AggiEE said:

---

Harry Dunne said:

---

Deluxe said:

---

Harry Dunne said:

---

2. This isn't Playstation. You can't just decide that a beloved veteran guy that has helped you get to the top is expendable and toss him. It's like some people have never been part of a team, sports or otherwise.

---

With this logic, bringing in Diaz to perform roughly the same as Marwin did for ~$10mm/year cheaper was a bad move because Marwin was a beloved veteran guy. Great organizations have to make tough decisions to sustain success in the salary cap era. Resource optimization is paramount. In my experience following team sports, this sort of thing happens all the time.

Maybe we disagree here but I think our clubhouse chemistry is fine and I don't think Reddick is some sort of "glue guy" that would set off a jenga-like collapse if he got dealt. Similarly, I didn't see Marwin, or Morton, or Kemp, or McCann, or any of the other guys we've dealt/let walk over the past couple years in that same light. Otherwise we would have been smart to just keep the exact 25 man roster from 2017 in tact. No changes. Why mess with chemistry that won a ring?

Edited out the part about who should start in October because it was confusing some posters. Sticking to the issue that Harry raised.

---

We're probably not that far off here. I agree that it wouldn't set off any sort of collapse either if Reddick didn't get first crack at starting in the postseason or if he got dealt in the offseason - I never said anything like that. The team has enough leadership all around to overcome it, especially if it is clearly the best move for the organization.

What I did say is that I think it would be low class and not well-received to unload him in the offseason and I don't think that's comparable to the guys you mentioned above, who all had expired contracts were about to be overpaid in free agency (as opposed to Reddick, who is in the final year of his reasonable contract). The Patriots can pull it off and so can Luhnow, I guess. Some teams need to do that to survive, but I just don't see that as his ("our") style. Not in 2019, anyway.

Also $13M next year for Reddick isn't going to be the thing that prevents us from re-signing our studs. It would be different if he had multiple years left and that salary were blocking other moves.

---

Have you seen how tight our budget will be next season? We are going to need to shed inefficiencies everywhere in order to try and replace Cole and our bullpen.

I do not see how we can hold on to Reddick's contract. Even if we only save a few million, that allows us to boost the pen.

And there's nothing unclassy about it. It's just business. Reddick hasn't amassed some Biggio esque legacy in Houston to warrant keeping him, and his performance has shown there's no reason to either.

---

Take the class/unclassy totally out of it and we still need a starting-caliber OF. Hopefully Tucker can be the 3rd starter but that's far from a certainty. I also don't think Yordan is going to go from a game here and there in the field to the starting job.

How much exactly do you think you are going to save? First of all I doubt you are going to be able to unload Reddick without taking on salary in return. Secondly even if somehow you could, to save any significant amount of money you are going to have to either go young and unproven or old and risky with the guy you replace Reddick with.

Let me say this, I don't think we will or can unload Reddick.

You can't not play someone because they're young and unproven. If that were the case then you'd have no need of a farm system. If any offense can afford to try out a rookie, it's this team. We clearly think highly of Tucker enough to not trade him for some serious talent. He's in the plans for the next 6 years.

Farmer1906 said:

---

Let me say this, I don't think we will or can unload Reddick.

You can't not play someone because they're young and unproven. If that were the case then you'd have no need of a farm system. If any offense can afford to try out a rookie, it's this team. We clearly think highly of Tucker enough to not trade him for some serious talent. He's in the plans for the next 6 years.

---

Well yes, no isht, obviously (to all of that).

But you still can't roll into 2020 penciling Tucker into RF and not having a very strong plan B. I don't think we have a strong internal plan B other than Reddick and I don't think we are going to be able to save much money trading him (if that's even possible) and picking up someone of equal or better caliber and reliability.

Harry Dunne said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Harry Dunne said:

---

Deluxe said:

---

Harry Dunne said:

---

2. This isn't Playstation. You can't just decide that a beloved veteran guy that has helped you get to the top is expendable and toss him. It's like some people have never been part of a team, sports or otherwise.

---

With this logic, bringing in Diaz to perform roughly the same as Marwin did for ~$10mm/year cheaper was a bad move because Marwin was a beloved veteran guy. Great organizations have to make tough decisions to sustain success in the salary cap era. Resource optimization is paramount. In my experience following team sports, this sort of thing happens all the time.

Maybe we disagree here but I think our clubhouse chemistry is fine and I don't think Reddick is some sort of "glue guy" that would set off a jenga-like collapse if he got dealt. Similarly, I didn't see Marwin, or Morton, or Kemp, or McCann, or any of the other guys we've dealt/let walk over the past couple years in that same light. Otherwise we would have been smart to just keep the exact 25 man roster from 2017 in tact. No changes. Why mess with chemistry that won a ring?

