Firesale

didn't the all-holy, all-knowing, creator-of-all-things-raylike, Gerry Hunsicker make this decision?

 

gagne was dealt last year for gabbard and murphy, neither one a top prospect much less a stud. and they’ve been average ML’ers thus far. and i’m not sure valverde has a much value right now as gagne did last year.

plus, who would close for us if we dealt him?

yes, but i doubt the team’s going to eat a large chunk of lee’s deal; my guess is mcclane would rather he earn that money here. plus, again, lee has to waive his NTC, and he took less $$ to sign here. so my guess is that he came here for a reason and might not be as willing to leave.

well, you’re assuming this season is a aberration – what if he’s posting a 4 or 5+ ERA this time next year, too? he wasn’t exactly the roy oswalt of old last year, either.

frankly, i would have dealt oswalt this past offseason when his value was at its highest and there were some red flags to be mindful of moving forward.

yeah, since i don’t think they’d net anything remotely positive in return - what's the point? again, they’re cheap, still relatively productive (on a limited basis) and more than capable of holding the fort ‘til the replacements arrive.

that’s fine, but there’s not going to be a market for tejada at all. he has absolutely zero trade value. and, again, to return anything of consequence, you’re likely going to have to swallow some of his deal.

tough ****, LOL. but seriously, if i’m mcclane or wade, i don’t care what berkman’s preferences are – i’m trying to rebuild a team. if i think he can be an integral part of it, and he’s under contract, then i don’t care what he wants.

isn’t this more or less what we did 2006-2007? burke, ensberg, lane, scott… they were all AAAA guys. i don’t know if those years were necessarily *better*.

what they did was unload quantity and reduce their margin for error.

sure; i enjoyed it.

HPF is dead; no new site in the offing. too much living to do…

 

i believe he termed it the biggest mistake of his astro tenure...

 

Any thoughts that anybody is having about trading Lee, Berkman, or Oswalt should come with a complimentary assessment at the nearest mental health facility.

You simply cannot trade your "draw" players in this market at this stage of the team's history. It would be long term suicide. This isn't the Cubs we are talking about, where you sell out the park regardless of the s*@t that you are putting on the field.

If you get rid of all the draw players, this team WILL return to the days of 15,000 to 20,000 per game in the stands. The last couple of years, this team has FINALLY started to develop a fan base. From a business persepective, you have to keep that going. People will pay money to watch Berkman (see the Little Pumas), Lee (see Los Caballitos) and Oswalt (see the O's Bros) regardless of the standings.

With the current economics in baseball, if we went back to the days of crappy attendance, this team would take a decade or so, if ever, to recover. Drayton knows this. Say what you will about the man, but he understands business. You go through these lean times to keep and solidify your fan base so you can have better times later.

This isn't hard to understand.

 

It was actually Hidalgo over Abreu. Here is a snippet of an interview between Rob Neyer and Tim Purpura from December 2003.

--------
Neyer: Not to bring up a bad memory or anything, but what about the one that got away? For all the good things that the Astros have accomplished since you've been with the organization, exposing Bobby Abreu in the expansion draft must still rankle just a bit. Was that a tough decision at the time?

Purpura: The decision to make Abreu draft-eligible was a difficult one, no doubt.

We had many internal discussions, we put together our individual draft lists a number of times, we tried to gauge the interests of other clubs, etc. What it came down to was that we all felt that (Richard) Hidalgo would end up with a greater overall skills resume than Abreu.

In particular, I think we missed on Abreu's power. We thought he would develop power, just not to the extent that he has. We knew Abreu's arm was probably stronger than Hidalgo's, although as far as accuracy, they were close.

We really felt that Hidalgo was your prototypical potential five-tool player as a center fielder. All his talent just flowed from him, and we all thought he was a can't-miss star. And while Hidalgo has demonstrated many of those tools, he hasn't come close to Abreu's consistency. We are hopeful that Richard will return to form this coming season, and if he does it would be a huge boost for us.

Also, Abreu at the time had a bit of red-ass in him that we worried might hold him back. In fact, the opposite has happened and that characteristic has probably helped him through the few dips he has had in his career.

Neyer: But did it have to be an either-or, either Hidalgo or Abreu. Granted, they were both outfielders with similar skills (as I remember them), but is there any reason you couldn't have protected both of them?

