its not about making the postseason; that's the public face, yes - but i think they're merely trying to field a competitive team. they're better with randy wolf and latroy hawkins than runelvys hernandez and chad paronto.
to mangle a sentiment expressed by alfred in the new hit movie, "the dark knight" starring christian bale: to find the bandit (in this scenario, bandit = success), you're gonna have to burn down the entire forest. their minor league system (which the new regime obviously doesn't think much of in its current condition, as they've now dealt - what? 7 players from it in the past 6-7 months) is going to have to be completely overhauled. and guys like rieneke and cusick don't figure into those plans: they're not highly-regarded and they're part of the old regime - out with the old, in with the new. rebuilding the farm is going to take years. so what would you prefer the major league club do in the interim, considering they have three of the top... 30, 40 players in all of baseball, including a possible top 10'er, and no farm system? if i've said it once, i've said it a 1,000 times - it's easier to build around berkman, lee and oswalt than it is to find and develop the next berkman, lee and oswalt. randy wolf and latroy hawkins make the team better; not playoff-better, just better. i'm at a loss why people would prefer the team stop trying. they want to win; their resources are limited - as long as the wolfs and hawkins of the world don't rob actual pieces - what's the big deal? guys like rieneke and cusick don't make your system better. guys like runelvys hernandez and chad paronto don't make your major league club better. so why is everyone screaming for them, or players of their ilk, over wolf and hawkins? i know they're not gonna make the playoffs, but dammit: i'd rather they make a push for .500 then settle for last place and play out the string with no sense of integrity and a bunch of never-were no names.
this is the silliest thing... do you really think there are GMs - GMs who have built contending teams, no less - that would be out to lunch on miguel tejada? really? seriously? you honestly think that's possible? oh, boy... he has next to no value - he's old, regressing and is still owed a lot of money. but you know what? he's the best SS this team has had in years. i know there's a large disparity between his first few weeks and his last few weeks, but i think every single one of us, back in january, would have taken .283/11/50/.764 from tejada. everett would've needed 3 seasons to compile those #s.
Define better prospects. Cusick was almost certainly among the top 10 or 20 prospects in the system. Reineke right now is a better pitcher than Hawkins and arguably Wolf. He is also much younger and has a better chance to someday help the Astros in a division race. Cost matters because cost matters to the owner. They are trying to improve the club on a finite budget. Because money spent on the fringe of a mlb team a dozen games out of first, means that money is not being spent in areas (latin american free agents, mlb free agency, the draft) that will help the franchise be competitive again.
no, he's neither. you're gonna have to expand it out to 30 to include cusick; he's a maginal prospect. having said that, it's a terrible system, regardless, so even if he's top 20 - hell, top 15 - it ain't sayin' much. the only accurate part of your statement is that he's younger. he was not a part of any future with this organization. no it doesn't. they're not owed that much money and both of them come off the books this winter. it will have no short- or long-term impact on the team. if it did, they wouldn't have done it.
really??? well apparently a stark minority agrees with you...because i remember going to those games with about 12K of my closest friends, as opposed to the 35K they draw on a week night while in next to last place and playing the last place team.
Like i said earlier, the value of the Cusick and Reineke's of the world is that allow you to save money at the fringe of the mlb level without a production drop off. That saved money can then be reinvested in acquiring talent in a number of other ways. Which could be especially important if you are overhauling the minor leagues like the astros. part of me prefers that they keep Berkman and Oswalt, so I can certainly see why some would want to keep them. But the argument for trading them goes like this: Their value is never going to be higher than it is right now. The farm system is in bad shape that is going to take years to improve. Because of the state of the mlb club and the farm system it's going to be years before the astros are competitive again. When exactly that is depends not on Berkman or Oswalt production, but rather when the farm system can start graduating players. At current pace, by that time Berkman and Oswalt will either be retired or a shell of their current selves. If you trade them now and get good value (which i think is the bet argument again because of Wade) then you can quickly and drastically improve the state of your system. Which essentially shorten the amount of time until you are competitive again. This is a key point this discussion and a point i think you are wrong. Wolf and Hawkins at this point are below average mlb players. They don't help the team anymore than a runelvys hernandez or peronto would. Hawkins is probably worse than either of those two right now. Wolf is going to put up a 5+ era here the rest of the year. The type of mlb player that will give you what Wolf and Hawkins will, are available everywhere and cheaper than you paid for them. When they rebuilt last time in 1988-1990, trading Glenn Davis and Larry Anderson, did they lose their sense of integrity? Would you have rather followed a 1991 team led by Anderson, Mike Scott and Glenn Davis or did you prefer following also-ran like Jeff Bagwell, Steve Finley, Pete Harnisch and Curt Schilling?
