The Houston Astros are still very much in play for 3B Alex Bregman after Cardinals 3B Nolan Arenado informed the Astros Tuesday that he currently is not willing to waive his no trade clause to Houston. The trade was close until Arenado’s decision. First on Arenado’s decision:…
— Bob Nightengale (@BNightengale) December 18, 2024
Nolan Arenado is unwilling to waive his no-trade clause to join the Houston Astros, at least for now. That decision, first reported by @mlb dot com, is not final, and the Cardinals and Astros will continue conversations.
— Katie Woo (@katiejwoo) December 18, 2024
More here w/ @Chandler_Rome https://t.co/TxLA6NUFPK
Quote:
Instead, according to multiple league sources, Arenado declined to waive his no-trade clause, preferring not to make a decision this early in the offseason. That decision, first reported by MLB.com on Wednesday, is not final, and the Cardinals and Astros will continue conversations. It is unclear whether the Astros will continue heavily pursuing Arenado or pivot to other options.
Deluxe said:
I'm glad he blocked the trade, but moreso, I'm concerned why we were interested in committing 3 years to him in the first place.
It's like signing Bregman, except immediately fast forwarding to the 3 years on the back-end of his deal and getting no prime years.
Is Crane's strategy of no long term deals really that savvy if it means continually committing 3 years to aging players on the decline?
Ag_07 said:
Except WAY cheaper
Ag_07 said:
True
And for the record I'm glad he nixed it. After looking at his numbers I think it would've been a bad idea.
This just is not true.AggiEE said:Deluxe said:
I'm glad he blocked the trade, but moreso, I'm concerned why we were interested in committing 3 years to him in the first place.
It's like signing Bregman, except immediately fast forwarding to the 3 years on the back-end of his deal and getting no prime years.
Is Crane's strategy of no long term deals really that savvy if it means continually committing 3 years to aging players on the decline?
A declining Arenado is still about as good as Bregman and it's only 3 years, not 6 or 7
I think because Crane gets enamored with a name and past production.Deluxe said:Ag_07 said:
True
And for the record I'm glad he nixed it. After looking at his numbers I think it would've been a bad idea.
Agreed.
I'm not even necessarily making the case that we should def retain Bregman. Just that if we're going to go in a diff direction, why would our answer be to commit 3 years to a guy who's 34 and on decline. Oh well.
For real. Need people to stop thinking he's as good as Bregman.Farmer1906 said:This just is not true.AggiEE said:Deluxe said:
I'm glad he blocked the trade, but moreso, I'm concerned why we were interested in committing 3 years to him in the first place.
It's like signing Bregman, except immediately fast forwarding to the 3 years on the back-end of his deal and getting no prime years.
Is Crane's strategy of no long term deals really that savvy if it means continually committing 3 years to aging players on the decline?
A declining Arenado is still about as good as Bregman and it's only 3 years, not 6 or 7
Even if Lunhow was in possession of said stones, I don't think he could have stopped it.Beat40 said:I think because Crane gets enamored with a name and past production.Deluxe said:Ag_07 said:
True
And for the record I'm glad he nixed it. After looking at his numbers I think it would've been a bad idea.
Agreed.
I'm not even necessarily making the case that we should def retain Bregman. Just that if we're going to go in a diff direction, why would our answer be to commit 3 years to a guy who's 34 and on decline. Oh well.
I think that's why he and Click never worked. Click didn't want to name chase and probably wanted more of the known, garbage heap type player.
Lunhow was literally the perfect blend of GM for Crane. An identifier or cheap, quality talent and willing to go for the big name when it's right.
Too bad Lunhow didn't have the stones to tell his guys to stop the cheating system.
Ag_07 said:Farmer1906 said:IF the Astros were to up their offer to at least 175/6, I bet they could land Alex Bregman.
