Just how great are the Astros payroll concerns?
by Stephen Higdon on Dec 24, 2010 6:00 AM CST
in Houston Astros Hot Stove News
Email
PrintDuring the trade deadline, I kept waiting to hear word that a team was especially interested in acquiring Matt Lindstrom. When Matt Capps was dealt for a top-tier catching prospect, I imagined that there was something worthwhile on the auction block if Ed Wade would just say yes. Lindstrom was young, still under team control, and though tapering off, started 2010 strong. That Lindstrom continued to don an Astros uniform confused me—especially given his strong numbers in July (10.6 K/9, 4.50 K:BB, 1.51 FIP, 3.12 xFIP).
When August went awry for Lindstrom, I supposed that MLB clubs had read something in the tea leaves. I also expected that Wade would just bide his time and hope Lindstrom got off to a strong start in 2011 before shipping him out.
I was wrong on about all of that. Thomas Harding, of MLB.com, first reported that the Astros and Rockies consummated a deal for Matt Lindstrom. There were a few minutes where it was possible to imagine that there was something of worth coming back. Then Carrie Muskat, also of MLB.com, confirmed the return package: Wes Musick, a former Astros draftee, and Jonthan Arstil. That's it. Lindstrom was sent to the Rockies for a 23 year old with strong command in A-ball and a 24 year old with no command. Nothing I read in Jonthan Mayo's write-up of Muskat and Arstill has me feeling any differently than what I can glean from their stats. Essentially, then, the deal involves Ed Wade relieving the payroll of about $3 million.
We have been trying to figure out where the 2011 payroll would stand. Ed Wade made some statements alluding to the fact that the Astros had payroll flexibility early in the hotstove season, but it is hard to reconcile payroll flexibility and this trade (along with Jeff Keppinger trade rumors, etc.).
The questions remains, though, as to why Drayton McLane has set the budget where he has. Is it because 2010's revenue took the Astros uncomfortably close to operating in the red? Or is it because he thinks that creating a leaner payroll will add to his bottom line the sale he is contemplating? Or is it something we're not thinking of? Perhaps the uncertainty of the Astros new TV deal has McLane worried about the future.
As for the trade itself, I find it hard to feel anything but blasé. I would have preferred Wade to hold onto Lindstrom in the hopes that his trade value increased. I would have hoped that Wade could have received more for Lindstrom. But this deal doesn't reek the way the Paulino/Barmes trade did, so maybe the medical reports on Lindstrom are not favorable (or something to that effect). Plus, Lindstrom is a luxury commodity for an Astros team that will struggle to even feign competitiveness in 2011.
Even with all of the rationalizations I can throw at the trade, I can't shake the feeling that Wade didn't get everything he could for Lindstrom—either now or next July. That leads me to believe that Wade had to free up payroll space, and for some reasons the Rockies have been willing swap parts with the Astros this winter.
So more than anything, I am left curious. Curious as to why the Astros payroll is such a concern, and curious as to why Ed Wade seems to cozy up to a team and then crank out deals with them in such a repetitious fashion.
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I would've liked
a return which involved perhaps a relief arm with better peripheral numbers (though a groundball-inducing, 7,5K/9 AA guy ain’t horrible) or more discernible “stuff”, but unlike the abysmal Paulino trade, I see this deal as conceived out of reasonable process – I think Lindstrom’s medical history was a factor here, the front office went looking for a logical possible return for him (possible relievers in the minor league with some warts), and mostly got what they wanted.
As for the payroll, this team has already spent the past few years scratching around looking for bargains. I’d agree at this point with what you said that McLane is probably even more antsy than normal, especially with the TV deal and possible sale uncertainty, and Lindstrom is not a irreplaceable asset for his relatively high cost (coming to 3mil for a reliever with prevalent injury concerns)
Remember to retire Fin's number, Mark.
"I've had people walk out on me before, but not when I was being so charming."
There was nothing wrong with the Paulino-Barmes swap. We needed power in the middle of the infield. We have far too many pitchers. Paulino had zero options, so we would have needed to keep him hidden in the bullpen or would have lost him on the waiver wire. We basically traded two guys who quite possibly would have been waiver wire chum or non-tendered free agent as in Barmes case.
The Lindstrom deal seems a little erratic as far as timing, but hopefully we get something out of these two. I’m sure we gave up a ton more acquiring Lindstrom. What do you guys think?
by SteveBartman_MVP on Dec 24, 2010 7:56 AM CST up reply actions
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Paulino is not out of options. Although McTaggert stated that, I have not seen any quotes from the Astros’ front office which said it. Paulino had one option left last season (the Astros admitted that they had made a mistake in calculating the remaining options), and it was not used because Paulino was not sent to the minors (except for a rehab start, which doesn’t count).