Purpura: I think it became an either/or proposition with the outfielders because, at that stage in our development, we were trying to hoard young pitchers. As I recall, we ended up protecting a Venezualan pitcher, Ramon Garcia, who we had taken in the prior season's Rule 5 draft. And he blew out his elbow the next spring. Not a very wise decision in hindsight, but that is what makes the expansion draft, as well as the Rule 5 draft, tough to handicap. You have to provide for the immediate needs of your club while balancing the future of players who are a long ways away.
------------------------

The whole article is pretty interesting, especially in hindsight...

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1483345.html

 

But Berkman does care what Berkman's preferences are, and Berkman may not care that you're trying to rebuild a team, and Berkman has said he has no desire to leave Houston, and Berkman has a full no-trade clause. As do Roy & Lee, iirc.

 

I think this is exactly why you try to trade Oswalt, Tejada, Lee, and Valverde. The pitchers are easier because every team in contention could use a #1/#2 starting pitcher and every team could use bullpen help (some more than others). Not everyone can use a left fielder or a shortstop, depending on who they have entrenched at those positions, so those guys may be a bit harder.

As for what you can get, I think Oswalt fetches a top-level prospect or more. CC Sabathia did, and he's a 1/2 season rental. With Oswalt, you get a potential ace for a few years as a reasonable salary. Lee could, but only with the right team. Take the Mets, for example - in a tough 3-way race with the Phillies and Marlins, a team that's designed to win now, and with a huge gaping hole in left field now that Alou is done for sure (they are playing Fernandis Tatis out there??). They could afford Lee and need a solution at left field for the next few years anyway. The beauty of the trade deadline is that's where the desperation is. That's where you get Larry Anderson-for-Jeff Bagwell or Victor Zambrano-for-Scott Kazmir. There are many more suckers at the trade deadline than there are during the offseason.

You may not get A-Level prospects for some of these guys. But what you aim for is guys who should have high ceilings but never panned out (say, a Ryan Ludwick - 2nd round pick that never lived up to the billing) or guys who aren't looked at highly due to some flaw (Oswalt fell in the draft because of his size).

If you collect enough of those kinds of guys with potential but not likely to make it, you have a better chance of a few panning out. Chances are, they won't and you'll have nothing to show for it. But what's the point of having Tejada for another year, or keeping Lee for several years, at which point you'll have an older, slower player who's even more difficult to trade when your team is starting to get good? This, of course, assumes the problems within the organization will take several years to fix. If you believe the team can be competitive in a shorter time frame, then you absolutely don't trade these guys.

 

The problem with this is that people ultimately want to see a winner. The Rockets drew people for a while with Francis/Mobley, but ultimately, people realized the team continued to suck and didn't care any more about star players. Coming out to see Oswalt and Berkman (I don't think Lee draws many people) will only last so long - right now, the glow of the World Series is still there, but unless the team starts winning, attendance will eventually drop just as it did with the Rockets. People won't understand trading a star on a winning team, but I think they are much more accepting of it on a last-place team.

I think if you keep Berkman and Pence, you're fine from the "star" attendance perspective. I'd be curious to see if there's any huge bump in attendance for Oswalt games. I don't think dumping Tejada or Lee or Valverde will change much, though, in regards to attendance.

 

This sounds like just as much of a reason to keep him as it is to trade him. If you truly believe that this is the beginning of the end for him, and he'll never put up a sub 3 ERA again, then you go for it.

If this is a one year aberration... out of a stellar career that hasn't seen him struggle like this ever before (even when he completely changed his approach, resulting in the decline of many of the peripherals like K/9IP and WHIP)... then I'd keep him.

What this team needs, and is desperately lacking, is young projectable starting pitching. The chances of getting a pitching prospect just as good, if not better, than Oswalt are always going to be slim. I'd rather just as well see him finish the prime of his career (or at least this contract) as an Astro... something that the club didn't do with Nolan Ryan (and we might just get a HOF plaque out of it as well).

The fact that this team has no "exciting" pitching prospects what-so-ever... starting or relieving... is apalling. Its also something that won't be fixed overnight.

 

Look at Bosox and Yanks, Tampa Bay, as well. Minny. Others, doubtlessly. They have abundant development programs.

The 'stros, it seems, have a new idea per season. And development just doesn't develop without a commitment.