— Michael Schwab (@michaelschwab13) December 18, 2024
Bregman ain't worth that
I will say is this in his defense -- no punishment like the one the Astros received had been given out to a team in a very long time. If he knew the punishment would be what it ended up being, I think he would have taken it more seriously.EastCoastAgNc said:Even if Lunhow was in possession of said stones, I don't think he could have stopped it.Beat40 said:I think because Crane gets enamored with a name and past production.Deluxe said:Ag_07 said:
True
And for the record I'm glad he nixed it. After looking at his numbers I think it would've been a bad idea.
Agreed.
I'm not even necessarily making the case that we should def retain Bregman. Just that if we're going to go in a diff direction, why would our answer be to commit 3 years to a guy who's 34 and on decline. Oh well.
I think that's why he and Click never worked. Click didn't want to name chase and probably wanted more of the known, garbage heap type player.
Lunhow was literally the perfect blend of GM for Crane. An identifier or cheap, quality talent and willing to go for the big name when it's right.
Too bad Lunhow didn't have the stones to tell his guys to stop the cheating system.
Then he should take it.texasaggie2015 said:
Bregman's market hasn't been nearly what Boras expected it to be. Spoke with a source this afternoon.
The Astros still don't have the highest offer though.
Boras is an ass clown and im glad owners (Not you Cohen) arent falling for his bull**** anymoretexasaggie2015 said:
Bregman's market hasn't been nearly what Boras expected it to be. Spoke with a source this afternoon.
The Astros still don't have the highest offer though.
Farmer1906 said:This just is not true.AggiEE said:Deluxe said:
I'm glad he blocked the trade, but moreso, I'm concerned why we were interested in committing 3 years to him in the first place.
It's like signing Bregman, except immediately fast forwarding to the 3 years on the back-end of his deal and getting no prime years.
Is Crane's strategy of no long term deals really that savvy if it means continually committing 3 years to aging players on the decline?
A declining Arenado is still about as good as Bregman and it's only 3 years, not 6 or 7
Either you are trolling, are Jeff Bagwell, or do not understand baseball.AggiEE said:Farmer1906 said:This just is not true.AggiEE said:Deluxe said:
I'm glad he blocked the trade, but moreso, I'm concerned why we were interested in committing 3 years to him in the first place.
It's like signing Bregman, except immediately fast forwarding to the 3 years on the back-end of his deal and getting no prime years.
Is Crane's strategy of no long term deals really that savvy if it means continually committing 3 years to aging players on the decline?
A declining Arenado is still about as good as Bregman and it's only 3 years, not 6 or 7
It has been for the last few years, not sure what's untrue about it
AggiEE said:Farmer1906 said:This just is not true.AggiEE said:Deluxe said:
I'm glad he blocked the trade, but moreso, I'm concerned why we were interested in committing 3 years to him in the first place.
It's like signing Bregman, except immediately fast forwarding to the 3 years on the back-end of his deal and getting no prime years.
Is Crane's strategy of no long term deals really that savvy if it means continually committing 3 years to aging players on the decline?
A declining Arenado is still about as good as Bregman and it's only 3 years, not 6 or 7
It has been for the last few years, not sure what's untrue about it
Farmer1906 said:AggiEE said:Farmer1906 said:This just is not true.AggiEE said:Deluxe said:
I'm glad he blocked the trade, but moreso, I'm concerned why we were interested in committing 3 years to him in the first place.
It's like signing Bregman, except immediately fast forwarding to the 3 years on the back-end of his deal and getting no prime years.
Is Crane's strategy of no long term deals really that savvy if it means continually committing 3 years to aging players on the decline?
A declining Arenado is still about as good as Bregman and it's only 3 years, not 6 or 7
It has been for the last few years, not sure what's untrue about it
Based on what exactly?
We already knew that. Boras......texasaggie2015 said:
Bregman's market hasn't been nearly what Boras expected it to be. Spoke with a source this afternoon.
The Astros still don't have the highest offer though.