Well he’s nearly arbitration eligible and may have been non-tendered next offseason anyways. I don’t think the trade is uneven as most think.
by SteveBartman_MVP on Dec 24, 2010 8:11 AM CST up reply actions
Why would Paulino be non-tendered prior to 2012?
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by Stephen Higdon on Dec 24, 2010 9:17 AM CST up reply actions
Actually, he’s arbitration eligible as a super two qualifier. I had no idea. He’s going to be rather expensive his second time through arbitration going into 2012 and may not be worth the gamble. If Felipe harnesses his full potential, I would be shocked.
Wade isn’t a very credible trade evaluator, but I won’t hound him for the Barmes trade. I may very well be wrong and Paulino may become Carlos Zambrano, but Carlos was already a great pitcher coming up at a very young age. I’ll take Barmes for now since he’s going to be a free agent in 2012 anyways. Maybe he slugs 25 and gets us compensation.
by SteveBartman_MVP on Dec 24, 2010 9:48 AM CST up reply actions
I will
Firstly, because Barmes was a non-tender candidate. You don’t give up anything for a possible non-tender candidate, especially of Barmes’ age/quality, let alone a power arm still with projection at the ML level.
And who gives a cocknugget if he’s coming up to arbitration. He’s either going to do reasonably well in the bullpen or as a low-end starter and become relatively expensive, and then if you don’t want to pay him, you trade him and get something better than Barmes – maybe a couple of live low-A arms with more legitimate possibilities as future ML relievers; if he flops, he’s not costing a lot, or you simply cut bait with him.
There was absolutely no reason to trade Paulino, a live arm with ML experience – even with his questionable ML future, for a guy who probably could’ve been had for very little not too long after.
Remember to retire Fin's number, Mark.
"I've had people walk out on me before, but not when I was being so charming."
Theory
Three possible lines of reasoning for that deal.
One, that it was looked upon as one injury-plagued risk for another, and of the two areas of need, SS was one where we had no obvious solution, particularly in light of the acknowledged pursuit of more power from the middle infielders
Two, that they had bigger expectations of Paulino after his return than they actually let-on publicly, and when he didn’t perform, they determined this was a merry-go-round they were very prepared to get off of under the right circumstances.
And three, one cannot know what competition there might have been for Barmes as a non-tendered FA; if Barmes was “the guy” they determined they thought to be their best option, then in light of #2, it seemed reasonable.
I think
the only reasonable way to justify something like this is if the front office really saw a fair amount of competition for Barmes. I don’t see it, because of what he is, but maybe there was.
Still wouldn’t have liked it if it was so – payroll problems must absolutely suck if they can’t afford a stopgap, or to overpay Barmes a fraction, or maybe they were just uncomfortable with Kepp’s SS play combined with his cost.
Remember to retire Fin's number, Mark.
"I've had people walk out on me before, but not when I was being so charming."
When Paulino is inconsistent, his fastball becomes hittable due to favorable hitters counts and sometimes you can’t hide the guy in the pen. I would never ever offer arbitration to a pitcher you can’t even hide in the pen. Barmes also wouldn’t have been guaranteed to sign with us as a non-tendered free agent. Not getting more than Barmes for Paulino is nobody elses fault but Paulinos. Rival ballclubs must have seen past the velocity and random dominating starts for the horrible whip and injury concerns.
by SteveBartman_MVP on Dec 26, 2010 5:16 AM CST up reply actions
Yeesh.
That’s not the point. You haven’t even tried Paulino in the bullpen yet. Just as you can claim ‘you can’t hide a guy in the pen’, I could claim that moving him there, making him cut down on the number of pitches and focus on throwing fastball-breaking pitch, would help mostly curb his control and injury issues.
Remember to retire Fin's number, Mark.
"I've had people walk out on me before, but not when I was being so charming."
Have you seen Paulino after his DL stint? He was givin up lots a runs and he was in the bullpen!
"I want my life back". "I'm sure you do Tony Hayward, but I like marshland & fish. You'll never be able to do anything it takes to "make this right". And don't even think about giving me marlins.
Right...
because six innings after a long DL stint is such a large sample size to form a credible assessment.
Remember to retire Fin's number, Mark.
"I've had people walk out on me before, but not when I was being so charming."
