Well, Bill James is on board

[MusicMan]

Jonah Keri ‏@jonahkeri
Bill James giving huge praise to #Astros. "No question, in 5 years they'll be winning 95 games a year." #SABRanalytics

[Mr. Happy]

We shall see, although I have liked what I have seen from Luhnow's moves and hires. I know that it somewhat flies in the face of conventional baseball operations, but he seemed to have good results in St. Louis, so I'd cautiously optimistic for success here. I just hope that the business side tightens up its operations and cuts the dick-stepping that's been going on.

[BUWebguy]

Saw that tweet; anyone else come across anything more substantial from James' comments on the Astros (like some sort of write-up)?

[jbm]

Luhnow was never in charge in St. Louis.  It seems to be becoming a myth: Luhnow's success in St. Louis.  Yes, it appears that he drafted (and acquired internationally) somewhere between OK and very good, but he was never the GM, never made trades, never constructed a club, and who knows if he even made the actual picks.  Yet, in the Houston press and blogs, he is regularly portrayed as the mastermind behind it all. 

Some stathead, who is actually true to their allegiance, should take the WAR (or whatever stat it is) of St. Louis over the years, and break it down amongst the players.  See how much was acquired through the draft and internationally, or came from pre-Luhnow players or trades.

I hope he actually is a genius, but some perspective is in order. 

[Navin R Johnson]

Lunhow is all we got right now, please no peeing on that parade.

[Mr. Happy]

Luhnow was never in charge in St. Louis.  It seems to be becoming a myth: Luhnow's success in St. Louis.  Yes, it appears that he drafted (and acquired internationally) somewhere between OK and very good, but he was never the GM, never made trades, never constructed a club, and who knows if he even made the actual picks.  Yet, in the Houston press and blogs, he is regularly portrayed as the mastermind behind it all. 

Some stathead, who is actually true to their allegiance, should take the WAR (or whatever stat it is) of St. Louis over the years, and break it down amongst the players.  See how much was acquired through the draft and internationally, or came from pre-Luhnow players or trades.

I hope he actually is a genius, but some perspective is in order. 

I agree, which is why I said that I was cautiously optimistic. However, if he didn't have any real influence in St. Louis, don't you think that would have come out during the interview and vetting process? Surely he came highly recommended by St. Louis.

[jbm]

Lunhow is all we got right now, please no peeing on that parade.

I'm not trying to dog him.  I agree with most people that he SEEMS like an impressive guy, I just don't think it is a given.

[roadrunner]

Reading articles on some of the Cards top prospects like Oscar Taveras that link to Luhnow is encouraging.  In other words - even the stories that don't have Luhnow as the subject end up giving him credit.

I agree that we shouldn't just praise him blindly.  I seriously doubt he goes 27 for 27 on all of the prospects he has traded for (didn't one just get released?).  However, I think everyone agrees that it is an extreme breath of fresh air after the days of Purpura and Ed Wade.  He is something we can genuinely get excited about, and there aren't many of those things in the organization these days.

[Noe]

I think it ironic that someone would point back to St. Louis (from the National League) for a GM that is guiding the rebirth of an organization in the American League. But that's just me. Having said that, I am curious what Luhnow is doing, in that I see he's not afraid to trade anyone. And he's a stockpiler, meaning he believes in numbers in terms of you can't have too many. But here is where it will be fascinating to me.  Too many of what?

With Gerry the Hun, it was pretty evident what you stockpiled (had too many of): arms. Right now it is hard too tell really what general philosophy Luhnow has in terms of building a competitive team in the AL West. One thing is for sure, you need bats. Lots o' them. But what kind of bats? What type of hitter is desired? Mashers, guys who are good rbi guys, good at obp... all of the above? I'm sure because he's stockpiling, he knows what will make this team competitive in the AL West. I'm hoping for that actually. Nobody likes to see their favorite team go out and get their brains beat out every night because they're not built to compete in that division. The years of interleague play told us that about the Astros. "Good thing they're not in the AL West!".... well, now they are, and it is apparent you have to build them to compete every night in that division.

[roadrunner]

Fangraphs Q&A with Sig: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/qa-sig-mejdal-astros-director-of-decision-sciences/

[HudsonHawk]

I think it ironic that someone would point back to St. Louis (from the National League) for a GM that is guiding the rebirth of an organization in the American League. But that's just me. Having said that, I am curious what Luhnow is doing, in that I see he's not afraid to trade anyone. And he's a stockpiler, meaning he believes in numbers in terms of you can't have too many. But here is where it will be fascinating to me.  Too many of what?

With Gerry the Hun, it was pretty evident what you stockpiled (had too many of): arms. Right now it is hard too tell really what general philosophy Luhnow has in terms of building a competitive team in the AL West. One thing is for sure, you need bats. Lots o' them. But what kind of bats? What type of hitter is desired? Mashers, guys who are good rbi guys, good at obp... all of the above? I'm sure because he's stockpiling, he knows what will make this team competitive in the AL West. I'm hoping for that actually. Nobody likes to see their favorite team go out and get their brains beat out every night because they're not built to compete in that division. The years of interleague play told us that about the Astros. "Good thing they're not in the AL West!".... well, now they are, and it is apparent you have to build them to compete every night in that division.

I think Luhnow's general philosophy is that the organization is weak in every area.  It's not just one or two.  The organization just needs talent, in whatever form he can get it.  He can then build around that or trade/sign to supplement.  But he's not rebuilding here, he's starting from scratch.

[NeilT]

Fangraphs Q&A with Sig: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/qa-sig-mejdal-astros-director-of-decision-sciences/

Really good interview.  Great quote:

"I think that in the probabilistic industry we work in, you have to be careful to avoid confusing good results with good decisions. . . . All we can really control is the process and the decision making that comes from that."

 

[HudsonHawk]

Really good interview.  Great quote:

"I think that in the probabilistic industry we work in, you have to be careful to avoid confusing good results with good decisions. . . . All we can really control is the process and the decision making that comes from that."

 

I guess the old "find some talent and we'll coach him up a little" is way too passe for the "probabistic" crowd these days.

[NeilT]

I am curious what Luhnow is doing, in that I see he's not afraid to trade anyone. And he's a stockpiler, meaning he believes in numbers in terms of you can't have too many. But here is where it will be fascinating to me.  Too many of what?

Nobody likes to see their favorite team go out and get their brains beat out every night because they're not built to compete in that division. The years of interleague play told us that about the Astros. "Good thing they're not in the AL West!".... well, now they are, and it is apparent you have to build them to compete every night in that division.

Noe, I obviously cut some stuff out of you comment, but I thought these two portions were linked.  I have in my head that Luhnow isn't exactly after any particular thing, as much as the best available thing that's cheap.  So youth ahead of beauty, kinda.  Some of it may work out, some of it may not, but end of the day it's a best available [projected] athlete, without anything in particular in mind.  Do you think it's necessarily hitters (or pitchers or great new uniforms) that make the team more competitive in the West, and without that Luhnow is just aimless?  Am I reading that right?

[subnuclear]

However, I think everyone agrees that it is an extreme breath of fresh air after the days of Purpura and Ed Wade. 

I don't agree with that at all. I think having new ownership has given Luhnow a lot more freedom to operate than either of those two had and that has made things seem better.  

I think Luhnow is a good GM, but a GM's role is only one of many that makes a successful team.

[roadrunner]

I don't agree with that at all. I think having new ownership has given Luhnow a lot more freedom to operate than either of those two had and that has made things seem better.  

I think Luhnow is a good GM, but a GM's role is only one of many that makes a successful team.

Yeah I forgot to add that footnote to Wade/Purp which I do agree with...but still at the end of the day it is a lot more pleasant to read glowing articles about the guy running baseball operations rather than have a guy who is the joke of the league.

[Andyzipp]

I think it ironic that someone would point back to St. Louis (from the National League) for a GM that is guiding the rebirth of an organization in the American League. But that's just me. Having said that, I am curious what Luhnow is doing, in that I see he's not afraid to trade anyone. And he's a stockpiler, meaning he believes in numbers in terms of you can't have too many. But here is where it will be fascinating to me.  Too many of what?

With Gerry the Hun, it was pretty evident what you stockpiled (had too many of): arms. Right now it is hard too tell really what general philosophy Luhnow has in terms of building a competitive team in the AL West. One thing is for sure, you need bats. Lots o' them. But what kind of bats? What type of hitter is desired? Mashers, guys who are good rbi guys, good at obp... all of the above? I'm sure because he's stockpiling, he knows what will make this team competitive in the AL West. I'm hoping for that actually. Nobody likes to see their favorite team go out and get their brains beat out every night because they're not built to compete in that division. The years of interleague play told us that about the Astros. "Good thing they're not in the AL West!".... well, now they are, and it is apparent you have to build them to compete every night in that division.