Edited out the part about who should start in October because it was confusing some posters. Sticking to the issue that Harry raised.

---

We're probably not that far off here. I agree that it wouldn't set off any sort of collapse either if Reddick didn't get first crack at starting in the postseason or if he got dealt in the offseason - I never said anything like that. The team has enough leadership all around to overcome it, especially if it is clearly the best move for the organization.

What I did say is that I think it would be low class and not well-received to unload him in the offseason and I don't think that's comparable to the guys you mentioned above, who all had expired contracts were about to be overpaid in free agency (as opposed to Reddick, who is in the final year of his reasonable contract). The Patriots can pull it off and so can Luhnow, I guess. Some teams need to do that to survive, but I just don't see that as his ("our") style. Not in 2019, anyway.

Also $13M next year for Reddick isn't going to be the thing that prevents us from re-signing our studs. It would be different if he had multiple years left and that salary were blocking other moves.

---

Have you seen how tight our budget will be next season? We are going to need to shed inefficiencies everywhere in order to try and replace Cole and our bullpen.

I do not see how we can hold on to Reddick's contract. Even if we only save a few million, that allows us to boost the pen.

And there's nothing unclassy about it. It's just business. Reddick hasn't amassed some Biggio esque legacy in Houston to warrant keeping him, and his performance has shown there's no reason to either.

---

Take the class/unclassy totally out of it and we still need a starting-caliber OF. Hopefully Tucker can be the 3rd starter but that's far from a certainty. I also don't think Yordan is going to go from a game here and there in the field to the starting job.

How much exactly do you think you are going to save? First of all I doubt you are going to be able to unload Reddick without taking on salary in return. Secondly even if somehow you could, to save any significant amount of money you are going to have to either go young and unproven or old and risky with the guy you replace Reddick with.

---

Given what Tucker has shown in AAA and now in the majors, he is clearly ready to be given a full time chance in my view. That doesn't mean he won't be prone to slumps and the learning curve that rookies have, but it's not like Reddick didn't have almost a year long slump and our season turned out fine.

As far as I'm concerned, the downside of Tucker is basically the same as what Reddick produced all year. With a deadly 1-7 in the lineup for next year, I'm not concerned about giving him a chance to work through those issues. Reddick is on the decline, each year getting substantially worse than the prior one. He's more of a known quantity, and one that is costing us a lot.

I expect that we could shed a few million (~5) which will help get us a bullpen arm or be part of a package for a starter. That's more important than having Reddick on the roster. Your backup to Tucker is Marisnick or Straw, with George moving over to RF as necessary.

Farmer1906 said:

---

Presage got moved to 1pm.

We can get 4 per game. I might be able to get 2 extra for game 2 if anyone is interested. No promises though.

---

I'm game

I got shut out on postseason tickets. Was this draw just for the ALDS or for everything?

Also, if anyone isn't gonna use theirs hit me up.

K. I'll let you know how it goes down tomorrow.

Bagwell (who knows more about hitting than all of us combined) was highly critical of Tucker a few days ago. I think it's the first time I've heard him be anything but very positive about one of our own guys.

If Reddick has to go to shed salary then so be it, I just think you have to have something better than Jake & Straw if Tucker isn't ready and when George misses his annual 20-30 games.

Straw has been slightly better than Reddick in his limited play this year. Jake has been very comparable. We could get by fine if Tucker gets his by a bus and we are forced to play Straw & Jake.

PSully97 said:

---

Bagwell (who knows more about hitting than all of us combined) was highly critical of Tucker a few days ago. I think it's the first time I've heard him be anything but very positive about one of our own guys.

If Reddick has to go to shed salary then so be it, I just think you have to have something better than Jake & Straw if Tucker isn't ready and when George misses his annual 20-30 games.

---

Not knowing what to make of him yet isn't being highly critical. He seemed more cautiously optimistic. It's a fair assessment given the limited number of ABs we've seen.

I think he deserves a full time shot, and the savings from Reddick's contract are better served in a more pressing area of need such as the bullpen.

I like Straw and I'd like to see him get a chance to play every day but not sure that I'm ready to pencil him in for that role after 98 ABs of 692 OPS.

Maybe I am misremembering because I was shocked that Baggy was critical at all, but I think he said Tucker has a slow bat & a big hole in his swing.