I'm not sure guys like Hawkins make the team better either. Who on the Astros did Hawkins replace? Do we really have no minor league pitcher that could be in the bullpen and provide an ERA of 5? There aren't any free agents out there that could provide an ERA of 5 in the bullpen? I don't mind trading minor leaguers - but I'd prefer not to: 1. Trade them for replacement-level players that are a a dime a dozen. 2. Trade them for players that are free agents at the end of the year (and don't come with draft picks) I don't think Hawkins will make more than 1 or 2 games of difference, even if he pitches better than expected (4.00 ERA type). I doubt that single A 2B would turn into anything either - but I'd much rather leave him in the system on the offchance that he DOES develop into something than guarantee that we get nothing. Besides which, if you make some useful moves in the offseason, you could always trade him NEXT year when we might be a bit better and a little bit more in contention if all the pieces fall into place. If he could get you Hawkins this year - and you think Hawkins improves the team - he could get you a Hawkins next year too. The game is all about asset collection, and the Astros have it all backwards. Even if they are mediocre assets, your goal when rebuilding should always be to collect younger assets under control for a longer time. Even if you have no idea what you might do with them, you collect them. Maybe one pans out. Maybe you trade 2 or 3 for 1 better asset. Maybe if you find yourself in a wild-card race next year, you can trade one for a Latroy Hawkins when you might really need it. Whatever the case may be, the more assets you have, the more options you have. Using them to take 2-month fliers on scrubs that you lose at the end of the year is absolutely the worst thing you could do with your assets. This also ignores the few million you're spending on Wolf; Wolf isn't going to increase revenues one dime. I'd rather Drayton make an extra $2 million this year and have $2 million more to spend in payroll next year than waste it on Randy Wolf this year. That could provide one better bullpen guy next year which could make a bigger difference than Randy Wolf will make this year.
I could email and try to get confirmation from Sickels about this, but i'm pretty sure if you made a list last week of the Astros top prospects he would definitely be top 20 and maybe top 10. Which unfortunately is a problem with how the organization runs things, considering he is better than Hawkins. But no, you are right in the sense that he is not likely to be one an above average starter at the mlb level or anything. Hawkins is terrible terrible terrible pitcher right now. There are about 100 minor league pitchers out there who could step in to the major right now and out perform him. When Oscar Villareal pitches circles around you, you know you are not a good player. Yes, it does and I find it strange that you argue this point. they are owed 4 million + this year over alternative replacements. I assume the team is on a finite budget. That means they have 4 million less to spend in free agency this summer, 4 million less to compete for top latin american free agents, or 4 million less to go over slot to sign draft picks. It's not going to bankrupt the team or anything, but it hinders the rebuilding process by allocating resources to the "wrong" areas.
well, yeah - they were a decent team and certainly better than this one. they lost 65 games in '91; otherwise, they won 85, 75 and 81 during that stretch. they had a ripe farm and a lot of major league-ready prospects maturing at the same time. but they don't have any caminiti's, biggio's or bagwell's on their horizon; it's not like these moves are delaying the arrival of the next great wave of astros.
