Should Astros trade for Nolan Arenado? Three reasons why a deal may not be the right move for Houston

On Saturday, word surfaced that the Houston Astros have renewed interest in obtaining third baseman Nolan Arenado from the St. Louis Cardinals. The Astros attempted to acquire Arenado back in December, but he ended those efforts by invoking his no-trade clause. It's unclear if Arenado has changed his tune about the Astros since, or if this will be the second verse of the same song.

Should the two sides reach another agreement and this time have Arenado acquiesce, the Astros would likely plug him in at the hot corner. In doing so, Houston would relocate longtime second baseman Jose Altuve to left field; current projected third baseman Isaac Paredes, added in the Kyle Tucker trade with the Chicago Cubs, would then slide over to the keystone. Similar hypotheticals were bandied about when the Astros showed rekindled interest in reuniting with franchise cornerstone Alex Bregman in January. Bregman instead joined the Boston Red Sox.

That's all good and well, but something I find myself asking is … well, should the Astros even bother with Arenado? Let's examine that question using a few handy subheads.

1. Risky profile, cost

Mind you, this would be a no-brainer if this were the Arenado of a few seasons ago. It's not.

Arenado, nearing his 34th birthday, is now fresh off one of the worst offensive showings of his career. What's worse is there are legitimate under-the-hood reasons to doubt his ability to regain his old form. His average exit velocity, for instance, was down more than two ticks year to year and ranked in the ninth percentile in all of Major League Baseball. Additionally, Arenado recorded the worst hard-hit percentage (the share of batted balls that cleared 95 mph) of his career.

Predictably, perhaps, Arenado's bat speed also declined in 2024. Whereas more than 16% of his swings in the second half of the 2023 season cleared 75 mph, that mark was down to 12.8% last year, according to Statcast. A player's ability to make authoritative contact is, in part, a function of their bat speed. It's only natural that players lose some of their quick twitch ability as they age, particularly into their mid-30s. Arenado has never walked at high rates throughout his career; as such, losing more of his slugging capacity could reduce him to a severely limited offensive player.

To be fair, Arenado has remained productive overall thanks to his outstanding defense at the hot corner. He's notched around 2.5 Wins Above Replacement in each of the past two seasons. Further offensive decay, however, might put him on the wrong side of the league-average mark. That possibility is bubbling at a time when he has three years and $74 million remaining on his contract.

Even acknowledging that the Cardinals will likely retain a fair chunk of that money to facilitate a move, I'm not sure that the Astros would be wise to place their chips on Arenado -- in part because of his risks and his finances, and in part because of the players they already have in place.

2. Complicating internal matters

The opportunity cost associated with Arenado isn't just about how much he's owed; it's also about the playing time and defensive role he'll demand at the expense of other Astros players.

As suggested in the introduction, adding Arenado would require the Astros to enact a carousel that moves Altuve to left field and Paredes to second base. Altuve's relocation seems to be underway no matter what, so it would be unfair to count that as a debt against an Arenado acquisition. Paredes' part, however, would be a new and direct reaction to Arenado's presence. The Astros' defense would almost certainly take a hit, at least in the early going, as they settled into their new positions. (For whatever it's worth, Paredes has graded significantly worse at second base throughout his career.)

The Astros don't have a great farm system by any means, but it's hard to ignore how Arenado's addition would complicate the path to the big-league roster for what notable prospects they have on hand. That includes outfielder Jacob Melton and infielders Brice Matthews, Cam Smith, and Shay Whitcomb. That's without considering how the move would impact the likes of Mauricio Dubón and Brendan Rodgers, a recent signing who had a better 2024 season than most people realize.

Having more good players than spots is always a worthwhile problem to encounter. But again, it's not that simple; the Astros would jump on making those trade-offs if Arenado were still his old, elite self. Because he's not, and because further attrition could be in store, the Astros have a trickier calculus to perform. From where I'm sitting, I'm not sure that the math checks out.

3. Another sign of fractured approach

I've written about this before, and I'll continue to grant the possibility that I'm misreading the situation from afar and seeing things that aren't actually there. Still, I continue to get the sense that the Astros have splintered perspectives in their front office about what they should do with their roster. To be sure, you can find differences of opinion in every front office. There's a widespread misconception that front offices are monoliths that are on board (or not) with every maneuver; hardly, it's more like every other job where you can find disagreement with ease.

What makes the Astros unique is how that disconnect (if that is indeed what I'm detecting) has manifested in their transactions the last two years.

The Astros have been one of the most successful, dominant franchises in the sport for a decade now. At some point, the rent was going to come due: on having an aging (and/or departing) core; on always choosing late (if at all) in the first round of the draft; on making win-now trades every summer and winter. They seemed to acknowledge that the bill had arrived in December, when they traded impending free agent Kyle Tucker. It wasn't an easy decision, but it was the kind of move a team makes when they realize they need to take a big-picture approach to ensure a better future. (And, to Houston's credit, I did and continue to think that trade could pay dividends.)

So, how do you reconcile that trade (and its implicit motivations) with some of the others the Astros have made? A team that recognizes it's time to shift some attention forward isn't usually spending big money on a closer (Josh Hader) and an aging right-right first baseman (Christian Walker) while, on multiple occasions, chasing after an aging third baseman (Arenado).

I don't think the Astros have to close themselves off to any kind of deal that's focused exclusively on the near term. I do think that the Tucker trade was a misfire if their intent was solely to maximize what's left of their championship window and if the goal is to try to serve both the present and the future, I think some of these moves (and pursuits) may end up being a mistake in that respect since they limit playing time and financial opportunities. The beauty of baseball being so unpredictable is that everything might work out for the Astros anyway.

That includes if Arenado again ends up saying no to their advances.