Hunsicker stockpiled arms because he had hitting in Biggio, Bagwell, Bell, Berkman, Alou, Caminiti, et al.
Luhnow stockpiles everything because they may not have a single player in the organization who would start for any other team.  Certainly don't have more than three.

[Jacksonian]

Certainly don't have more than three.

Altuve, Harrell, Norris.  There you go.

[David in Jackson]

Reading articles on some of the Cards top prospects like Oscar Taveras that link to Luhnow is encouraging.  In other words - even the stories that don't have Luhnow as the subject end up giving him credit.

I agree that we shouldn't just praise him blindly.  I seriously doubt he goes 27 for 27 on all of the prospects he has traded for (didn't one just get released?).  However, I think everyone agrees that it is an extreme breath of fresh air after the days of Purpura and Ed Wade.  He is something we can genuinely get excited about, and there aren't many of those things in the organization these days.

Amen.

[Noe]

Noe, I obviously cut some stuff out of you comment, but I thought these two portions were linked.  I have in my head that Luhnow isn't exactly after any particular thing, as much as the best available thing that's cheap.  So youth ahead of beauty, kinda.  Some of it may work out, some of it may not, but end of the day it's a best available [projected] athlete, without anything in particular in mind.  Do you think it's necessarily hitters (or pitchers or great new uniforms) that make the team more competitive in the West, and without that Luhnow is just aimless?  Am I reading that right?

Great question. My answer: I dunno, this whole AL West is new to me. Ask me how to win the NL West, and I might be able to scratch the surface (a little). What I was implying is that stockpiling because you'll take anything at this point is understood, but when does a philosophy take over? Bill James says they'll be a 95 game winner in five years. That's not a long time, so what makes him say that? The fact that Luhnow is a good evaluator of what he's picking up? That he's picking up what he needs to be competitive in the AL West? What? I guess that is my question.... what?

[Noe]

Hunsicker stockpiled arms because he had hitting in Biggio, Bagwell, Bell, Berkman, Alou, Caminiti, et al.
Luhnow stockpiles everything because they may not have a single player in the organization who would start for any other team.  Certainly don't have more than three.

Agreed. For now any way. So what is Bill James saying then? What is he seeing beyond a stockpiling of anything and anyone that we are not seeing?

[pots]

Altuve, Harrell, Norris.  There you go.

I think Castro would start or be competing to start on a decent amount of teams. 

[Ron Brand]

Agreed. For now any way. So what is Bill James saying then? What is he seeing beyond a stockpiling of anything and anyone that we are not seeing?

You could just ask him, but it'll cost you $3. The answer might be worth it though.

[jbm]

I've never viewed stockpiling as a strategy, it's just what you do when the boss tells you to clear the payroll.   

If Luhnow is sucessful, it will be for time honored reasons: he identified and developed talent better than his competitors. 

[roadrunner]

If Luhnow is sucessful, it will be for time honored reasons: he identified and developed talent better than his competitors.  

You also have to look at the strategy of identifying/developing talent, too (immediate trades and cutting payroll), which is probably best measured by how fast he can field a competitive big league team with a sustainable farm system.

[AstroAndy]

Luhnow was never in charge in St. Louis.  It seems to be becoming a myth: Luhnow's success in St. Louis.  Yes, it appears that he drafted (and acquired internationally) somewhere between OK and very good, but he was never the GM, never made trades, never constructed a club, and who knows if he even made the actual picks.

From 2006-2010, Luhnow was not only in charge of scouting out draftees, he was also in charge of player development for the guys in the system.  And if there's anything I've learned from lurking these boards, it's that drafting the right guys is only half the battle...you've got to develop them properly, too.  I liked the idea of a combined scouting/player development guy when the Cards were doing it, on the theory that with a cohesive system like that, you'd be more likely to draft guys whose talents and attitude will play well with the team's development program. 

So in short, Luhnow wasn't in charge in St. Louis, but being the head of both scouting and player development do (which I'm not sure I've seen any other team do) seems like a pretty good dry run for constructing a club.

Some stathead, who is actually true to their allegiance, should take the WAR (or whatever stat it is) of St. Louis over the years, and break it down amongst the players.  See how much was acquired through the draft and internationally, or came from pre-Luhnow players or trades.

Viva El Birdos did something like this recently. (Link) The upshot:  Since 2008, the Cardinals have gotten more WAR-based production from "homegrown" players than outside acquisitions.  Each year from 2009-2012, the Cards got somewhere between 24 WAR and 29.5 WAR from guys who were drafted or brought into the org at AA or lower.  For reference, if I can operate Fangraphs properly, the entire Astros team only put up 27.1 WAR in 2009 (their best year from the same time frame), and that's when Bourn, Wandy, and Pence were contributing 4.9 WAR, 4.0, and 4.0 WAR, respectively. 

You can quibble with the methodology a bit--in 2012, they got 6.5 WAR from Yadier Molina, a guy that Luhnow neither drafted nor developed--but they've gotten a lot of positive value from their farm lately (Jon Jay, Allen Craig, Colby Rasmus, Skip Schumaker, Brendan Ryan, Lance Lynn, Jamie Garcia,).

Hell if I know whether Luhnow will wring good results from this Astros team, but the process feels right. 

[Ron Brand]

Thanks a lot, AstroAndy.

[jbm]

It actually doesn't answer that much for me, if the basic question is whether Luhnow's methods show an edge over his competitors.  That is what we are after, isn't it?

For example, I can accept including as homegrown players you traded for while they were still minor leaguers.  However, who gets the credit for identifying that talent?  Also, I assume that Pujols was, until last year, a large part of the homegrown WAR.  That fact is important if you are demonstrating homegrown talent, but it says nothing about Luhnow's methods.

The data is is interesting, but it would be more interesting when compared to other orgs (as AA did), but it is sloppy (very sloppy actually) for the author to throw out a Luhnow implied conclusion given the way the data was presented.

That being said, Luhnow no doubt has identified mid level talent (in my opinion, but I have no data to back that up) better than his competitors.  My biggest concern is whether his methods identify the big scores, or high level players most teams need to survive, though he deserves ample credit for taking big swings in the last draft.  That surprised and encouraged me.

[Noe]

From 2006-2010, Luhnow was not only in charge of scouting out draftees, he was also in charge of player development for the guys in the system.  And if there's anything I've learned from lurking these boards, it's that drafting the right guys is only half the battle...you've got to develop them properly, too.  I liked the idea of a combined scouting/player development guy when the Cards were doing it, on the theory that with a cohesive system like that, you'd be more likely to draft guys whose talents and attitude will play well with the team's development program. 

So in short, Luhnow wasn't in charge in St. Louis, but being the head of both scouting and player development do (which I'm not sure I've seen any other team do) seems like a pretty good dry run for constructing a club.

Viva El Birdos did something like this recently. (Link) The upshot:  Since 2008, the Cardinals have gotten more WAR-based production from "homegrown" players than outside acquisitions.  Each year from 2009-2012, the Cards got somewhere between 24 WAR and 29.5 WAR from guys who were drafted or brought into the org at AA or lower.  For reference, if I can operate Fangraphs properly, the entire Astros team only put up 27.1 WAR in 2009 (their best year from the same time frame), and that's when Bourn, Wandy, and Pence were contributing 4.9 WAR, 4.0, and 4.0 WAR, respectively. 

You can quibble with the methodology a bit--in 2012, they got 6.5 WAR from Yadier Molina, a guy that Luhnow neither drafted nor developed--but they've gotten a lot of positive value from their farm lately (Jon Jay, Allen Craig, Colby Rasmus, Skip Schumaker, Brendan Ryan, Lance Lynn, Jamie Garcia,).

Hell if I know whether Luhnow will wring good results from this Astros team, but the process feels right. 

Wow, and this did not cost 3 dollars either! Well done.

[pots]

From 2006-2010, Luhnow was not only in charge of scouting out draftees, he was also in charge of player development for the guys in the system.  And if there's anything I've learned from lurking these boards, it's that drafting the right guys is only half the battle...you've got to develop them properly, too.  I liked the idea of a combined scouting/player development guy when the Cards were doing it, on the theory that with a cohesive system like that, you'd be more likely to draft guys whose talents and attitude will play well with the team's development program. 

So in short, Luhnow wasn't in charge in St. Louis, but being the head of both scouting and player development do (which I'm not sure I've seen any other team do) seems like a pretty good dry run for constructing a club.

