Peacock RP - Ryan Pressly RP - Hector Rondon RP - Framber Valdez RP - Francis Martes? CL - Roberto Osuna
Martes is out for the season. I expect them to add a reliever or 2 from the outside, but if they don’t then there will be 2 spots for Valdez, Perez, Deetz, Armenteros, Guduan, Abreu, Rodgers, and all the other potential bullpen arms not on the 40 man. My guess would be Deetz and Valdez get the nod for opening day. If there are no injuries during the spring (there probably will be), then I think they option Tucker and Marisnick, and make Kemp the 4th OF until performance, injury, trade, or something else necessitates a change. I think it’s virtually certain White will be on the roster.
I'd put it more on Pujols, Chris Davis, Ellsbury, Tulowitski, Greinke, Cabrera, Zimmerman, and now Hosmer (even though that was just last year) than on Verlander. If Keuchel was as good as Verlander, he would get a 1-year 28 million dollar salary easy. Too many teams made mistakes trying to win are now looking at how teams like the Astros were built. I agree that as long as there is a mechanism that adjusts minimum and arbitration salaries tied to baseball revenue, the issue should be self correcting. The complication is that guys like Keuchel that got the shaft during club control waited for free agency to get their pay day are now getting the shaft in free agency. Veterans are angry as they did their time and likely hold strong sway over the union. No group of veterans wants to be the one that changes the system such that they are the ones getting less money in free agency after having gotten less money under club control.
