Monday, December 17, 2012

Astros have talked about Bud Norris

Jon Heyman had a little throwaway tweet a few minutes ago, where he mentions that the Astros "would have to be overwhelmed" by an offer for Jed Lowrie, but have talked to the Rangers and Cardinals about Bud Norris.

Bud Norris isn't going to help the Astros win a championship. And while he might be a #2 starter for the Astros, he's probably a #3-4 on most contending teams. So why not send him to a team with a deep system - even if they're within the division - for young building blocks?


Anonymous said...

Why not you ask? Maybe because we have already traded away everyone making any kind of money. There is no longer any money being tied up that prevents the Astros from spending away in their drafts. We have to start winning some games at some point. The argument that a guy is expendable because he won't be with the team when they are in contention again is trite and no longer valid.

Astros County said...

I agree with part of what you said. It's not all about money. Any potential trade of Norris would ideally cost the Astros more payroll, just in the future. Bud Norris is a decent pitcher. He's not a great pitcher. Sometimes he's not even that good. He has yet to put together a 2.0+ WAR season. If a team wants to buy high on him, I'd be okay with it.

And you can't bring the draft into a financial conversation anymore, because of the new bonus pool limits. You can't spend your way through the draft anymore.

Anonymous said...

I'd trade Bud if the payoff was equivalent to a potential budding star, but not for the reason mentioned here. I am so sick of the philosophy that the target date is in the future and wins don't matter until then. It's a bankrupt philosophy leading to 8K crowds and years of crap.

People can put up with crap when they think something is building, but no one, not players, fans, nor sponsors wants to be associated with an org that perpetually strips off its assets to pay off owners' debt.

It's like Astro fans are victims of a leverage buyout. Crane stripping away everything of value to payoff his debt.

Astros County said...

That's valid. I can't come up with anything to refute that.

Reuben said...

A team trading for Bud now would be buying low, not high. Hence I don't see why it makes sense for the Astros. If anything I'd like to see them try him at closer, maybe pump up his value that way. And hey, maybe grab some extra wins in 2013 while they're at it. I agree that aspect should not be ignored.

Juvenile Court Clerk - Bryan Trostel said...

I don't know that using the word "perpetually" is responsible here. What we've seen is a two and a half year stretch, started when Drayton and Ed were still around, where the guys who weren't winning us games were sent somewhere else in exchange for guys that have a better chance of winning us games in a couple years. And anyone who doesn't see what's building in the upper minors now doesn't want to pay attention.

Sure, winning 70 games might matter to fans, but would you rather win 70 games a year for five years and still be dealing with a near barren farm system with no real future to get excited about, or win 60 games for three years, stockpile talent for many years to come, and start climbing back to where Houston baseball should be?

I don't remember where, but there was a well written article recently that showed that even if Luhnow had played the free agent market with a prescient perfection last off-season the Astros would still have likely finished last in the Central.

Anonymous said...

I was the anon who used the word "perpetually." Hopefully I am wrong, but sometimes things really are as they appear to be.

It is one thing when you trade established players (Berkman, Pence, Oswalt, Bourn) for potential impact players. That is clearly understandable. Classic rebuilding.

It is entirely something else when you trade established players (Wandy, Myers, Happ) for minor league depth, whatever that is and whatever that gets you. This is less understandable. I understand the argument that some of those guys might eventually help, but I just don't buy it. At best, you are trading present major league wins for equal future major league wins. At best, IMO. A more cynical view might perceive these trades as salary dumps.

Once you start trading non-established players in pre-arb years (Lopez and Norris) for other non-established players in pre-pre-arb years, you start looking like a simple cheapskate, who cares about stripping the company of assets, rather than someone who is financially stable and committed to real building.

In sum, we all have different opinions on when that threshold has been crossed, but to me, the teardown strategy has morphed from a teardown-to-rebuild strategy into a teardown-cause-we-are-broke strategy.

Reuben said...

Anon, by your definition, the Melancon trade would've qualified as "teardown because we are broke". To me the Wilton trade was similar (although, I personally loved Wilton and am sad he is no longer an Astro)- trade a young Major League asset to get an even younger Major League asset with higher upside but some risk. It's hard for me to see them getting fair value for Norris right now (compared to his future potential, or his pre-2012 value), but if they get "blown away" with an offer, I can understand doing it, preferably for MLB-ready pieces ala Lowrie and White.

Anonymous said...

Why not? This team sucks and nobody watches now, the score of the game is always like 7-2 other team ahead, but astros. Its going to be 14-3 this year in the AL, on most nights. Im seeing a 50 Win season or worse, this team will stink so bad nobody going to want to watch. You cant put out a team of Majority of AA-AAA. Without any real ball players, where is the money going to go his pocket? Dont like what hes doing. Need to pick up some real ball players, last two years have been embarrsing. :(