Viva El Birdos did something like this recently. (Link) The upshot:  Since 2008, the Cardinals have gotten more WAR-based production from "homegrown" players than outside acquisitions.  Each year from 2009-2012, the Cards got somewhere between 24 WAR and 29.5 WAR from guys who were drafted or brought into the org at AA or lower.  For reference, if I can operate Fangraphs properly, the entire Astros team only put up 27.1 WAR in 2009 (their best year from the same time frame), and that's when Bourn, Wandy, and Pence were contributing 4.9 WAR, 4.0, and 4.0 WAR, respectively. 

You can quibble with the methodology a bit--in 2012, they got 6.5 WAR from Yadier Molina, a guy that Luhnow neither drafted nor developed--but they've gotten a lot of positive value from their farm lately (Jon Jay, Allen Craig, Colby Rasmus, Skip Schumaker, Brendan Ryan, Lance Lynn, Jamie Garcia,).

Hell if I know whether Luhnow will wring good results from this Astros team, but the process feels right. 

Post more read less

[ferret]

The Cardinals experiment with combining scouting and player development ended in 2010.  One of the concerns the Cardinals had was the lack of development for the pitchers.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/luhnow-relieved-of-some-duties/article_00c8a06f-b3d5-585c-a28e-07bb8a60dfa4.html

James' comment is interesting.  Is he projecting the current Astros roster to win 95 games or is he simply expressing confidence in Luhnow's methods and projecting future draft success?

[Bench]

James' comment is interesting.  Is he projecting the current Astros roster to win 95 games or is he simply expressing confidence in Luhnow's methods and projecting future draft success?

I'm going with the latter.

[Limey]

Is he projecting the current Astros roster to win 95 games...?

Maybe he was talking in the aggregate, over two or more seasons.

[roadrunner]

Keith Law's new podcast had Luhnow on as his first guest.  The most interesting thing was Luhnow's take on the new CBA that basically goes against everything Law has been saying about it.  I've never understood why Law thinks the new CBA is out to hurt rebuilding teams.

http://frontrow.espn.go.com/tag/behind-the-dish-with-keith-law/

[Mr. Happy]

Keith Law's new podcast had Luhnow on as his first guest.  The most interesting thing was Luhnow's take on the new CBA that basically goes against everything Law has been saying about it.  I've never understood why Law thinks the new CBA is out to hurt rebuilding teams.

http://frontrow.espn.go.com/tag/behind-the-dish-with-keith-law/

Allow me to assist you: Keith. Law. Is. An. Idiot.

[moriartp]

As far as I can tell, Law is in favor of replacing the draft with amateur free agency. Any additional draft restrictions are going to bother him. Why he thinks his idea would be better for competitive balance in the long run is beyond me.

[astrosfan76]

As far as I can tell, Law is in favor of replacing the draft with amateur free agency. Any additional draft restrictions are going to bother him. Why he thinks his idea would be better for competitive balance in the long run is beyond me.

I have heard concerns from some small-market teams that the CBA hurts those teams once they are competitive (think Rays).  They do lose an advantage in that sense.  I get that, though MLB did provide a lottery with additional, tradeable picks for small-market teams.  So, it's not like MLB completely forgot about them.  The current system isn't perfect (St. Louis gets extra picks?), but is an improvement over the old system. 

[MusicMan]

Allow me to assist you: Keith. Law. Is. An. Idiot.

There are worse philosophies than "The opposite of everything Keith Law thinks."

[Mr. Happy]

There are worse philosophies than "The opposite of everything Keith Law thinks."

That is no doubt true, but I wouldn't deign to classify Law  as a philosopher.

[roadrunner]

I have heard concerns from some small-market teams that the CBA hurts those teams once they are competitive (think Rays).  They do lose an advantage in that sense.  I get that, though MLB did provide a lottery with additional, tradeable picks for small-market teams.  So, it's not like MLB completely forgot about them.  The current system isn't perfect (St. Louis gets extra picks?), but is an improvement over the old system. 

That makes sense because Law always uses the Rays as an example. 

And this isn't a Law-specific complaint.  A lot of baseball people complain about it.

Law isn't perfect, but he is good.  And I love the snark.

[moriartp]

Well, Whitey ain't on board:

If I'm an ALE or ALC owner, Houston's plan to have no payroll, lose,get the 1-2 pick 4 years in a row and still steal revenue-sharing $--

may guarantee 3 teams in the AL West win 90 games and make the playoffs, and spit on the integrity of the sport. Fellow big market teams who

have payrolls under $40M should 1.not get revenue-sharing and 2. be out of the protected pick business. Rewarding trying to lose is wrong

[Mr. Happy]

Well, Whitey ain't on board:

Consider. The. Source. That old fucker probably won't even be around when the Astros come roaring back.

[astrosfan76]

Well, Whitey ain't on board:

He ain't right, either. The implication that Houston is getting extra revenue-sharing money is false. It's not a simple system where the less you spend, the more you get (see link below). They probably do get some, but not very much.

Who is he to say when a club's approach is best for "the integrity of the game"? Is it better for the integrity of the game that they prolong the time it takes them to be competitive but add 5-6 wins in the short-term? You can get into all kinds of arguments over what's best for the game, but who's going to be the judge? I find the Marlins situation much more detrimental to the "game's integrity" than being upfront about their intentions.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/marlins-mlb-revenue-sharing-syste/

[MusicMan]

If that's his attitude towards the Astros, then he should be actively trying to kill Jeffrey Loria.

[Navin R Johnson]

He ain't right, either. The implication that Houston is getting extra revenue-sharing money is false. It's not a simple system where the less you spend, the more you get (see link below). They probably do get some, but not very much.

Who is he to say when a club's approach is best for "the integrity of the game"? Is it better for the integrity of the game that they prolong the time it takes them to be competitive but add 5-6 wins in the short-term? You can get into all kinds of arguments over what's best for the game, but who's going to be the judge? I find the Marlins situation much more detrimental to the "game's integrity" than being upfront about their intentions.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/marlins-mlb-revenue-sharing-syste/

The Astros TOTAL payroll will be less than nearly 40 individual players make!  This isn't being cheap, it is monumentally cheap.

CraneCo is putting a product on the field that is laughable, except to the people that are paying $15 to $170 a ticket (based on Dynamic Pricing)

Which gets me to what bugs me the most about this shell game that Crane is playing.  If CraneCo spends $15 million on salary o 40 million (still bottom 5% of MLB) that doesnt have to retard building the minor league system.  Claiming the ONLY way to rebuild the Houston Astros is by having a $15 million payroll for 4 years is bullshit.

[Ron Brand]

Look, I don't like the team as it was configured last year. Maybe some of this year's guys show us something, I don't know. The point is that they're getting a chance. Adding to the payroll to hit some number that would make you and others comfortable would no doubt mean entering into multiyear contracts. The players available to sign to those contracts over the last couple of years are not marquee names with marquee results. Locking in mediocrity would only get the team to the 70-75 win level at best, and block the development program they have in place.

Which free agents would you have them sign? What's the big deal about getting to 75 wins, when a sustainable 95 is the goal and it takes a long time to get there? I'm no fan of Crane's ghastly PR incompetence, but giving Luhnow rein to make these moves seems to me the way to go if you want to build a strong infrastructure.

[Ty in Tampa]

Fuck Whitey Gammons.

[Mr. Happy]

Look, I don't like the team as it was configured last year. Maybe some of this year's guys show us something, I don't know. The point is that they're getting a chance. Adding to the payroll to hit some number that would make you and others comfortable would no doubt mean entering into multiyear contracts. The players available to sign to those contracts over the last couple of years are not marquee names with marquee results. Locking in mediocrity would only get the team to the 70-75 win level at best, and block the development program they have in place.

Which free agents would you have them sign? What's the big deal about getting to 75 wins, when a sustainable 95 is the goal and it takes a long time to get there? I'm no fan of Crane's ghastly PR incompetence, but giving Luhnow rein to make these moves seems to me the way to go if you want to build a strong infrastructure.

+infinity If given the choice between 70-70-75 over a three year period versus 55-70-90, put me down for the latter.

[juliogotay]

Who says that free agents would want to be in Houston at this time? No one is forcing these MLB vets to play in Houston even if a contract is offered. If they are viable candidates to turn around a franchise, they will have multiple suitors. Most guys, in addition to wanting to get market value, want a chance to win. They don't all have ranches nearby.

[NeilT]

Who says that free agents would want to be in Houston at this time? No one is forcing these MLB vets to play in Houston even if a contract is offered. If they are viable candidates to turn around a franchise, they will have multiple suitors. Most guys, in addition to wanting to get market value, want a chance to win. They don't all have ranches nearby.

Maybe they could sign Kyle Lohse.  What with Boras as his agent and all, I bet Lohse would be happy to sign a one-year deal with the Astros.

[pots]

Plus from a business standpoint, paying off debt now during the rebuild process will give them more flexibility in a few years when that expensive free agent might get them over the top.