Because of the team or because of recent success, the new stadium, a rising overall interest in baseball etc? I would guess those attendance numbers are correlated with the "fun of" following the team and not the cause of it. I would guess that if you polled everyone who followed both 90-92 clubs and the 07-08 astros, they would say they more enjoyed and were less frustrated by the 90's club. I know that certainly was the case for me. But it's just a guess.
I would guess you would just find an assload more people interested in Astros baseball today than you had then, period. I'm frustrated with our farm system...but I didn't expect much of this team this year. They got my hopes up in May....but I didn't expect them to do very well with the pitching they have.
you are right and it's a fair point, but the larger argument is that rebuilding is not necessarily more or even as frustrating as losing with established players. I'd rather lose with hope for the future, than lose with no hope. And that's essentially the options, imo.
you are right that you would find them, but that's not what i'm arguing. The point is what is the reason for all those people. I would say that it's not because these astros of the last two years are "fun" to follow. I would guess it's other reasons that are causing that...
at this time next year, they'll be paying randy wolf and latroy hawkins a combined $0.00 - explain to me how having reineke and cusick still on your books; still toiling away in the minor leagues is cheaper......... i know the argument; here's the risk: you alienate the casual fan (not to mention some die-hards who appreciate being able to watch a berkman and oswalt), suck in the interim (driving away the casual fan) and then the prospects you got for them don't pan out - then what? which would be a 3+-run improvement over hernandez... hawkins allows them some flexibility with a gassed pen - they can move sampson back to the rotation now; they can rest brocail more now; they don't have to expend as much trying to cover up a bad rotation... hawkins is beneficial and he cost you next to nothing. if the astros could deal a MR for the next jeff bagwell, i suspect they'd do it in half a heartbeat. but that ain't happening. davis was a fine major leaguer but he wasn't nearly in lance berkman's class. you're talking about dealing the likely greatest astro - production-wise - of all-time. why would you sacrifice what berkman brings to the table for a roll of the dice?
please do; i've not seen him on anyone's radar until this trade when he suddenly became the second coming of joe morgan. and, again, being the even the 10th best prospect in this organization is kind of like being the 3rd best friday the 13th sequel. he's there by default, not merit. it's no great loss - they're not going to deal ANYONE that they think has a future with the team; cusick didn't. i read the report on him: he's a poor man's chris burke. look, hawkins is 35 and was having a bad year; but it was his first out and out bad year in a long while. just because i don't feel like posting a bunch of stats, look just at his era the past five seasons: 3.42, 4.48, 3.83, 2.63, 1.86. if he has ANY gas left in the tank, he's a better option than anyone else in our system/available. he signed a $3.75M deal; we'll owe him roughly half - less than $2M. please stop pretending he's owed some $12 trillion dollars. it's a drop in the bucket. let me ask you a question: if drayton's willing to add $4M to the 2008 payroll, why do assume he's unwilling to add $4M to the 2009 payroll? that makes no sense. it's not like he has a static budget and each dollar he spends whittles the budget away. if the guys had big, long-term contracts - OK, i would agree. but they don't. and they'll be off the books come november.
Easy. hawkins+wolf make ~5 this year. I'm not sure of minor league salaries, but lets say instead they called up reineke for middle relief help and kept cusick in the system. That's what? being generous 450K over one and a half seasons. So over a year and a half it's 5million (5million +0) vs. 450K (~100 +~350). 5 million is much more expensive over that time period. Losing for a decade will also alienate fans and that's what is at risk here. Fans alienated will come back in a few years if the team is competitive again just like they did in the late 90s-early 00's. If you becomes the Baltimore Orioles, you might lose them forever. There are literally a ~100 or so available relievers who will give you the exact same thing as Hawkins whose acquisition would not cost you a marginal prospect. He wasn't as good a player, but he was an all-star, a hr hitter and probably as popular with the fan base as Berkman. Like i said earlier i think the best argument against trading Berkman or Oswalt is that there is a high chance Wade would screw it up. Plus I would like to see them retire as Astros and enter the HOF. But everyone else, imo, should be available.