PSully97 said:

---

Maybe I am misremembering because I was shocked that Baggy was critical at all, but I think he said Tucker has a slow bat & a big hole in his swing.

---

Yeah he said his swing is unorthodox but I didn't take that as necessarily a bad thing. Yuli also has a very unusual swing and is effective.

He also said that he liked what he saw so far and obviously hopes the kid does well.

Tucker's swing has a lot of similarities to his brothers...

AggiEE said:

---

PSully97 said:

---

Maybe I am misremembering because I was shocked that Baggy was critical at all, but I think he said Tucker has a slow bat & a big hole in his swing.

---

Yeah he said his swing is unorthodox but I didn't take that as necessarily a bad thing. Yuli also has a very unusual swing and is effective.

He also said that he liked what he saw so far and obviously hopes the kid does well.

---

Bagwell suggesting someone has an unorthodox swing is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Ok. Its a whole lot of that.

Yuli has a Walt Hriniak swing.

Cody Bellinger was a lanky lefty with a hole in his swing in the 2017 playoffs. He had a moment or two, but overall was fairly weak at the plate that year.

Is the Reddick v Tucker the new Appel v Bryant?

The three options:

• Start Urquidy. Luhnow is not worried about going over is inning limit. He was rested the second half of August and first half of September so he's ready to go, wants to go, and feels good. The matchup will help dictate whether he starts. If it's the A's he had a good outing against them striking out 10 on 9/11. The Indians, however, lit him up for 6 runs in four innings on 7/31.
• JV on short rest. Leaves Cole to close it out on regular rest. Most likely option if the Stros are facing elimination in Game 4.
• Bullpen game. May leave off Straw, Tucker, or Marisnick to carry an extra reliever for the ALDS. Rely on Pressly, Harris, Osuna to face the dangerous part of the lineup, but also have JV available to pitch, if needed. If JV does pitch you could push his first ALCS start to Game 2.

Maybe combine 1&3 with Urquidy on a short leash

Call me crazy but I'd consider starting peacock game 4. Let him try and navigate 3-4 innings or so.

I know he's been on shelf for awhile but if he looks strong the next 8 games I'd consider it

bullard21k said:

---

Call me crazy but I'd consider starting peacock game 4. Let him try and navigate 3-4 innings or so.

I know he's been on shelf for awhile but if he looks strong the next 8 games I'd consider it

---

I would be shocked if Peacock could go 2 innings. He pitched 1 inning in 1 game after coming back.

mathguy86 said:

---

bullard21k said:

---

Call me crazy but I'd consider starting peacock game 4. Let him try and navigate 3-4 innings or so.

I know he's been on shelf for awhile but if he looks strong the next 8 games I'd consider it

---

I would be shocked if Peacock could go 2 innings. He pitched 1 inning in 1 game after coming back.

---

Correct. Which is why I prefaced the statement with if he looks strong the next 8 games...

Possible he can't work back into form that quick but I trust him more than some of these other options for a few innings if healthy

bullard21k said:

---

Call me crazy but I'd consider starting peacock game 4. Let him try and navigate 3-4 innings or so.

I know he's been on shelf for awhile but if he looks strong the next 8 games I'd consider it

---

I like this idea. Start peacock and see how it goes.

Unless, of course, we fall into a hole... then you have to consider starting Verlander on short rest.

How many starts does Miley have left? My biggest hope is that he turns it around.

They don't call him Brad BigCock for nothing

I'm riding him all night

Ag_07 said:

---

Teddy Perkins said:

---

The three options:

• Start Urquidy. Luhnow is not worried about going over is inning limit. He was rested the second half of August and first half of September so he's ready to go, wants to go, and feels good. The matchup will help dictate whether he starts. If it's the A's he had a good outing against them striking out 10 on 9/11. The Indians, however, lit him up for 6 runs in four innings on 7/31.
• JV on short rest. Leaves Cole to close it out on regular rest. Most likely option if the Stros are facing elimination in Game 4.
• Bullpen game. May leave off Straw, Tucker, or Marisnick to carry an extra reliever for the ALDS. Rely on Pressly, Harris, Osuna to face the dangerous part of the lineup, but also have JV available to pitch, if needed. If JV does pitch you could push his first ALCS start to Game 2.

---

---

I would have had the same reaction if you told me last year we'd be facing elimination in game 5 of the ALCS

I will also send you the bill for cleaning coffee off my keyboard

Agnzona said:

---

Who might be the Diaz or Brantley of next year? Solid veterans that want to win and have fun?

---

Somewhere Cyndi Lauper's ears start to twitch.