I know what I saw
Seeing is believing…
"I want my life back". "I'm sure you do Tony Hayward, but I like marshland & fish. You'll never be able to do anything it takes to "make this right". And don't even think about giving me marlins.
I bet JR Towles took to your eye as well.
Remember to retire Fin's number, Mark.
"I've had people walk out on me before, but not when I was being so charming."
Given that this appears to be a salary dump to avoid a $2 or $3 million pay increase—the lid that McLane has placed on payroll is tight indeed.
I don’t see how the television deal would cause McLane to reduce his payroll. First, it doesn’t start until 2012. Second, it is supposed to increase profits. I think McLane has taken a short term view that he wants to milk as much of a profit margin as he can until the team is sold.
As someone said in the comment section of the previous article, Wade appears to keep going back to the same teams for trades. My speculation is that Wade relies heavily on getting references on players from people he knows. Mills now seems to be involved, and given his background with both the Red Sox and Rockies, he probably has contacts in both organizations. (We know that Francona gave a recommendation for Hall.) So, the Rockies and Red Sox join the Phillies as preferred trade partners. That’s my guess, anyway.
Yeah, he must realize if he is asking for 800 million, that his roster obligations better be as low as possible. Would think he might have tried signing a Carlos Pena or Brandon Webb to an incentive based deal. Bad move by Drayton even asking for such an unrealistic return for the Astros.
by SteveBartman_MVP on Dec 24, 2010 8:07 AM CST up reply actions
See
I knew I wasn’t thinking of all the possibilities.
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by Stephen Higdon on Dec 24, 2010 10:12 AM CST up reply actions
I should have clarified further
The TV deal, to me, presents a problem for Drayton. Because the revenue stream is so speculative, my guess is that potential buyers are speculating very low, and Drayton is speculating very high. As a result of the uncertainty in valuing the TV deal, my guess is that Drayton is trying to offset that by minimizing payroll obligations beyond 2012. That way he can go back to the potential buyers and say “Look, you can assume that number for TV revenue, but I’m offsetting some of that by lowering your payroll obligations. Pay me my money.”
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by Stephen Higdon on Dec 24, 2010 10:17 AM CST up reply actions
Except it doesn’t make any sense to me…because the broadcast revenue stream and payroll are likely to be correllated.
Exactly
But I imagine that the bidding process is keying in on the uncertainty of what the revenue stream will be. The Astros have never had an RSN before. There hasn’t been an RSN in Texas, and the deals have yet to be struck with service providers. With that many variables, I imagine Drayton’s people have a model showing how lucrative the deal will be, and prospective buyers have one downplaying its potential.
If Drayton can’t overcome that with more substantiated proof, then I would think he’d just try to minimize payroll obligations for new buyers. Their figures can’t be off by too much (unless there’s a lack of good faith going into the models). In doing so, he can come back and say “if that’s what you think the new revenue stream looks like, fine. But now I have reduced payroll obligations.” That way Drayton gets to keep a justification for projected profits, etc. and hopefully bolster the validity of his asking price.
Of course, minimizing payroll obligations might just be a smart tactic to begin with, and have nothing to do with arguments relating to the projected value of the TV deal. I just imagine that if I were trying to negotiate with Drayton, I would try and downplay the value of the TV deal in a effort to drive down the price. And that if I were Drayton, and confronted by that tactic, I would point to the lack of payroll obligations and to negate the position somewhat.
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by Stephen Higdon on Dec 24, 2010 12:15 PM CST up reply actions
Hall or Lindstrom?
If they both cost around $3M, who would you rather have? I think Melancon and Lopez are younger, cheaper replacements for Lindstrom. Rather spend money on an everyday 2B.
I’m almost glad in a way that the budget is tighter this year. Forces the team to go younger. Should be beneficial in the long term.
Somewhat different perspective
I was surprised to see Wade even get something comparable for Lindstrom to what he paid for him. That’s because once he hit his funk with his back last season, he just wasn’t nearly as effective. I’m not thrilled by what we got in return, but then again, I just don’t have much faith that Lindstrom will rebound in any permanent way.
Having said that, it is agreed that the bigger picture issue is just how much the actions have cried out louder than Wade’s words when he first arrived in Orlando that he was feeling so good about the payroll flexibility Drayton had granted. Either something changed or Wade was throwing us a curve ball… he doesn’t strike me as the curve throwing type, so the guess from here is that there might have been some lowering of the estimates on what Drayton’s going to be able to fetch for his property.
