Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

formermav43

Legacy Members
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by formermav43

  1. I don't believe I have said "all." I have said they tend to, it's nearly inevitable, etc. That's not "my truth," that's what the data says. So you have to bank on Valdez being the rare exception.
  2. I think our key disagreement is on what a "fair and reasonable" extension offer is in this case. We have 2 typical categories here: what the Astros (and Braves in particular lately) have liked doing, giving a young guy an extension that buys out some of his arbitration and early free agent years at what will likely be below market value then in exchange for giving him security up front; and the classic megadeal for a guy who hits free agency in his prime, where you are paying for the next 3-5 years of production with the understanding that you are basically eating the back half of the contract and giving him security then. The problem with extending Valdez is that he doesn't really fall into either of those categories. The whole point in either of those cases is to try to control a guy in his prime, and you are either paying up front instead of him getting the minimum, or you are paying him at the end of his career when he might otherwise be out of the league. Valdez is in his prime NOW. He's already under team control. And I'd argue he's more likely to be washed when he hits free agency than he is to be an above average starter at 33.
  3. But to be clear, if you want to give him more money now because he has outperformed his contract or to help clubhouse morale or whatever - great. There's plenty of room under the luxury tax, and there aren't any more moves coming this offseason. Give him every bit of it while he's still under team control if you want. But I still wouldn't tack on any more years. I think by the time he's a free agent, that money will be better spent elsewhere.
  4. The idea that letting him go through the CBA process and then leaving as a free agent - the very thing that happens to countless other players - is somehow doing him dirty is curious.
  5. You've already mentioned 3 of them for starters - Keuchel, Correa, Springer (whom you evidently view as a big loss, and I'd argue the jury is still out on given the length of the contract, not to mention the fact that Tucker made him unnecessary - he's not good in CF anymore). That statement was made in the context of your statement that, "teams routinely pay bigger money to aging players in the back end of contracts knowing there's a good chance the player's performance will fall off." None of those deals fall into that category - the oldest player at the end of it will be Altuve, at 34, and his AAV is a bargain. But they wouldn't budge on the years for Correa. Springer will be heading into his age 38 season when he's a free agent. Etc. And every single guy you named they extended was younger than Valdez is now - and that's without taking into account the aging of groundball pitchers that we already have covered. So the question is, is Valdez more like the young guys they extended, or the older guys they didn't want to give longterm deals to? Even at 5/$90 like you propose, is he more likely to be an effective starter at 34, or washed up before he even hits free agency? I don't think "giving him his money" based on what he did last year is smart, and I think the Astros history of NOT doing business that way is a good thing.
  6. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I think we basically see the data the same way, we just don't agree on what the smart move is.
  7. Right. But I also know that the Astros have made it a practice to not sign those contracts in the first place, and it's a piece of why they have been so successful compared to those teams that do. Valdez seems to me like a guy you let play out his deal and walk, like they have with others before him.
  8. 1) That he is such an outlier - he is one of the most extreme groundball pitchers of all-time, not just currently - arguably makes him more of a risk, not less. 2) I do not agree with the last sentence at all. His pay should be based on future expectations, not past performance. The team can evaluate that much better than any of us can, so if they agree with your assessment that his production is likely to continue - that's great! But if he ages like 99% of groundball pitchers, then paying him at 32 for what he did at 28 is foolish. Let another, less savvy organization do that if they choose.
  9. So was Felix Hernandez. But it's not about how good they are in their prime, it's about the aging curve of groundball pitchers. It's a near inevitability that they break down early.
  10. Not really. Groundball pitchers tend to decline earlier than others, around 30. By 34, most of them are out of the game. Look at Keuchel for a good example we all know. Or Felix Hernandez-he entered decline *before* and retired at 33. Valdez is one of the most extreme groundball pitchers of all time, more so than either of those guys. When he hits free agency, he’ll be 32. It’s more likely he’ll already be in decline while he’s still in arbitration than that he’ll be effective throughout the additional years of an extension.
  11. I still think extending Valdez is not a great idea.
  12. In addition to the ballpark, you get exclusive access to a special area worthy of the former Commissioner.
  13. I thought the fact it says “parody” twice was a bit of a tell too.
  14. I don't even understand why it matters. I go to football games to watch the football game, not a light show. (I assume this means I'm getting old.)
  15. I’d rather imagine him catching the ball.
  16. Biggie wasn’t catching anymore in 92.
  17. I think it depends on what role you expect the guy to fill. Dubon is by far the better defender, and can it do well at key defensive positions (CF and SS in particular), but he can't hit. Profar is a subpar defender except in LF, and he hasn't even attempted to play SS in 5 years - I'm not sure he's capable of it. But he's obviously a much better hitter. I'd probably lean toward defense if we were truly talking about a bench player - you just don't need pinch hitters that much anymore (even more true in this lineup), Profar's best position is already crowded, and Dubon's best use is probably shoring up OF defense late in a game to protect a lead. But given the suboptimal ways Dusty uses his bench, it might be nice to just eliminate the option of starting Dubon in CF 3 times a week. Who knows.
  18. So you’d say it won’t reek havoc on the Super Bowl.
  19. Is he a more egregious example than the gratuitous use of bold italics?
  20. The argument I've seen now in some places is that, well, he might not have cheated personally, but as a team leader, he should have shut that down. I would love to see that same standard applied to players from the steroid era. How many known users did St. Jeter play with?
  21. Now look at defense. And the fact that they played different positions.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.