Why though, I see him being a major Houston Icon but 14 MILLION for an aging first baseman on an average team. I remember being a HUGE Glenn Davis fan back in the late 80s and being DEVASTED when he was traded but now I see that trade and laugh...Davis for Harnisch, Schilling and Finley...HOLY #$%#$% lol. Ultimately I agree they will pick up the option but if he has a bad year, in respect to Puma, then the smart move is to move on or at least consider trading him at the deadline.
Before last year, in which he obviously had the calf strain, he had played in 159, 153 and 152 games in 2008, 2007 and 2006. Basically, other than the calf strain, he hadn't had an injury of any consequence since the freak flag football injury in 2004 that cost him April 2005 (and he basically played every game in 2005 after that, too). Last year was the first in-season injury DL stint of his entire career. I'm not trying to downplay the surgery - certainly, any time you have a veteran player combine the words knee and surgery, it's a concern - but to label him as injury-prone prior to this is just silly.
Unless he absolutely falls off the map, $14 million is not at all unreasonable for his production. It's amazing how spoiled Astros fans are by Berkman, when "off" years like 2009 - with practically a .910 OPS - are considered worrisome. He's a major, major plus asset - which the Astros are very thin on. You keep him, and maybe he keeps producing at this level into his late 30s, ala Frank Thomas and he can still play a role on your team of the future, the way Bagwell did in 2004. If not, who knows, maybe you can convince him to waive his no-trade if everything goes poorly (he's already talked about playing elsewhere in ST, when asked), but you don't just let that kind of player walk when you're the Astros.
I didn't call him injury prone??? All I said was that I believe he has begun to decline and injuries are part of that. Dude is 34 and the last 2 years he has had injury issues so I am just saying that should be a red flag. What guy in the post Steroid era has improved after 34 or even stayed constant now through in injuries into the equation.
You've been beating the Berkman/injury myth for well before this. And I think Frank Thomas is a very good example of a power guy that held into his late 30s. No one's saying Berkman is going to improve. But if he's a comparable player to what he is now for 2-3 more years, you keep him around gladly.
I would understand IF this team was a playoff contender but paying 14 million for a guy that is going to hit .280 25 90 with a .850-.900 OPS on an Average team doesn't do it for me. The only thing i'll say is that, like you say, the system is thin so who plays first but 14 million on a non-playoff team???
Frank Thomas wasn't being paid 14 million and after 03, with the expection of 06, his power numbers deeped CONSIDERABLY. OPS was great but its not the be all end all for a guy that their HR and RBI totals deeped so much. Edit - Never called Puma injury prone but have said his injuries PLUS his numbers, OPS is important but vastly overrated, declining is a concern on THIS team.
Prior to 2003, Thomas' slugging percentages, in the prior five seasons: .480, .471, .625, .441, .472. After 2003, Thomas' slugging percentages, in the next five seasons: .563, .590, .545, .480, .365 http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/4527/career;_ylt=AvihOJ3DzzrAe2IQwu4cxA6FCLcF Even taking into account his final season, in which he hit the wall at age 40, he clearly hit with more power in his five years after 2003 than he did in his five years before.
It works for me, because that's an asset. If he holds those numbers, he could play a very important role to a winning team in three years or so, when hopefully this team has an outside shot at playing competitive ball again. See Bagwell on the 2004 team. If the team still isn't capable of playing competitively then, he'll most likely agree to waive his no-trade, and you can get some prospects for him, such as the Davis deal you described. I agree, if he slips noticeably this year, to say below .850 (meaning two straight years of sizable declines), you have to think about letting him go. But assuming he stays within his career averages (somewhere between .900-.990), you just can't let that kind of asset walk with no compensation, when you're a team as needy as the Astros.
Again, OPS is great but look at the rest of his numbers besides slugging/on base %... Dude's HRs, RBIs and even Avg all took a deep but not saying the dude wasn't productive at all because he was paid about what he was worth however if Puma puts up those same numbers then he will be SEVERLY overpaid, that is all I am saying.
I just hope he's not going to come back out of shape, go in and out of the line-up, and then schedule some surgery before the trade deadline. signed,
Bingo, If you can pull off another Davis type deal then DO IT. If he comes back and keeps his #'s constant MAYBE but if he starts to decline...sorry but it's time to move on even if their might not be an obvious successor. This team isn't close and by the time we will be he will be in his late 30s. Baggy was a much better first baseman offensively and defensively, before the shoulder, and he went from all world to really good so keeping him on a contender made way more sense.
Those factors are largely out of the player's control, though. If a manager doesn't put you out there every day, you're not going to get cumulative numbers. And if you don't have teammates that get on base at a good clip in front of you, you won't have as many RBI. Fact is, in terms of what he could control, Thomas hit with power well into his late 30s. Even Jeff Bagwell - a guy with very similar career numbers to Lance and an arthritic shoulder from hell - avoided missing games due to injury until he was practically 37, and held his .900 OPS or better power more/less until he was 36. (Yes, Bagwell's traditional power numbers, such as HR/RBI, were strong as well.) And this is a guy that had a well-documented major injury issue, unlike Lance. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect Lance to have three more .900 OPS ish or better seasons left, at a minimum.
Much better first baseman offensively? Berkman has a higher career BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS than Bagwell. Yes, I know, that doesn't prove everything. But if you're trying to argue that Bagwell's prime was far superior to Berkman's, I think most people will disagree with you. (I'm not saying I think Lance's is better - I recognize Bagwell played part of his career in the Dome - but their primes were in the same general tier.)
I really hope he makes it for opening day. It's just not the same seeing fill-ins on the first day of the season. Plus I bought my opening day tickets to see the Puma not the Blummer.
Trading him one thing, depending on what you can get for him, but letting him go over $13 million via FA would be stupid.
Bagwell is precisely my point, he was on a constant winner who continued to put up really good numbers till his career was ended by the shoulder so paying him 17 million was fine but Puma isn't Jeff Bagwell and is on a Average team not a contender so whats the point. The fans aren't going to MMP anyway so it's not like it will kill attendance. On Thomas, if your coach doesn't put you in regularly SORRY but that's for a reason and while I agree if your teammates don't get on base for you thus can't drive in more runs it is kind of out of your control but then the question has to be asked, are you really worth it?
Cat, I do believe that erroneous impression was posted in these parts by yours truly rather than by rockets934life. You and others were quick to bring correction.
I agree most people would disagree with me but I think Baggy was much better 1st baseman the Puma. Baggy played in the DOME, not just part but, 9 out of 14 revelvant seasons of his career at the Dome while Puma played 1 season. Baggy had 5 years of over .1000 OPS, Puma only 3 and the AVG will finish behind him...Puma is only .002 above him. Taking into account the Dome and his prime years being GOD like, Baggy by a wide margin.