[pots]

Also like to add, this ballclub is looking better than expected.  Way early but offensively at least, pieces are filling out quite nicely. 

[subnuclear]

Also like to add, this ballclub is looking better than expected.  Way early but offensively at least, pieces are filling out quite nicely. 

Spring is a wonderful time of year.

[NeilT]

Spring is a wonderful time of year.

I'm thinking 93 wins, easy.

[Jacksonian]

Spring is a wonderful time of year.

Full of false hope and blissfully ignoring the coming scorched earth summer.

Ah, Spring.

[pots]

Didn't say they were going to win more than lose, just that the offense seems improved from last year.  Possibly even significantly improved.  Still no pitching and the defense is suspect at best.  Still losing at least 90.

 

 

[roadrunner]

Everyone is also ignoring that Luhnow and Crane are making best of the new rules set in place by the CBA.  The worse you are = the more money you have to spend internationally and on the draft.  Signing mediocre players on the downside of their careers to help produce 10 more wins (which is not at all guaranteed) will only hurt your strive to build a better system through the draft.

[subnuclear]

Didn't say they were going to win more than lose, just that the offense seems improved from last year.  Possibly even significantly improved.  Still no pitching and the defense is suspect at best.  Still losing at least 90.

There are things I'm looking forward to as well, but I'm just not sure its wise to do so.

[Mr. Happy]

Everyone is also ignoring that Luhnow and Crane are making best of the new rules set in place by the CBA.  The worse you are = the more money you have to spend internationally and on the draft.  Signing mediocre players on the downside of their careers to help produce 10 more wins (which is not at all guaranteed) will only hurt your strive to build a better system through the draft.

I subscribe to this wholeheartedly. Besides, no bigtime free agent wants to come to the Astros right now, which leaves us the Pedro Felizes and Miguel Tejadas (I realize that he came by way of trade) of the world, who won't add more than 5-7 wins and probably cost us a first round first selection.

[Limey]

+infinity If given the choice between 70-70-75 over a three year period versus 55-70-90, put me down for the latter.

[Lloyd] So you're saying they're going to win 55! [/Lloyd]

[Limey]

Everyone is also ignoring that Luhnow and Crane are making best of the new rules set in place by the CBA.  The worse you are = the more money you have to spend internationally and on the draft.  Signing mediocre players on the downside of their careers to help produce 10 more wins (which is not at all guaranteed) will only hurt your strive to build a better system through the draft.

AKA The Harnisch Fallacy.

[roadrunner]

I subscribe to this wholeheartedly. Besides, no bigtime free agent wants to come to the Astros right now, which leaves us the Pedro Felizes and Miguel Tejadas (I realize that he came by way of trade) of the world, who won't add more than 5-7 wins and probably cost us a first round first selection.

I guess this could be one consequence of the new CBA that not many people predicted.  Controlling teams' ability to spend based on the major league's team performance will lead to tanking.  It's not as slam dunk as tanking is in the NBA, but it's more incentive than there was in place before...especially in years like 2013/14 when there should be no reason to tank without a clear-cut #1 prospect like Strasburg or Harper.

[Randy Watson]

To get back to 90+ wins in the shortest amount of time is my goal.  I like what the Astros are doing.

[Noe]

My head is spinning. What eggzactly did both Bill James and Peter Gammons say? This is what I read:

James "In five years, the Astros will win 95 games"
Gammons "The Astos plan to get the 1-2 pick 4 years in a row and still steal revenue-sharing $"

Me no understand, James says five years the Astros will win 95 games, Gammons says the Astros "plan" on 4 years of getting the 1-2 pick (which I took it to mean they do not plan to be competitive). So are you guys saying that Gammons is wrong and James is right... or that there is no way that the Astros tank 4 years for the 1-2 pick and steal revenue sharing dollars? That in fact, by say year 2 or 3, they'll turn the corner on their way to that magical 5th year of 95 wins?

This is confusing.

[subnuclear]

The Nationals went 59, 59, 69, 80, 98 wins in 2008-2012.

[Noe]

The Nationals went 59, 59, 69, 80, 98 wins in 2008-2012.

That shoots down Gammons for sure... no way you get the 1-2 pick with 80 wins. Are the Astros on the Nationals plan and if not, can someone shoot them a copy of the playbook!

[moriartp]

My head is spinning. What eggzactly did both Bill James and Peter Gammons say? This is what I read:

James "In five years, the Astros will win 95 games"
Gammons "The Astos plan to get the 1-2 pick 4 years in a row and still steal revenue-sharing $"

Me no understand, James says five years the Astros will win 95 games, Gammons says the Astros "plan" on 4 years of getting the 1-2 pick (which I took it to mean they do not plan to be competitive). So are you guys saying that Gammons is wrong and James is right... or that there is no way that the Astros tank 4 years for the 1-2 pick and steal revenue sharing dollars? That in fact, by say year 2 or 3, they'll turn the corner on their way to that magical 5th year of 95 wins?

This is confusing.

James' and Gammons' comments aren't directly related. James approves of the plan in the sense that he thinks it'll help the Astros get better. Gammons disapproves on moral grounds, without comment on whether he thinks it'll actually work. Hard to argue one against the other since the statements aren't in direct opposition.

[Bench]

James' and Gammons' comments aren't directly related. James approves of the plan in the sense that he thinks it'll help the Astros get better. Gammons disapproves on moral grounds, without comment on whether he thinks it'll actually work. Hard to argue one against the other since the statements aren't in direct opposition.

By saying the Astros are "stealing" draft picks one presumes that will make them better. 

[Reuben]

Well, they've already had 2 straight #1s. Finishing dead last this year and this securing 3 in a row is a very likely outcome. Will they finish last or next-to-last in 2014, proving Gammons correct (in that aspect)? I kinda doubt it, and I certainly hope not. You would think they'll get enough positive contributions from guys like Singleton, Altuve, Carter, Cosart, Grossman, and Peacock, maybe even Villar, Springer, Tropeano, or Santana, to avoid being complete doormats next year.

[Noe]

James' and Gammons' comments aren't directly related. James approves of the plan in the sense that he thinks it'll help the Astros get better. Gammons disapproves on moral grounds, without comment on whether he thinks it'll actually work. Hard to argue one against the other since the statements aren't in direct opposition.

Cool. I was confused because it seems... and it's just me mind you... that Gammons is implying that the plan for Houston is not to get better per se, but to get better by saving money and taking money from other people. In a sense, he's saying... and again, maybe I read him wrong... he sees Houston's plan as one of steal from the rich... get richer... but also don't spend because we can be prefectly content with being bad if we have to be (for as long as we have to be too). To the tune of consistently doing this for the next four years.

Now, this may just be Gammons talking out of his rear end... or maybe, he knows something and it's James who is doing the rectum gabbing more than Whitey. Who knows? Somewhere the truth is there, and it is perhaps resting solely on Mr. Crane's lap and no one really knows because he's a weird talking owner to say the least.

[roadrunner]

Cool. I was confused because it seems... and it's just me mind you... that Gammons is implying that the plan for Houston is not to get better per se, but to get better by saving money and taking money from other people. In a sense, he's saying... and again, maybe I read him wrong... he sees Houston's plan as one of steal from the rich... get richer... but also don't spend because we can be prefectly content with being bad if we have to be (for as long as we have to be too). To the tune of consistently doing this for the next four years.

Now, this may just be Gammons talking out of his rear end... or maybe, he knows something and it's James who is doing the rectum gabbing more than Whitey. Who knows? Somewhere the truth is there, and it is perhaps resting solely on Mr. Crane's lap and no one really knows because he's a weird talking owner to say the least.

It just goes back to the question of whether or not Crane will spend the money when there is a strong nucleus at the big league level.  Personally, I think he will.  He has stated as such and as awful as he is at PR, I think these PR mistakes are just side effects of his brutal honesty.  I also think the fact that the ownership really consists of a collection of local investors will put pressure on Crane and Postolos to spend when the time is right.

Gammons needs to read the CBA again.  I'm not sure the Astros will benefit from revenue sharing because Houston is a top 15 market.

[jbm]

I assumed it was brutal stupidity.

[Limey]

James' and Gammons' comments aren't directly related. James approves of the plan in the sense that he thinks it'll help the Astros get better. Gammons disapproves on moral grounds, without comment on whether he thinks it'll actually work. Hard to argue one against the other since the statements aren't in direct opposition.

Gammons would also like the Astros' major league roster to get off his lawn.

[Noe]

It just goes back to the question of whether or not Crane will spend the money when there is a strong nucleus at the big league level.  Personally, I think he will.  He has stated as such and as awful as he is at PR, I think these PR mistakes are just side effects of his brutal honesty.  I also think the fact that the ownership really consists of a collection of local investors will put pressure on Crane and Postolos to spend when the time is right.

