A Well Executed Offseason Plan. But It's Not a Good Plan.
Christian Walker addresses a big hole with an good player on a good contract. But this win now move does not fit well with the win in the future trade of Kyle Tucker
In a vacuum, the signing of Christian Walker is a good move for the Astros. The Astros have a big hole at first base, and Walker addresses that, in particular by greatly improving the Astros defense at the position. Walker is an older player (he turns 34 right before Opening Day), but he has aged gracefully so far in his career.
The cost of the contract is reasonable, both in terms of the contract’s average annual value ($20M per year) and its length (3 years). Fangraphs values 1 Win at just under $8 million, so it’s quite likely that Walker will generate the 7.5 fWAR over the next three seasons that would meet the value on his contract. Heck there are good reasons to think that the market has a higher value on 1 WAR this offseason, which would make it easier for Walker to earn his contract.
And yet, I am still struck cold by the choice to sign Walker. Or more precisely, I am struck cold by the choice to sign Walker a week after trading Kyle Tucker for Isaac Paredes and only one prospect, and after the Astros were pursuing Nolan Arenado.
A Win-Now Move
Through these moves, the Astros have traded their best player to get two above average players to play for them for the next three seasons. They have opened up a huge hole in the outfield corner to do that.
In analyzing the decision to trade Tucker for Paredes, I noted that the Astros were reducing their chances of winning the division and making a playoff run in 2025. But signing Walker prioritizes 2025. As an older player, he is most likely to be his best in 2025, rather than the two other years of his contract.
If the goal is to win in 2025, then the Astros are better off keeping Tucker, even if Jim Crane is unwilling to offer Tucker a market rate contract for 2026 and beyond.
If the goal was to re-tool and get better in the future, then trading Tucker (and potentially Framber Valdez) for younger players would make sense. That would increase the chances of winning the division in say 2027 and 2028.
The signing of Walker has the Astros taking a middle path, just like they did in getting Paredes.
I think the Astros would be better off in 2025 with Tucker in right and to figure out what to do at third base and with a Jon Singleton/Zack Dezenzo platoon at first base over the present arrangement, which is Paredes at third, Walker at first, and mystery date in right field. It’s better to have star level players like Tucker than above average players like Paredes and Walker.
The middle path that Dana Brown has chosen for the Astros seems to reduce the team’s chances of winning the AL West in 2025 in exchange for…well, I don’t know. The combination of moves leaves me puzzled as to when the Astros are more likely to win the division.
Obviously, that calculation changes if Cam Smith develops into a quality big league regular, but he is of course but one prospect. There is a lot riding on that one prospect becoming a quality big league regular.
Executing A Plan
It is very clear to me that Dana Brown developed a plan for what to do this offseason and that he is executing that plan. It was the Astros choice to trade Tucker for multiple pieces on different time lines. It was the Astros plan to get an excellent defensive corner infielder, pivoting quickly to Walker after Arenado blocked a trade to Houston.
The plan is simultaneously focused on the near term (Walker), the medium term (Paredes) and the long term (Cam Smith).
My question is whether this is the right plan. It is a plan that leaves him with little margin of error on each of its individual components. And even if the plan goes well, it is unclear to me that the Astros won’t be an 85 win team at each stage of the plan.
It’s a clear plan from the front office with good execution. But I think it’s the wrong plan.