Who can really believe this franchise has an up-period coming?

 

but that's my point: it didn't HAVE to be hidalgo OR abreu. they could have kept both and left the ridiculously average derek bell unprotected. (the kicker being it's doubtful one of the expansion teams would have drafted bell, who had not distinguished himself at all in his first 4 seasons.) but they were in "win now" mode and felt bell had more current value than whatever value abreu might have down the line.

the interesting/sad thing is that while bell played well in 1998 (125 OPS+, a career high); abreu actually outperformed him (136 OPS+).

in 1999, bell (in his final year with the team) posted a 66 OPS+ (not a misprint - it's actually lower than adam everett's career OPS+ of 69). abreu, meanwhile, posted a 146. at 25 years of age. he wouldn't post an OPS+ lower than bell's '98 career high of 125 until 2007 when he was 33.

not protecting abreu, and making it an abreu/hidalgo decision to boot, is one of the worst decisions in franchise history.

 

I predict that the Astros will make up the 8.5 games and win the wild card this season.

 

i don't necessarily disagree - if i thought they had any real value.

tejada was dealt six months ago for a pile of junk – given what’s happened since, we'd be lucky to get something half that good in return. how does adding a luke scott and a matt albers help? same with lee, but only because his contract is too prohibitive.

the mets idea has some intrigue; but their payroll is already at $140M and don't they need pitching more than offense? even for a team like the mets, though, lee's contract is huge; he's still owed, like, $75-80M, right? and he's 32... i'm guessing they learned a lesson with delgado.

as with tejada, we have a very recent example of valverde's value, and it's chad qualls and chris burke. again, i don't think those are two components that make you better.

i wouldn't object to an oswalt deal; i think it'd be very proactive (in an A's kind of way) and could net them 1 or 2 A+ prospects. but my god - WITH him the staff sucks; i can't imagine running.... whoever out there every fifth day for the next several years while we develop eventual replacements....

the bigger – biggest, perhaps – issue is that to trade those guys, you’re going to have to swallow quite a bit of cash. not with the pitchers, but certainly with tejada and lee – i mean, lee alone… what? $25-30M + most of tejada’s $13M for next year?

 

Certainly - if they think it's the beginning of the end for him, then the team has to move him.

But even beyond that - if they think he'll be good, then it depends if the timeframe the frontoffice thinks the team can be good in. If you think it will think it will take a few years to get things sorted out and put together some useful pieces on the team, then keeping Oswalt here is just a waste for him and for the Astros. Is it really that much better to be 75-87 instead of 65-97? I'd frankly prefer to be worse and get better draft choices. If they think they can right the ship next year, then yeah, you want to keep him.

 

If you combine the Valverde and Tejada deals, you get:

Patton
Albers
Burke
Qualls
Scott

Those are all major-league ready guys. Scott is a functional everyday outfielder. Qualls and Albers have been pretty good (both are better than anyone in our pen), and add a lot of depth to a bullpen.

That said, I wouldn't want major-league ready guys. What if you tried to get guys a bit younger, but still projects? They may turn out worse than the guys above or better than the guys above. I'm talking AA type players that are still a year or two away - those are the guys that teams in contention would be most willing to trade. Then you hope you hit on a few. If you get one that turns out a bit better than Qualls, you've got a closer. Someone a bit healthier than Scott, and you've got a pretty decent left or right fielder. Etc.

A younger Burke is the type of guy I would target - someone that was a top pick but just hasn't panned out yet. Maybe he'll be a late bloomer and you'll get someone that turns into something.

I have no idea if you could get those kinds of guys or not, but I do think its worth exploring if you can. And yeah, if you have to pay a lot of Lee's salary, it's not nearly as worth it. Lee/Tejada may be easier to try to trade during an offseason when teams are retooling entirely anyway.

 

If you think Albers and Qualls have outperformed anyone in our pen, you're mistaken. Geary's got a better ERA than either, but ERA is a poor indicator of performance for a relief pitcher. Both Albers and Qualls have mediocre WHIP numbers, esp for relievers. And Qualls has let almost half of his inherited runners score, which is terrible. He's not having the season you think he is.

 

Do you know if Bell was one of the original 15 protected players? Perhaps he was left unprotected.

 

that, and leaving us with nothing in the minors worth spitting on?