Well, yeah if they're baseball investors and not just investors. What investors per se care about is ROI and the pressure is for the CEO and COO to make good on that. So it all depends on what type of investor these people are and what was promised to them. But to be quite honest, I don't know anything so this can go any different way it can while still looking to build a winner. It all boils down to the day we think the Astros can benefit from going after free agent X and the organization saying "We don't do that... we build from within". And thus you get a good feel for the organizational strategy to build a winner and also keep cost at a minimum.

Gammons needs to read the CBA again.  I'm not sure the Astros will benefit from revenue sharing because Houston is a top 15 market.

That may be true, I don't know anything about the CBA. But anything that is signed by the MLBPA is surely about getting more dollars into the hands of the players. To do that, you get more dollars to any and all markets to then bleed the owners. I think there is probably a mixture of dollars shared somewhere in the agreement to do just that. But how the structure works is not something I know anything about.

[roadrunner]

To keep it simple, management is trying to spend money wisely.  When I don't think they are, then I will bitch.

[Mr. Happy]

To keep it simple, management is trying to spend money wisely.  When I don't think they are, then I will bitch.

+1

[astrosfan76]

It all boils down to the day we think the Astros can benefit from going after free agent X and the organization saying "We don't do that... we build from within". And thus you get a good feel for the organizational strategy to build a winner and also keep cost at a minimum.

That's where the conundrum lies.  Who is saying we could benefit from adding player X?  There are fans who are already clamoring to add players so we can add more wins.  As they continue carrying out their plan, there will be more and more fans who grow weary of the drawn-out process and will think it's time to add players, or just see the club closer to contention than the front office does.  If the front office doesn't pursue free agents at that point, does that mean they're cheap, or just more diligent about seeing the plan through?  I don't see the club ever explicitly saying that they won't add key guys through free agency based on their oft-repeated line that they will spend when it makes sense.  

They've also talked about having a payroll in the neighborhood of Texas in the future.  Could this be done internally by locking up our own players?  Down the road, it's certainly possible, especially if the right guys blossom at the right time.  

[Mr. Happy]

That's where the conundrum lies.  Who is saying we could benefit from adding player X?  There are fans who are already clamoring to add players so we can add more wins.  As they continue carrying out their plan, there will be more and more fans who grow weary of the drawn-out process and will think it's time to add players, or just see the club closer to contention than the front office does.  If the front office doesn't pursue free agents at that point, does that mean they're cheap, or just more diligent about seeing the plan through?  I don't see the club ever explicitly saying that they won't add key guys through free agency based on their oft-repeated line that they will spend when it makes sense.  

They've also talked about having a payroll in the neighborhood of Texas in the future.  Could this be done internally by locking up our own players?  Down the road, it's certainly possible, especially if the right guys blossom at the right time.  

As I've said before, the time to sign expensive free agents is not now. For starters, there are no really top echelon free agents who would want to play for the Astros in their current state because players yearn to play on a winner or for a club where they might be the missing piece that could vault the club into contention. Secondly, I don't think that any free agent field player would be capable of adding more than 3-5 wins on their own. Starting pitching is a different kettle of fish since a great pitcher lifts up a poor team. See, Carlton, Steve and the 1972 Philadelphia Phillies. I've neither seen nor heard a peep out of management that they won't spend the money when it makes sense to do so. In my opinion, adding 3-5 wins and millions to the payroll vaults us up to make 60-65 wins. Is that worth it? I say no.

[jbm]

These guys are not your typical wealthy owners.  A 25 mil payroll for a Houston-sized metro area is a fucking embarrassment and he/they should be roundly criticized.  IMO, MLB should also be roundly criticized for allowing folks of their limited means to purchase a franchise.  That there is a bigger turd in South Florida is little consolation.

[Noe]

Okay, we're getting off track here. No one is arguing, not me, not Gammons, not James, that spending money *now* is what the Astros should do. Again, maybe I'm reading Gammons wrong, but he seems to be saying it is going to be the modus operandi for the Astros to continue to use a low payroll/top draft pick strategy to build a winner. James seems to say that they will build a winner to the tune of 95 wins in five years (see: Nationals, Washington). James doesn't say how, just that they will. Are both saying the same thing in terms of strategy... that you don't have to spend to win, you just have to draft and developed the right type of player for your organization and reap the benefits?

All Gammons is bitching about is that for the interim, the Astros are gonna suck. So what, we know that and who cares what everyone else in the AL thinks any way? But back to his point... it involves a strategy of spend low, draft high. Is that spend wisely? I dunno, maybe. I certainly would not advocate spending on a FA pitcher who wants 100 mil and 10 years (at any point, not even if you're the freaking Yankees), that is for sure. That is spending wisely (IMHO). But what if you want/need a FA starter who is around 3 years, 24 mil... and the guy could certainly help the club win (when the time comes). Will the Astros say "No thanks, we don't do that." Mr. Hap says they will not be that sort of club/organization, that in the given time they will pony up.

No one else seems to want to jump on that bandwagon yet (or maybe I haven't read it) that is of the caliber of James or Gammons. So all we have left is speculation and trust (in Crane). Do with that what you will.

[MusicMan]

These guys are not your typical wealthy owners.  A 25 mil payroll for a Houston-sized metro area is a fucking embarrassment and he/they should be roundly criticized.  IMO, MLB should also be roundly criticized for allowing folks of their limited means to purchase a franchise. 

If you think the current payroll is related to the ownership group's financial means, you haven't been paying much attention.

[Mr. Happy]

These guys are not your typical wealthy owners.  A 25 mil payroll for a Houston-sized metro area is a fucking embarrassment and he/they should be roundly criticized.  IMO, MLB should also be roundly criticized for allowing folks of their limited means to purchase a franchise.  That there is a bigger turd in South Florida is little consolation.

Still taking those dumbass pills I see. The ownership group was vetted by MLB before they were allowed to purchase a team. They have plenty of money and will use it at the right time.

[jbm]

If you think the current payroll is related to the ownership group's financial means, you haven't been paying much attention.

I'm under the impression that they financed the purchase with more debt than is usual for an MLB franchise purchase, and that the current strategy is to quickly pay off the debt by slashing expenses.  This is not true?

[jbm]

Still taking those dumbass pills I see. The ownership group was vetted by MLB before they were allowed to purchase a team. They have plenty of money and will use it at the right time.

You know they will spend at the right time how?

What you really mean is that you expect, or you think, or you hope.  You don't know this.

And fuck your stupid dumbass pill remark.  Just rebut the content of my post.  Fifth grade replies attacking me are so blah. 

I'm not even sure what your vetting comment means anyway.  Sure, they were vetted.  They can handle the purchase, just not in a way that tries to compete within MLB.

[Mr. Happy]

You know they will spend at the right time how?

What you really mean is that you expect, or you think, or you hope.  You don't know this.

And fuck your stupid dumbass pill remark.  Just rebut the content of my post.  Fifth grade replies attacking me are so blah. 

I'm not even sure what your vetting comment means anyway.  Sure, they were vetted.  They can handle the purchase, just not in a way that tries to compete within MLB.

When you reason and act like a fifth grader, you get what you deserve. I happen to have some first-hand experience, albeit a bit dated, in the actual MLB net worth analysis. It is very rigorous, and one of the things that they examine is liquidity, because the last thing that the other owners want is to have to bail out an owner, which has been done before. That's in part why I am fairly sure that they could pull the trigger on the right free agent at any time. Now you're assuming things. What makes you so sure that the intent of the ownership is not to compete with MLB?

[MusicMan]

I'm under the impression that they financed the purchase with more debt than is usual for an MLB franchise purchase,

Correct.

and that the current strategy is to quickly pay off the debt by slashing expenses.  This is not true?

Incorrect.  Current strategy is to rebuild the team.

[jbm]

What makes you so sure that the intent of the ownership is not to compete with MLB?

Well, at the moment, the payroll was the first clue, trading almost everyone who had a track record and coincidentally made more than the minimum is another clue, pursueing next to nothing in the market is another clue.  

Whether they spend in the future is anyone's guess.  I mean, they haven't made money in five years, and if you want to fork over 10 mil, they will gladly use it towards payroll.  Those are also clues in my mind, but I wouldn't base an argument on those.  

So, it is pretty apparent that they don't care about competing now.  In the future, we will see.

I only possess fifth grade reasoning, but how are liquidity and the ability to pull the trigger on any free agent correlated?  They may be able to finance their debt, and pay their expenses and remain a going concern, but that doesn't mean they are able (much less willing) to pull the trigger on any free agent.

[jbm]

Incorrect.  Current strategy is to rebuild the team.

