what's the alternative? seriously - what would you prefer they do? promote a bunch of sub-mediocre chad paronto types? that's somehow a better course? they're trying to field the best team and win as many games as they can given their limited resources - why is that such a bad thing? why?!?!! they think hawkins and wolf address short-term needs. and on paper, THEY DO! the rotation is a mess and the bullpen is being taxed. i see it much differently than you; i see an organization in a down cycle making an effort to win every single game, regardless of their importance. and i admire that. this organization did not fall off a cliff overnight; they're having to cash a lot of checks writtten over the past 10 years. it's going to take time to rebuild it. in the meantime, they're trying to make the best of a bad situation. what is the harm in that?
I don't see how anyone can defend this move. Even if you want the Astros to remain competitive while rebuilding the farm system, the trade is still bad because it helps neither of those goals. In fact, it, imo, represents a step back in both fronts. There are people that will say that Cusick, and to a lesser degree, Chad Reinke are marginal prospects who are in all likelihood never going to be above average major league players. They are right. However, you don't have to be a star player, or even a mlb starter, to be of value to your team. Prospects are like lottery tickets. Some have better odds than others. And while one single ticket may be unlikely to hit, the more you have the better chance you have of at least hitting once. There is also value, particularly to clubs on a budget, in having a farm system that produces replacement-level or better players. Major made this point a few days ago, and i think it's a really good one. The point is that teams that can that can bring up replacement or better types of players from the minors to fill out a mlb roster, can save money on the fringes. Sign a Quintero instead of Ausmus, save 2 million dollars. Bring up a Chris Sampson instead of signing Randy Wolf and save 5 million dollars. Bring up a Matt Cusick instead of signing a Jose Vizciano and save 700K. All would essentially give you the same production, but with the younger club controlled players you would save money. While a saving few hundred thousand or even a million or two on a single player is not a substantial part of a mlb budget, when you do this for the last 5 or 6 spots on the roster, it starts to add up. Now with a an extra 5 -10 million a year, you can either use it to sign better players at more important positions on your mlb roster (signing a 12 million dollar 2nd baseman instead of a 7 million 2b), use it to sign draft picks who falls for signability issues, and/or use it to be competitive with elite international free agents. LaTroy Hawkins is a type of free talent that is everywhere on the mlb level. Essentially at this point in his career he is shot and is probably a below-replacement level player going forward. He is a 35 yrold relief pitcher with an almost 1-1 K/BB ratio and a 4 something K/IP ration. How in the world does he help the team more than the literally dozens of scrap heap guys out there who are available for free. The problem isn't just that they gave away one of their better prospects, but it also who they got for it. In addition to the worry of how Wade/Smith evaluates players, I think the bigger worry these last few moves or non-moves raise is what level of care this administration has towards fielding a competitive team in 3 or 5 years. It could be the McLane, Smith, Wade, group doesn't see themselves here in 3 to 5 years so they are going to to try, however delusional it may be, to win at all cost right now, franchise, farm system and fans be damned.
Forgetting the question of whether they should even be trying to improve the club now at the expensive of the future, the answer is that Hawkins (and really Wolf either) doesn't even help the major level club over the other options they have. The Reinke, Paronto's of the world would essentially give what Hawkins does for less money and without costing you one of your better prospects.
But how do we know at this point whether a 22 yr old 2B that's hitting for power and average at single-A won't be useful down the line? I'd think you'd want to be collecting as many of these kinds of guys as you can to see who might pan out. Who is Hawkins replacing on the MLB roster? And is he any better than that guy?
I think it's a whole lot about nothing. I understand your concerns. I just don't think it matters one way or the other as a practical matter.
Maybe so. For a team that needs a lot of work, I just hate low-upside, high-downside trades. In this one, your best-case upside is that Hawkins helps the team win 2 or 3 more games and finish in 4th instead of 5th. The worst-case downside is that you gave away a 2B that becomes an everyday player in 3 or 4 years. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. A team like the Astros should be looking to make moves where the upside outweighs the downside. Teams like the Red Sox or Cubs (the good teams looking to win a WS this year) are the ones that should be sacrificing longterm upside to get immediate short-term benefits. For them, winning an extra 2 or 3 games could mean the difference between the playoffs or not, so it makes sense. For us, not so much.
I hear ya. I think the criticism about this deal is worthless...the real criticism to me is that they weren't sellers, generally. I don't know if they tried or not.
man.. when I was living in Chicago.. everyone hated this guy. can we hire Morey to handle the Astros too?
i answered that in literally the next sentence following the one you cut out of my post. but, yes, and yes. while we can't do this, since it is a large, large part of why it's a senseless trade...for argument's sake, let's say the astros did have a glimmer of a shot at making the postseason. is today's latroy hawkins really that significant of an upgrade for pitching one inning 2-3 times/week than bringing in runelvys hernandez or the like? i'll answer it for you: the answer falls somewhere in between him not being an upgrade whatsoever, and him being a very marginal upgrade.
'stros claimed 24 year old Alberto Arias on waivers from Colorado. That is the type of move they should have been concentrating on. Young marginal MLB talents who could get better down the line with experience so they can possibly build something going forward. I would much rather see Arias on the active roster (even though he is apparently very hit-or-miss) than see Hawkins just filling a roster spot, biding time until the offseason. Hawkins is the NBA equivilent of Seattle/OkC signing Dikembe Mutombo. For a team that needs to build, filling that slot with a short term place holder is worse than a neutral move because there is absolutely 0% chance of a long term pay-off when even with a mediocre AAAA player there is a 1/10,000 chance that he learns something and turns from Mets Mike Scott to Astros Mike Scott.
It's not only what they did, it's also what they DIDN'T do. Why not shop around Tejada? He sucks, but not everyone realizes it yet. A contending may have given up a decent prospect or two. Loretta could hold down the position for the rest of the year.
If you think that a 36 year old MArk Loretta can hold down everyday duties at SS for the rest of the year, Drayton isn't the only one who is delusional.
what's the alternative? do you think rebuilding from scratch is agony-free? look at the growing pains we've endured this year with pence, bourn and towles and imagine a whole team of that and tell me how that's better.
