No, it's more relevant to b**** and moan about how many "black holes" there are in the Astros lineup, while of course ignoring every other NL team's poorest hitters hit 7th and 8th as well. And sentence fragments.
....because the point isn't to compare the two offensively. Ozzie stands head and shoulders above Everett over the course of his careers, but the first four years do *not*. Not even factoring in era. That's the only point--it's just as possible Everett improves, like Ozzie did, as it is that Everett stays the same or gets worse. And, no one's predicting one way or the other, either.
I can buy that. Same argument can be made for guys like Jason Lane and Ensberg, fwiw. Everett could get better at the plate, but he's equally likely to get worse, as his career progresses. He's not a youngster like Pence that you definitely expect to get better, but he's not so old that you expect him to regress either.
actually what other teams do is irrelevant. if the astros can improve is the only thing that's relevant.
i really don't care either way, its not like they have extreme upgrades over ae. I do believe some of the arguments for ae are ridiculous about his defensive value. like I said last season, if he was so valuable it would be reflected in his pay. we have a system of determining player value, lee is valuable, berkman is valuable, oswalt is valuable, ae is replacable.
and i don't know what you said. i could go back and look, i suppose. if you wouldn't mind answering the question with regard to loretta, i'd appreciate it.
I'm not looking for an argument. all I'm saying is what I said in the post you replied to. I really don't care if lorreta replace ae.
i'm not looking for an argument, either. just trying to understand. i mean the thread title has a pretty specific proposition...do you agree with it, or not?
Although Everett is hitting terribly, I'd have to say that my opinion of starting Loretta over him has changed. Even tho I think Loretta is better and all that blah blah, I don't think it's the issue anymore. Mensberg is just ridiculously bad. He looks like he is lost up there at the plate. I say no Ensberg playing time, and alternate Loretta and Lamb in at third, depending on the pitching match-up. Then, start Loretta occasionally at SS, just for Everett rests. From here, if Everett continues to tank and really can't perform at all offensively, consider the Loretta move. But not yet. I think it's more important to keep Ensberg out of our starters. Work him back in if Everett continues to blow and we need Loretta time at SS. Ohtherwise, the thread should say "Bench Ensberg, Start Loretta/Lamb"
i admitted to being wrong on the age, and only jumped on you initially because your post read as if you were pulling "facts" from memory, when a quick interweb search would have confirmed them. and whatever my tone, i neither called you an "ass" or a "jerk;" just a dig to look something up. so, yeah - look something up and ass/jerk - seems like a level playing field. and that would be because you never made it. probably too busy calling me names. as msn more eloquently stated, my only two points here is that, while ultimately indivitive of nothing, it is interesting, and worthwhile to point out that there is a precedent for a light-hitting, defensive-minded SS to get better offensively later in his career; and that while ages are relative, AE's experience is not. he's lost time to injury and has only played what most of us would consider "full seasons" twice, trailing ozzie at the same point in his career by as many as 400 ABs.
I don't care, I'm just responding to a post that says what other teams do is relevant. I believe what other teams do is irrelevant. that's it. that's all I was responding to.
Awesomely bad comparison. Free agents vs. club control. Top-shelf sluggers & #1 starters vs. defense-minded shortstop. Apples to orangutans. Alex Gonzales, career ops+ of 79, just signed a $5M/year contract. That seems a good ballpark of what AE would command. We'll find out after next year.
here's the problem everyone's glossing over; starting loretta and/or lamb dilutes the bench significantly. do we really want garner to have to decide between everett or ensberg in a late-inning situation? garner can, on a day-to-day basis, drive you crazy. but that's because he seems to have a real feel for the big picture. case in point: brad lidge. if he's truly back... wow, what patience and foresight on garner's part, because most of us would have dealt him before posednick's homer landed. so i'm willing to give him some leeway with ensberg and lane. this is an infinitely better team if ensberg's producing; garner recognizes this and is trying to give him a chance to right himself. as a fan, it makes me insane, but as a player, i'd really admire and appreciate that approach.
I agree with some of what you said there, Ric. However, maybe it's just me, but Ensberg is really starting to remind me a lot of Richard Hidalgo...a player with great potential and good power, who teases us with a couple of really good seasons...who then permanently descends into or below mediocrity. I mean, Morgan has had a long time (second half of all last season and the first part of this season) to correct his problems, but he seems nowhere near able to. I haven't totally given up on him, but I don't want to sit around all season and continue to wait for a guy who isn't hitting any better than Adam Everett
You're it really does dilute our bench. Everything would be a lot easier if Ensberg WOULD JUST HIT THE DAMN BALL!!!!!!! It seems to me like Ensberg is taking, taking, taking, taking, then swinging a missing for strike 3. Maybe he should get a little more aggresive early in the count?