You may be correct.  I don't view it that way.  It seems to me that they have been gutting expenses since Crane took over.  They dump Lee, Wandy, Myers, Happ (and all the others I forgot) as a salary reduction.  They obtain a bunch of marginal "prospects" and throw out some concept about minor league "depth" to sell it, but I maintain the driving force was always a salary dump.  One of those guys they acquired might be a long-term piece, and if so, all credit to Luhnow.  I just don't believe he made those deals to rebuild, but to reduce costs.  I could easily be wrong, but it seems naive to witness all the finacial evidence over the last year and a half and believe otherwise.

[Randy Watson]

Well, yeah if they're baseball investors and not just investors. What investors per se care about is ROI and the pressure is for the CEO and COO to make good on that. So it all depends on what type of investor these people are and what was promised to them. But to be quite honest, I don't know anything so this can go any different way it can while still looking to build a winner. It all boils down to the day we think the Astros can benefit from going after free agent X and the organization saying "We don't do that... we build from within". And thus you get a good feel for the organizational strategy to build a winner and also keep cost at a minimum.

That may be true, I don't know anything about the CBA. But anything that is signed by the MLBPA is surely about getting more dollars into the hands of the players. To do that, you get more dollars to any and all markets to then bleed the owners. I think there is probably a mixture of dollars shared somewhere in the agreement to do just that. But how the structure works is not something I know anything about.

Jeff Hines is one of the major investors and is a big fan.  We have seats right behind him and he's frequently at the game.

John Eddie is also an investor/fan.

[Randy Watson]

These guys are not your typical wealthy owners.  A 25 mil payroll for a Houston-sized metro area is a fucking embarrassment and he/they should be roundly criticized.  IMO, MLB should also be roundly criticized for allowing folks of their limited means to purchase a franchise.  That there is a bigger turd in South Florida is little consolation.

John Eddie Williams and Jeff Hines are both filthy rich.  Richer than Crane for sure.

[chuck]

I don't understand why one would assume or accept that the microscopic payroll and the debt the team carries are necessarily completely unrelated.

[MusicMan]

I don't understand why one would assume or accept that the microscopic payroll and the debt the team carries are necessarily completely unrelated.

In a vacuum, you wouldn't.  But if you've paid any attention to how teams are generally constructed, you'd understand it.

[MusicMan]

For the "it's all a salary dump" crowd:

Tell me which free agent they should have signed, this offseason, that would have been consistent with the long-term goals of fielding a championship team.

[Duman]

Let's not forget, signing free agents is not with out it's consequences.  Need I remind you of the 2007 draft when we didn't have picks in the first two rounds because the Astros had signed Carlos Lee and Woody Williams. The reason Kyle Loshe is still a free agent has as much if not more to do with the loss of a first round pick that comes with signing him.  

The fact that Lunhow some how took the player that was signed and forfeited the 17th pick to obtain the 12th pick (Dominguez) from that draft is amazing.  

I think the Astros will win more games this year than they did last year. With the move to a tougher division, that is saying they are on the right track.  Now is not the time to spend money in the bigs.  It is to continue to spend money on the farm - in acquisitions and development

[Bench]

I don't understand why one would assume or accept that the microscopic payroll and the debt the team carries are necessarily completely unrelated.

Yeah, I thought they went hand in hand.  Minimizing player cost by shifting focus away from veterans to the minor leagues both completely rebuilds the franchise by investing in only the future while allowing the team to aggressively pay down the debt in the present.  I thought that was the whole strategy toward winning 95 games in five years. 

[Bench]

For the "it's all a salary dump" crowd:

Tell me which free agent they should have signed, this offseason, that would have been consistent with the long-term goals of fielding a championship team.

You just explained why the salary dump is a sound plan. 

[Mr. Happy]

Well, at the moment, the payroll was the first clue, trading almost everyone who had a track record and coincidentally made more than the minimum is another clue, pursueing next to nothing in the market is another clue.  

Whether they spend in the future is anyone's guess.  I mean, they haven't made money in five years, and if you want to fork over 10 mil, they will gladly use it towards payroll.  Those are also clues in my mind, but I wouldn't base an argument on those.  

So, it is pretty apparent that they don't care about competing now.  In the future, we will see.

I only possess fifth grade reasoning, but how are liquidity and the ability to pull the trigger on any free agent correlated?  They may be able to finance their debt, and pay their expenses and remain a going concern, but that doesn't mean they are able (much less willing) to pull the trigger on any free agent.

If you had seen what I've had the opportunity to see, albeit almost 20 years ago, then you'd understand a little better, and maybe I've not done a good enough job of explaining it, which admittedly is my fault. The MLB minimums, at least back then, included more than sufficient liquidity to operate a team "in the MLB manner." That was a big catch phrase if I remember correctly. My client was only a minority owner, and they put him through the absolute ringer before approving him as a co-owner-silent partner.

[Noe]

John Eddie Williams and Jeff Hines are both filthy rich.  Richer than Crane for sure.

The important thing is, as you mentioned, they're baseball fans. They should know that investment in the MLB is a different beast than other investments. In fact, it's an expensive hobby (and tax write-off I guess) at this point. But, for example, George Steinbrenner was not that rich (based on what one would call rich nowadays). What George did was take his business acumen and made the Yankees rich. Meaning, the deals he made with the market he was blessed with, he made the team profitable (not himself per se). So his fandom was funded by the team's popularity as it were and the wiliness of marketers and television people to partner with the team (and George by proxy). Win-win with the Yankees being the benefactor of a healthy profit level to be able to spend (wisely sometimes, not so other times).

Houston does not have the popularity as the Yankees and the fact that they are still trying to negotiate a contract with entities like DirectTV tels you just how much Crane is finding out that he can't benefit like George did. Hence why Crane is saying "no fan wants us to make a bad deal (with DirectTV or others) and harm our ability to spend on the team in the future". So it seems to me, and again... I am ignorant of alot of the dealings of this organization... that Crane is banking (pun intended) on less taxation of his investors (and himself) and more on making deals to make this organization healthy and self-funded. The self-funding will tell you how much they will spend in the future. Not self-funded well enough probably means a difficulty to entertain a FA of moderate levels (unless  the owners pony up their own cayshe or take back less from the investment). Good to great self-funding and you have a healthy situation like in New York. But then again, nothing is like New York.

[NeilT]

There was no one on the team, not Lee, not Happ, not Wandy, that was going to take the Astros to a winning record, and there wasn't in any given year enough free agent talent to get to a winning record.   Given the condition of the team, the best it could have hoped for was low mediocrity.

Today I read the Bus Ride.  Two years ago I did not.  There's talent in the pipeline, and it seems to be stacked deep.  When enough talent comes out of the pipe, free agent expenditures will make sense. 

[Bench]

They should know that investment in the MLB is a different beast than other investments. In fact, it's an expensive hobby (and tax write-off I guess)

I agree that ownership of an MLB team is different from other investments but primarily in that ownership of an MLB team is a virtually guaranteed profit.  I don't see how it is an expensive hobby unless you are referring to it taking time away from these wealthy guys' primary income producing endeavors.   

[Bench]

Today I read the Bus Ride.  Two years ago I did not. 

Likewise.  Those folks do a great job over there.

[Ron Brand]

Likewise.  Those folks do a great job over there.

+1. Our Bus Ride guys kick ass.

[jbm]

For the "it's all a salary dump" crowd:

Tell me which free agent they should have signed, this offseason, that would have been consistent with the long-term goals of fielding a championship team.

This is a false choice.  A more plausible question is: tell me who you wouldn't have dumped?

Additionally, why does every acqusition have to do with long-term championship?  Why can't it be towards having a slightly more competitive team?  or a watchable team? or just a team that gives the slightest shit about it's fans?

I'm not going down the false choice road:  a fan can realize that one doesn't build through free-agency, AND still realize that you can make the trip along the way less painful by trying during the interim.  Just trying to win is a goal in itself.  Too many people act like if you don't win the series, 60 wins equals 70, or 80 or 90 wins.  That's bullshit in my book: all extra wins are good.  It is a false choice that trying to win more now reduces your chances at future wins.  

[geezerdonk]

Last year I started checking daily all of the minor league affiliates' box scores.

[geezerdonk]

Did the Astros dump anybody in the last couple of years? Didn't they get reasonable value for every veteran that they moved?

[subnuclear]

That shoots down Gammons for sure... no way you get the 1-2 pick with 80 wins. Are the Astros on the Nationals plan and if not, can someone shoot them a copy of the playbook!

Maybe Bo Porter brought it with him.

I hope Luhnow has the Cardinals playbook, as that's the one you really want. Only 1 losing season since 2000 and 2 World Series wins.

