[Official] Astros Offseason Thread

Took a quick look at the Indians off-season. Looks like they lost (Santana/Bruce) more than they gained (Alonzo).

 

And yet, I still think they've got enough hitting/pitching to continue to be a force in the AL.

They're getting some guys back from injury as well.

 

They also lost some RP depth in Bryan Shaw and Joe Smith (acquired at the deadline)

 

Not to mention that no one else in the AL Central has done anything to make a run at them.

 

Curtis Granderson signed with Toronto for $5M/1yr. That’s an excellent value imho, I pegged him as someone I thought would be a good fit for Houston. CarGo and Jon Jay are the other 2 guys I liked most and they are still available, along with Duda and Morrison.

 

Luhnow hasn't traded for Yelich, yet. Lame.

 

I prefer all of your other choices to granderson independent of price

 

Well, that's why they play the games.

 

Does anyone else get the feeling the Astros may start grooming Martes as our future closer, maybe even for later this year if Giles starts struggling? Even though after this year the logjam at SP starts to dissipate, I think with so many starters this year it may be best to at least try Martes at closer to see if he can take over that role. Just a thought.

 

Martes couldn't throw strikes consistently last year, I sure wouldn't want him closing like that. If Martes does get his control in order, then he's probably gonna be a great starter.

I've seen this sentiment thrown out a lot this offseason. Most starters could be great closer if given the chance, but it limits their value. It's a good secondary option if they can't handle a starter workload, but you don't intentionally limit somebody to 70 innings when you may be able to get 200 out of them.

Guys like McCullers and Morton have been suggested only because they can't seem to handle the workload.

 

Dude has no game.

 

150 is the new 200.

 

I've watched Martes on several occasions since 2015. The thing I've always seen is he lacks command of all his pitches. He has a powerful arm but that makes for a bad closer. Personally I've never been all that excited about Martes however if he could learn command he could be a nice pitcher.

The plan is to let Giles continue to mature. If he fails, maybe Peacock if he continues his success with swing miss pitches. I think McCullers has the bulldog closer mentality I like in that role. The Astros still see McCullers as too valuable as a starter which I understand.

 

I don't know if I agree with 150 as the new mark but you are correct 200 is disappearing. It could be 150, Fiers led the Astros with 153 and that was good for 33rd in AL innings pitched.

I went back to 2007 to looked at AL/NL pitchers with at least 200 innings. I was thinking AL may have an edge with the DH but that didn't hold true for the last decade.

Here are the results.

YEAR-- AL/NL pitchers with at least 200 innings
2007--19/19
2008--15/18
2009--17/18
2010--21/20
2011--19/20
2012--12/18
2013--20/16
2014--17/14
2015--14/12
2016--9/6
2017--8/7

For severe contrast 1985--33/26 AND 1977--34/26

 

I think the White Sox could be a sleeper, but yeah, wouldn't be shocked if Indians are only Central team over .500 next year.

 

No Big moves on the local day off? Cmon, MLB!

 

bobrek faints

 

The veterans... the ones that sign the biggest FA deals... wanted it this way. They're happy to stifle the youngest. The youngest go along with it because one day they'll be the overpaid.

They could try and institute a system that makes it more favorable for a team the player came up with to re-sign a player.... which could entice lower market teams to tie up players for bigger money prior to their true free agency... but the theoretical players who wouldn't want to be stuck with a bad franchise that drafted/developed them would likely oppose such an arrangement.

 

The players, young and vets alike may backtrack their stance if/when the trend continues that mediocre (non-playoff competitive clubs) no longer want to enlist these highly paid vets in decline. The playing field (no pun intended) is becoming so uneven, that signing these guys wont move the needle enough to make them competitive. So why spend all that money on them? The article rightly points out that many teams dont go into the year trying to be competitive in the first place. Their better bet, for some clubs, is to lose rather than win.

So you end up with the top 4 or 5 clubs in each league willing to pay the big bucks to stay on top, or be within striking distance thereof, but the bottom half of the other 20 clubs no longer in the running. Too many guys hitting FA and not enough clubs wanting them equals the glut.

Did I get this right?