I think there was a definite change in tone in Wade’s statements, and I agree that sometime during the winter meetings it appears that Drayton squeezed the budget some more. Now the quotes have changed from “McLane has been really good about giving me payroll flexibility” to Mills saying, “Wade has been really good at making changes to the team, given the payroll reductions he has been given.”
What the Twins gave up for Capps makes me almost cry
But then again I wondered why the hell we didn’t get Capps in the first place last offseason.
And why the hell wasn’t Lindstrom shifted before the trade deadline of Wade wanted shot of him, when we could have convinced teams they were getting a magic bullet for their bullpen?
it seems to me like relievers always have greater value at the deadline when teams are in need of 1 extra piece to make a playoff run
Bagwell is the perfect example of that
by Timothy De Block on Dec 26, 2010 9:38 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
Fangraphs had an article a couple of weeks ago testing that hypothesis. They reviewed the trade return on every closer trade over the past three years. The sample is probably too small to draw much conclusion. (And the article agrees that it doesn’t answer the question…just provides information on the last three years.) In any event, the data didn’t support the idea that either the off-season or trade deadline get the best return. Both periods had transactions which were overpayments, as well as underpayments. For the in-season trades, Ned Colleti seemed to be the predominant contributor to overpayments.
what’s the point of doing an article if your conclusion is “too small of a sample size”, when you have more than three years of data to sift through.
by Timothy De Block on Dec 26, 2010 4:52 PM CST up reply actions
I suspect that it’s difficult to get trade data, in the form they used it, for longer historic periods. They appeared to use Fangraphs’ reporting and annual reviews of trades for their review, and I am guessing that is the reason for the time period (since Fangraphs hasn’t been reporting the information for very long). They examine each relief pitcher trade and thin the group down by using only relievers who were primarily a closer at the time of the trade and exclude certain instances where the trades aren’t comparable. They apparently use Fangraphs’ conclusion at the time of the trade whether one side or the other overpaid. Obviously that method of evaluating the trade is very limiting, since it is more difficult to sift through the views of a trade a long time ago.
The conclusion about too small a sample size is mine, not the author of the study. My recollection is that they had something like a total of 10 or so trades. After spending several minutes trying to search for the article on fangraphs, I didn’t find it, and I don’t want to spend more time looking for it.
Are you talking about this MLBTR piece?
If I had been doing the study, I would have included a number of the guys that he excluded because they “had prohibitive salaries”, because they were still traded, and it’s very possible that portions of salary were eaten by the trading team. Overall, it’s a tough article to read and comment on because it relies heavily on name recognition and looking up or recalling the recent performances of the guys in the trade.
That must be the article I was thinking of….and the reason I couldn’t find it at fangraphs. (Also, I notice that it uses the MLBTR data base, and not fangraph’s.) I agree that one could debate certain exclusions. But there is no question that salary issues make such an analysis difficult. Also, trades in which the closer is packaged with other players adds a complication. I also question the exclusion of Street and Lindstrom, even though I understand their reasoning.
The article concludes that there might be a slight advantage to mid-season trades. However, my reaction is that it seems relatively similar, with both good and bad trades in both time periods. I think that trading at the deadline vs. the off-season is subject to the luck of the draw. Sometimes you get lucky at the deadline and the market is good and at other times, every contending team has a closer and the supply of tradeable relievers is glutted.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Crawfish Boxes
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
TCB Tweets!
Current Series
3 game series vs Dodgers @ Dodger Stadium
| Fri 05/25 |
WP: Lucas Harrell (4 - 3)
SV: Brett Myers LP: Clayton Kershaw (4 - 2) |
3 - 1 win |
| Sat 05/26 |
WP: Kenley Jansen (4 - 0)
LP: Wesley Wright (0 - 1) |
3 - 6 loss |
|
Houston Astros
Sunday, May 27, 2012, 3:10 PM CDT Partly cloudy. Winds blowing out to right field at 10-15 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 75. |
||
NL Central Standings
| W | L | PCT | GB | STRK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cincinnati
|
26 | 20 | .565 | 0 | Won 1 |
|
St. Louis
|
25 | 22 | .531 | 1.5 | Lost 3 |
|
Houston
|
22 | 24 | .478 | 4 | Lost 1 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
22 | 24 | .478 | 4 | Won 2 |
|
Milwaukee
|
19 | 27 | .413 | 7 | Lost 1 |
|
Chicago
|
15 | 31 | .326 | 11 | Lost 11 |
(updated 5.27.2012 at 1:03 AM CDT)
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