[jbm]

I just want to point out that the bulk of the top prospect list, and the bulk of the minor league success last year was NOT accomplished by players obtained through this strategy.  They were obtained through the draft, international signings, or by trading players of higher value, not by dumping average players who happen to pull an arb-or-beyond paycheck.

[NeilT]

This is a false choice.  A more plausible question is: tell me who you wouldn't have dumped?

Additionally, why does every acqusition have to do with long-term championship?  Why can't it be towards having a slightly more competitive team?  or a watchable team? or just a team that gives the slightest shit about it's fans?

I'm not going down the false choice road:  a fan can realize that one doesn't build through free-agency, AND still realize that you can make the trip along the way less painful by trying during the interim.  Just trying to win is a goal in itself.  Too many people act like if you don't win the series, 60 wins equals 70, or 80 or 90 wins.  That's bullshit in my book: all extra wins are good.  It is a false choice that trying to win more now reduces your chances at future wins.  

I don't want mediocrity.  I want 90 wins a year.  I don't see any way to get there and maintain it unless there's a very good farm system. 

[JimR]

I just want to point out that the bulk of the top prospect list, and the bulk of the minor league success last year was NOT accomplished by players obtained through this strategy.  They were obtained through the draft, international signings, or by trading players of higher value, not by dumping average players who happen to pull an arb-or-beyond paycheck.

give it a freaking rest.

[MusicMan]

They were obtained through the draft, international signings, or by trading players of higher value, not by dumping average players who happen to pull an arb-or-beyond paycheck.

IOW, you want mediocre players here, that will NOT be here once the team contends, so that you can feel better about how much the team is spending.

No offense, but I'm glad Luhnow is running the team and not you.

This is a false choice.  A more plausible question is: tell me who you wouldn't have dumped?

Michael Bourn is the only transaction I have any regrets about - and that's because we should have gotten better for him.

[jaklewein]

Michael Bourn is the only transaction I have any regrets about - and that's because we should have gotten better for him.

Agreed.  At least they balanced that out a bit by fleecing the Phils on the Pence deal.  Seems to me those deals should've been reversed based on the value of each player.

[subnuclear]

No one has ever explained who was going to give the Astros something more for Bourn than what the Astros got. Also, Cosart, Singleton and Santana have not made it yet. Clemens and Oberholtzer haven't failed to make it yet.

[Bench]

Agreed.  At least they balanced that out a bit by fleecing the Phils on the Pence deal.  Seems to me those deals should've been reversed based on the value of each player.

Racism.

[roadrunner]

No one has ever explained who was going to give the Astros something more for Bourn than what the Astros got. Also, Cosart, Singleton and Santana have not made it yet. Clemens and Oberholtzer haven't failed to make it yet.

But they didn't have to trade Bourn, and so far the return doesn't look any better than it did at the time of the transaction (which wasn't good).

And no, Luhnow didn't have to trade any of the guys he has, but none of them were even close to the quality that Bourn was.

[chuck]

No one has ever explained who was going to give the Astros something more for Bourn than what the Astros got.

Another GM reported that he tried to make an offer on Bourn after the Braves had made their offer but before the deal was completed and that Wade declined to pursue a discussion with this other team. So apparently not even Ed Wade knows what better offers were available.

[juliogotay]

But they didn't have to trade Bourn, and so far the return doesn't look any better than it did at the time of the transaction (which wasn't good).

And no, Luhnow didn't have to trade any of the guys he has, but none of them were even close to the quality that Bourn was.

Had they not traded Bourn where would he be today?

[Randy Watson]

Michael Bourn is the only transaction I have any regrets about - and that's because we should have gotten better for him.

Agreed.  Overall, I am very pleased with our trades and our willingness to trade guys who will be on the downhill but expensive side when we are ready to compete. 

[Randy Watson]

Had they not traded Bourn where would he be today?

Good point.  Boras client means he was gone.  But we should have gotten more for him.  Advanced stats his numbers are way up there.

As an aside, I sure do miss watching him play CF.  He and Beltran are the two Astros in the new stadium that I would pay to watch play CF. 

Trading him was the right move.  Wade should have gotten more.  But maybe the Boras connection hure his value.

[subnuclear]

Another GM reported that he tried to make an offer on Bourn after the Braves had made their offer but before the deal was completed and that Wade declined to pursue a discussion with this other team. So apparently not even Ed Wade knows what better offers were available.

That seems substantially vague. The Nationals would not trade Detwiler or any of the prospects they eventually traded to the A's for Bourn. They needed a center fielder, too.

[Noe]

I agree that ownership of an MLB team is different from other investments but primarily in that ownership of an MLB team is a virtually guaranteed profit.  I don't see how it is an expensive hobby unless you are referring to it taking time away from these wealthy guys' primary income producing endeavors.  

There is no other industry that I know of where the cost of contract labor exceeds 100 million dollars (and continues to rise) per contractor. Gerry Hunsicker warned that this day would come when a utility player would cost over a million dollars to hire. The cost of business for baseball is still on the rise and continues to rise. The reason? The egos of the owners who do not spend like it's a business, they spend because it's a competition. Like Michael Jordan spends in golf, or Charles Barkley at the roulette table.

Baseball, owners, players, everything about it is non-traditional business and just about everyone in it is not in it to make money, they're in it to satisfy egos.

[Noe]

Maybe Bo Porter brought it with him.

I hope Luhnow has the Cardinals playbook, as that's the one you really want. Only 1 losing season since 2000 and 2 World Series wins.

Ahhh-greed!

[roadrunner]

Had they not traded Bourn where would he be today?

Who knows, but he had another year left on his contract.  If you can't get what you feel is fair then wait.  Ed Wade may have thought that was fair, though.

[ValpoCory]

Baseball, owners, players, everything about it is non-traditional business and just about everyone in it is not in it to make money, they're in it to satisfy egos.

Yet somehow they almost all make out in the black after they sell their franchises.  

[OregonStrosFan]

Gammons needs to read the CBA again.  I'm not sure the Astros will benefit from revenue sharing because Houston is a top 15 market.

IIRC, revenue sharing is based on revenues taken in and is not dependent on big. vs. small market.  That said, bigger market teams would in theory be less likely to be recipients of revenue sharing because they should receive more revenue by virtue of having a bigger pool of customers from which to draw.  This of course goes out the window when you have a team looking to be the worst team in all of baseball for 3 straight years...

*Perhaps you were thinking of the extra 'compensatory pick' that small market teams were in line for under the new CBA.

[roadrunner]

IIRC, revenue sharing is based on revenues taken in and is not dependent on big. vs. small market.  That said, bigger market teams would in theory be less likely to be recipients of revenue sharing because they should receive more revenue by virtue of having a bigger pool of customers from which to draw.  This of course goes out the window when you have a team looking to be the worst team in all of baseball for 3 straight years...

*Perhaps you were thinking of the extra 'compensatory pick' that small market teams were in line for under the new CBA.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/business/revenue-sharing/

Its not really clear, but by 2016 Houston won't qualify.  It would be interesting to see how the revenues compare even with the team in the shitter.  With the new tv deal, I would guess the net local revenues are close to the mean if not above it which I think would disqualify the org from getting money.

[Noe]

Yet somehow they almost all make out in the black after they sell their franchises.  

"There is a sucker born every minute." - P.T. Barnum

[OregonStrosFan]

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/business/revenue-sharing/

Its not really clear, but by 2016 Houston won't qualify.  It would be interesting to see how the revenues compare even with the team in the shitter.  With the new tv deal, I would guess the net local revenues are close to the mean if not above it which I think would disqualify the org from getting money.

Thanks for the info, I was not aware of the 2016 phase out(?).

[Navin R Johnson]

When Crane bought the team, hired Luhnow and laid out a plan of building things the right way, I bought in 100%.  Crane talked about how you would rarely if ever hear from him, and that he was going to let the baseball people run things.  I had no reason to not believe him.

Since then it has been a parade of dickstepping. From the AL, to JD, to Cranes multiple dumbass comments, inviting fans to dinner with a dead guy, taking foul balls from fans, to Comcast Sports Net disaster, to charging $180 to sit in the field box to watch this AAAA team, the community leaders scoreboard, and so on.   Luhnow will likely infuse this team with legitimate talent, but I just don't have faith in the business side of the Astros to not fuck it up.

[BudGirl]

Good point.  Boras client means he was gone.  But we should have gotten more for him.  Advanced stats his numbers are way up there.

As an aside, I sure do miss watching him play CF.  He and Beltran are the two Astros in the new stadium that I would pay to watch play CF. 

Good for you the Indians come to town this year.  Early, April 19th - 21st.  Promotions:  19 - fireworks, 20 - altuve bobblehead, 21 - grocery tote

[roadrunner]

Boras is on Whitey's side. 

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2007473

[Mr. Happy]

Boras is on Whitey's side. 

