This thread first needs to be renamed to either "Let's b!tch about not having Willy T anymore" or "Let's b!tch about things we can't change now" What I find annoying is people making arguments based on hindsight or people failing to understanding the merits of why certain things were done at the time they were done. I think both sides to this argument have merit...ideally it would have been nice to have Pettite and Clemens back again (and thereby we'd still have WIlly T)...but I understand the club wanting to move on...now we go back in time, we don't make that trade and everything else stays the same, would we be significantly better...highly doubt it. This team couldn't score more than 1 run for the first month and a half (so Pettite and Clemen's contributions would be moot), then the bullpen couldn't hold leads for the next month (again making their contributions meaningless), then the starting rotation couldn't even keep the team in games. So I'm thinking, with the under performance of guys like Berkman, Oswalt, Lee (in the first month), Burke (in the first month), Ensberg, Lane (in the first month), Biggio (vs. his first-half numbers), Lidge then Qualls then Wheeler then the whole damn bullpen, Woody and Jennings, this team would have been screwed either way.
Who - anywhere in this thread or elsewhere - has claimed that we would be better this year without the trade? The discussion is about the future - that's the entire point of the trade - it was hurting the future for a minor upgrade this year to a mediocre team. It's almost as though you're making up an argument that no one has made so you can then discredit it.
I just picked pages at random here... Seems like those are arguments about this current team. This debate (imo) has been more about the state of this team now than the state of this team years from now...but if you want to get into that...I'd rather the team say goodbye to Pettite (who didn't want to be here) and Clemens, two guys at the END of their careers and take a chance on a younger guy who could be a number 2 or 3 and signing him to a long-term contract...while at the same time giving up a couple of prospects that didn't look to be long-term solutions in the starting rotation and a CF that has already been replace by HP. Like I said though, I can see both sides of the issue...I just wish we could move past this...the trade didn't kill this season nor kill the Astros future..it's a trade, that as of right now, isn't panning out the way the team had hoped.
Lost in all of this circular argumentation is the very real fact that Purpura had the same deal worked out for Jon Garland--before our dipstick media leaked it early. Perhaps Chicago would have ultimately backed out anyway, but he had the deal worked out.
That one is on Tal. Look, if you're in the media, and the president of the team you're covering tells you that a deal is about to be done and that a press conference is expected within 15 minutes, and you find sources that corroborate that information... you have to run with that story. Ortiz didn't ruin that one. If anyone did (and I'm not convinced that's the reason), it's Tal for telling Ortiz that a press conference was on the way. Clearly, that was premature.
I guess Ken Williams should be fired... even though his team got to the World Series in 2005, he passed on a trade that could have set his team up for the "future". Instead, he had a team that he thought would contend... even though they didn't appear to be much better than the year before where they didn't contend. Now, they're close to 10 games under .500 in a division that's already lost. But for some reason, Chicago fans won't complain about having Garland over Willy+Hirsh+Buchholz as much as they will find fault about the current players they have underacheiving (players they were counting on).
two problems with the under achieving argument. the astros arent' mediocre, they're terrible. even if oswalt and berkman are performing at level there's nothing that suggests this is anything more than a .500 team. problem two, you also have a rookie of the year who has clearly out performed whatever you expected of burke and you've probably gotten more than you expected out of lamb and lorretta. so it all balances out to a team that was set up to be nothing but mediocre at best.
First of all, you do have the makeup of last year's .500 team to directly compare to, and the corresponding productions of the additions in 2007. Second of all, there's no way to completely accurately assess where this team is if the players who were supposed to perform come through... if only one of them were struggling, I'd agree its a moot point... but both? Last year, a dominating Berkman and Oswalt carried this team to an 82-80 record (basically, the .500 record you said they'd be at now)... and Berkman had little help from the rest of the lineup. Oswalt had a mediocre Pettite, a solid Qualls/Wheeler and a god-awful Lidge (sprinkled in with some occasional Clemens... who pitched a half season, but was hurt). If Berkman is dominating this year... and you add Lee/Loretta/Pence to that... it changes things. They likely are one of the top offensive teams in the league (just one year after being one of the worst)... and that's despite having to carry Biggio's stick in his quest for 3000. Now granted, assuming Berkman's 2006 to be the norm may have been a mistake... but he's still nowhere near to approaching his career averages in BA, HR's, or slugging this year. Oswalt struggling is the MUCH bigger story... him dominating like he has since 2001 goes a long way to making the worst pitching staff in the NL somewhat palatable. Wandy does his best Pettite 2006 imitiation, Jennings attempts to pitch even less than Clemens did last year, Sampson fills in better than Wandy did last year... but the bullpen shambles it all up for everyone (despite Lidge being pretty good before the injury). Its Berkman, Oswalt, Lidge, Qualls, Wheeler.... those 5 needed to be good this year, and will still likely need to be good next year (if they're all still around) for this team to have a chance at being good again. Last year, 4 of those 5 being good led to a .500 record. This year's nucleus (which has featured all 5, plus another 2-3 stellar offensive players) had a chance to be better than that.
you keep insisting pence was part of the plan - he didn't make the team out of springtraining: he's here because the team they constructed proved inadequate a mere three weeks into the season. and let's also retire this notion that berkman carried the team to .500 last year - all berkman carried them to was a 43-50 record. the team went 37-30 after they added huff (who posted an .819 OPS in 68 games, which, if i'm not mistaken, was roughly lee's career OPS prior to this year) and scott (who went bat**** crazy with a 1.047 OPS in 65 games).
You also have Wandy performing better than expected and Lidge returning to form, which was no way guaranteed.
We're on a different topic here... I'm addressing the whole "if berkman and oswalt are good now, we're still not good" debate. That includes after the fact that Pence has already been brought up due to Burke's defensive inadequecies/Scott's dropoff. This isn't simply my thoughts on the trade, or the team before the season started.... just what could have been if players hit their career norms. The team performed better in the second half mainly due to Pettite finally pulling his head out of his ass (and getting his ERA under 5 again), Oswalt being absolutely dominant, and Lidge having a pseudo-productive 20 days. Yes, Huff/Scott helped... but Berkman kept it up for the ENTIRE SEASON. Additionally, Lee/Pence/Loretta have outperformed Huff/Scott over a longer period of time... but there's no 950+ OPS Lance. Asking Berkman to reproduce last year wasn't a mandate... but getting close to his career OPS (even before last year's stellar year) was an expectation. Asking Oswalt to not fall off a cliff (comparative to the rest of his career) is a bigger issue.
