With Fox Sports reporting that the Astros had to pull Jose Valverde off of waivers today, so ends whatever pipe dreams some of us may have harbored about landing some worth while talent via his trade.
I can't say that I am overly surprised by this turn of events, but also I can't say that I am not a little bit saddened. The ability to trade him away for the caliber of prospects he could command would have been a huge boon for the Astros. His trade also would have removed the fear I have that the Astros might not offer him arbitration and miss out on the opportunity to collect on his compensation pick as a Type A FA. Maybe this fear is unfounded, but after last off season's arbitration offers—zero—I can't shake the fear.
However, this opens the possibility for a little afternoon discussion:
0 recs | 17 comments
We should keep him
Because I like his fire and the video they play on the scoreboard when he comes out is neat.
entropic soul - August 20, 2009
Keep Papa Grande, lose the heart attacks.
Elephande - August 20, 2009
Win-Win
Yes, he’ll be expensive. But even if we get him back on arb, he’s still a good closer and still will be worth some prospects. If we lose him, we get 2 picks for losing a good closer. Not offering him arbitration is…stupid. But wouldn’t put it past, well, the Astros.
astrosfanforever - August 20, 2009
exactly.
clack - August 20, 2009
I think there's no way that the Astros actively try to keep Valverde
Just because of payroll considerations, but there’s no reason not to roll the dice on his arb. I imagine there will be a fair number of suitors for Valverde out there and that discourage him from accepting.
Stephen Higdon - August 20, 2009
why is it not possible to trade him now?
I realize that it limits the number of suitors that we could pit against each other in a trade but we still could trade him (or try to) to the team that claimed him…. right? Couldn’t we still get a decent deal from that team. If we’re not going to offer him arbitration this off-season and we’re not going to sign him for next year…. then at least we would get something in return.
Rhombus67 - August 20, 2009
no.
That team may not want to trade for him, but just claimed him to block anybody else from claiming him. That’s pretty common this time of year. One of the reports I saw said that the claim was made to block any potential trade. The Astros only had three options: let him go for nothing; try to work out a trade within 48 hours (and the claiming team may have said we don’t want to trade for him, or perhaps made a minimal offer); or pull him back from waivers.
clack - August 20, 2009
Its a Win-Win-Win situation
you offer him abritration…if he doesnt accept, you get 2 picks…if he does accept you get a top closer…then u can always trade him
EveryHoustonTeamRox! - August 20, 2009
I voted yes
I doubt he’d accept just because the free agent market will probably be pretty good for him, but if he does, he wouldn’t make too much more in arbitration because he hasn’t been that effective this year with injuries and so on.
Subber10 - August 20, 2009
offer him arb
Valverde’s been tagged with that label of “closer” FWIW, so I’m sure enough there will be a GM out there that will offer him a somewhat silly 3 year deal to say that offering him arbitration is a good bet. Like someone else mentioned, if he ends up taking it, we can still try to flip him next year at the deadline, in virtually the same situation as this year.
Also, I had this discussion on twitter earlier, but I’m not sure that Valverde being taken off of waivers really is that big of a deal. Teams customarily put their players thru waivers and other teams routinely make claims, not necessarily b/c they were going to offer anything worthwhile in return, but simply to block a player from making it through and be eligible to be traded to another opponent. It’s more of a strategic thing. Unless something else comes to light I’d bet that’s what happened here. I doubt whoever claimed him was willing to part with anything substantial for him. We really don’t know anything. There’s plenty to blame Ed & Drayton for, including not trading Valverde BEFORE the deadline, but this isn’t really anything.
lnewcomer - August 20, 2009
I don't think there's anything to blame Ed or Drayton for in this case
It’s just sad that the possibility of trading Valverde is dead for the remainder of the season.
Stephen Higdon - August 20, 2009
It's not that sad
I don’t know what you’d really get in return for a closer that can’t have a 1-2-3 inning and is essentially a month and half rental.
Timothy De Block - August 20, 2009
Eric Gagne got the Brewers a nice little haul
Stephen Higdon - August 20, 2009
what did they get in return?
EveryHoustonTeamRox! - August 20, 2009
Sadly, I think your fear about not offering arbitration has some basis in fact
although I don’t remember for sure, but we really didn’t have a FA of Valverde’s caliber getting cut loose, even if they were Type A guys. Drayton’s penny-pinching ways know no bounds at this point.
lnewcomer - August 20, 2009
I'd disagree about the penny pinching
Obviously he doesn’t spend the money he could, but at least he’s not like the Twins owner. Now he’s a penny-pincher.
Timothy De Block - August 20, 2009
My rule of thumb on offering arbitration
is only do it if you want the guy back on the team at the “market rate”…don’t try to game it.
In this case, I’d be happy to have Valverde in the bullpen. The question is basically whether Valverde’s salary will destroy any offseason flexibility. It likely would make it impossible to fill any of the other gaps the team has. So I vote no.
AstroAndy - August 20, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of The Crawfish Boxes to post a comment.