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2007473

There's two peas in a pod. In Boras's view, anyone who doesn't ply his clients with overpaid dollars is somehow un-American. Please.

[astrosfan76]

There's two peas in a pod. In Boras's view, anyone who doesn't ply his clients with overpaid dollars is somehow un-American. Please.

Yep. 

Before, teams never minded giving up a first round draft pick,'' Boras says, "because they still had the money to sign their players in the lower rounds. Now, you've taken away the structure of the scouting and developing. They have stolen our youth. They have kidnapped our children in this system.

Maybe 10-15 years ago teams were less reluctant to give up a 1st-rounder, but that mindset shifted long before the new system.  Even the Yankees didn't want to give up 1st-rounders over the past few years.  Ask the myriad relievers and lower-tier Type A starters/position players who no one wanted to sign.  Please spare the dramatics. 

It is important to focus on all the changes to the system of draft choice compensation,'' Manfred told USA TODAY Sports. "A large number of players were freed from the burden of compensation completely, and those players undoubtedly received better contracts as a result. We have not heard any one raising questions as to whether the system is working for those players.

See previous argument.  There were plenty of players who no one wanted to sign under the old system.   

[MusicMan]

Boras is on Whitey's side. 

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2007473

"They have stolen our youth. They have kidnapped our children in this system"

Good lord, Boras.  There's advocacy for your client, and then there's proving just what a horrible human being you are.

[BudGirl]

Boras is on Whitey's side. 

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2007473

WFW

[Bench]

"They have stolen our youth. They have kidnapped our children in this system"

Good lord, Boras.  There's advocacy for your client, and then there's proving just what a horrible human being you are.

The child kidnapping is even more heinous when you consider the fact that professional athletes are actually slaves.  

[subnuclear]

He might be referring to Wilson Ramos.

[NeilT]

The child kidnapping is even more heinous when you consider the fact that professional athletes are actually slaves.  

I have it on excellent authority that Albert Pujols is only 13.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

You know, if you take away the money, the uniforms, the Players Union, the playing of the game, and make them pick cotton all day--then they are kind of like slaves.

[Bench]

What's happening here is either the start of something really exciting, or a disaster so bad the commissioner should have stepped in to stop it. Either the Astros are embarrassing the game by trying to lose, or they're finally going through a logical process of building a winner.

[juliogotay]

What's happening here is either the start of something really exciting, or a disaster so bad the commissioner should have stepped in to stop it. Either the Astros are embarrassing the game by trying to lose, or they're finally going through a logical process of building a winner.

Interesting that he named Harrell, Castro and Altuve as guys that are part of the core for the future.

[MusicMan]

Interesting that he named Harrell, Castro and Altuve as guys that are part of the core for the future.

Interesting in a certain starting pitcher's absence?

[jbm]

The author said Luhnow named seven or eight, but the author only relayed three.

Article seemed fair enough.

One thing I feel that too many people accept on faith is that the American league is so much tougher than the National League.  It might be a bit tougher, or it might not, but the idea of it being so badass is something of a myth, IMO.

[subnuclear]

I think public perception is skewed by the Astros getting pasted by the Rangers every single series.

[Mr. Happy]

The author said Luhnow named seven or eight, but the author only relayed three.

Article seemed fair enough.

One thing I feel that too many people accept on faith is that the American league is so much tougher than the National League.  It might be a bit tougher, or it might not, but the idea of it being so badass is something of a myth, IMO.

Great point. Who won the WS this year?

[Noe]

I admit to loving pitching and defense above all else (something hard for the sabrematricians to quantify I guess). But, this is the American League and adding power and more power to the Astros organization is a good thing. Will they win more games or even be competitive? I don't see it, because the other American League teams... well, they have power too... and pitching and defense (somewhat).

Any team in the same division as the Angels, Rangers, As, and Mariners better be ready to stop the other team from scoring as much as it is built to score runs. That's not there this year and maybe in time it will be. But right now, it's a pipe dream to ask these guys to win and be competitive. It's more about asking them to try hard and do your best at this point (IMHO of course).

[Noe]

I think public perception is skewed by the Astros getting pasted by the Rangers every single series.

Yup. But to Luhnow's credit, he's restructuring this team and right now, pasted may not happen as much. But winning is still a long way away.

[Mr. Happy]

I admit to loving pitching and defense above all else (something hard for the sabrematricians to quantify I guess). But, this is the American League and adding power and more power to the Astros organization is a good thing. Will they win more games or even be competitive? I don't see it, because the other American League teams... well, they have power too... and pitching and defense (somewhat).

Any team in the same division as the Angels, Rangers, As, and Mariners better be ready to stop the other team from scoring as much as it is built to score runs. That's not there this year and maybe in time it will be. But right now, it's a pipe dream to ask these guys to win and be competitive. It's more about asking them to try hard and do your best at this point (IMHO of course).

I absolutely agree with you. I'm looking for effort, mental toughness and smart play out of this bunch more so than wins right now. If they win a few more than the pundits expect, then serve those doubters a big ole shitburger.

[juliogotay]

The author said Luhnow named seven or eight, but the author only relayed three.

Article seemed fair enough.

One thing I feel that too many people accept on faith is that the American league is so much tougher than the National League.  It might be a bit tougher, or it might not, but the idea of it being so badass is something of a myth, IMO.

W/O going back and reading the article, I think the point was that there were 7-8 in the organization and he named three that were already in Houston.

[juliogotay]

Interesting in a certain starting pitcher's absence?

That and Dominguez' absence. I wonder how they view him. He looks like he's got game to me.

[Noe]

I absolutely agree with you. I'm looking for effort, mental toughness and smart play out of this bunch more so than wins right now. If they win a few more than the pundits expect, then serve those doubters a big ole shitburger.

The article itself does not do justice (pun intended) to both the blogger community and the scout community in my mind. Any time you hear a scout talk, it's always going to be a bit hyperbolic. They're trying to accent a point that is much more subtle. I am not as well versed on the blogger community (or the Baseball Prospectus world), but if this world has them winning simply because they employ more scientist and engineers, I can't say that they really mean that seriously either.

Somewhere in the middle is the truth and only Luhnow knows how he's going to build this thing to be competitive. You have to worry about the Angels, Rangers, As, and Mariners most of all... so you have to build to beat those clubs. Good luck with that, other than the Rangers (ironically enough), I don't see any of those teams going on a downturn any time soon. And I might be wrong about the Rangers too. So it is about winning because you know how to beat those clubs. In theory, this season is about finding out two things (IMHO):

1. What you have to build around right now that will make you a winner in the future... and...
2. What it takes to win in the AL West (a brand spanking new experience for everyone).

What the Astros are dealing with this year (throw everything out the window... I mean every freaking thing): nothing they will experience this year is a known entity, either from them or from their primary competition. Someone mentioned an expansion team-like feel to this. Bingo!

[Mr. Happy]

That and Dominguez' absence. I wonder how they view him. He looks like he's got game to me.

Clearly a plus glove. Only question is whether he'll hit enough to man the hot corner.

[ferret]

What's happening here is either the start of something really exciting, or a disaster so bad the commissioner should have stepped in to stop it. Either the Astros are embarrassing the game by trying to lose, or they're finally going through a logical process of building a winner.

The Astros aren't really the issue in the national media.  They are a metaphor for the continuing argument between the "stats v scouts" camps.  Unfortunately for those of us who are going to have to actually ride this hobby horse, they are also a metaphor for crap.

[chuck]

"I will spend the money when I have the money," he said. "I'm not going to spend money I don't have."

But by all means feel free to believe that the payroll is "rebuilding" and not penury. Or, write him a check.

[Mr. Happy]

"I will spend the money when I have the money," he said. "I'm not going to spend money I don't have."

But by all means feel free to believe that the payroll is "rebuilding" and not penury. Or, write him a check.

I really think that Crane is talking about money that he'll spend on the team. I strongly suspect that he has the money personally.

[roadrunner]

Good luck with that, other than the Rangers (ironically enough), I don't see any of those teams going on a downturn any time soon.

The Angels were pretty much dead last in much organization rankings and have billion dollar obligations to Josh Hamilton and Albert Pujols over the next 10 years..so I'm not sure about them.  They do have that Trout guy, though.

[Mr. Happy]

The Angels were pretty much dead last in much organization rankings and have billion dollar obligations to Josh Hamilton and Albert Pujols over the next 10 years..so I'm not sure about them.  They do have that Trout guy, though.

Artie Moreno has so much money that it is almost a bottomless pit.

[Reuben]

Artie Moreno has so much money that it is almost a bottomless pit.

Everyone thought that was the case with the Yankees, too. Sooner or later giving out huge long contracts to old guys catches up with everyone.