I just don't see the Astros making any significant changes even if Clemens retires. I would think they should always sink their money into pitching and hope young talent will emerge. I just don't see the logic in throwing $7 million to people like Jeremy Burnitz. Maybe we can lure Dunn here in a year, or two.
Furcal and Giles will demend some different kind of money. You're trading some up and coming talents and having Burke playing CF, which is fine, I guess, after Biggio retires. I don't know if Cubs will do THAT trade.... I don't know if Cleveland will do that trade with Lidge eligible for FA soon. Giles an Furcal will take better money elsewhere anyways. You're counting on all that to work and what does that give you? A better offense with a series of pitchers that'll make you pray for invulnerability injury-wise. In addition, you want our 2 rookies from this year to start next year and be dependable. Breaking up a team that just went to the World Series. At least the Marlins won before they dissemble.
If Clemens and Bagwell retire then game on, we can speculate about dream free agent acquisitions then. The more likely scenario is that they both come back for another year meaning our payroll will be in the high 80's even if we don't sign any new players. We really weren't far from winning the world series this year, it's certainly not a time for drastic overhaul of the roster. And no I am not in favor of trading Roy-O for Manny.
There are some major problems with standing pat. With regard to getting to the playoffs . . . 1. ensberg had a career year. maybe he duplicates, maybe not. but it's hard to bank on that. 2. clemens, pettitte and oswalt were all flawless this year. They were healthy throughout the year and flat out dominated. I love those guys but it's hard to count on that kind of luck with health. 3. qualls, wheeler and lidge also had career years. Sure, they're young and capable of repeating, and possibly improving, but we have to recognize that these guys were insanely good. 4. Ausmus and Everett are who they are. based on age and track record, we just can't count on individual improvement from them. 5. Lane and Tavares: these guys did well and could go up or down. The real swing factors to our team for next season. 6. Berkman: he was hurt in May but had a good year. We can count on the same production. On balance, it is fairly clear to me that all the "breaks" went our way this year. For us to make it to the post season again, we'd need all the same breaks. As such, our margin for error is close to nil . . . which isn't the outlook you want going into the year.
since we're not likely to do much in FA, let's look at tradable commodities. Our three most valuable are: Qualls, Backe, Burke and Tavares. Of those three, I'd hate to lose Backe the most, because starting pitching is so hard to get. If we were aggressive in the trade market, we could move those pieces for a starting LF. Who here would trade three of those for Adam Dunn? (I'd decline, but it would probably take something close.)
Actually, Ensberg's HR numbers this year were quite similar to his 2003 season when you account for the difference in at bats. In addition, Ensberg hit for a higher average in 2003. Percentage-wise he walked more this year giving him a higher OBP, but that is probably more due to the lineup in 2005 than the lineup in 2003. I would not consider 2005 a career year. I suspect this is what we should come to expect from a healthy Ensberg. 30+ HRs and a 280+ average.
I think he was thinking ahead to his question about who would trade three of those four for Adam Dunn. Under no circumstances would I trade Qualls to anyone for anything. Realistic circumstances, of course. As good as Backe could be, and as hard as it is to find starting pitching, we've all seen what happens when the Astros have a mediocre (or just straight bad) bullpen. Qualls-Wheeler-Lidge is a more affordable Lidge-Dotel-Wagner, and I think more effective as well. I know that Burke is our 2B of the future, and I'd really hate to see him go blossom somewhere else, but I think of all our commodities, he's the most expendable (or at least the most likely to get traded). It's hard to find someone who can run our center field like Willy, and he's only going to get better. And where's the talk of Bruntlett in all this? How capable would he be as a SS or 2B, if we ever had to part with Everett or Burke? I hope it's not Everett, mostly because he's a fantastic defensive SS with a lot of Gold Gloves in his future. Probably like Willy out in CF. And here's something we don't talk about very often: Wasn't Taveras a batting champ in the minor leagues? He proved that he could hit (he's even capable of being a switch hitter) but we jumped him straight to the majors and he's having to get used to that. I would not be surprised at all to see Taveras turn into a Doubles machine in the next year or two (we already saw some of that in the postseason). Willy knows how to swing the bat, and as soon as he figures out how to do it against major league pitching (something that most people his age and in his situation are given years in the minors to accomplish), he'll be fine. We can't mortgage our defense for more offense, especially when we have such an amazing array of defensive players. Our pitching and defense will get it done. We just need a little bit of clutch hitting, a little more grinding and small ball, and we're fine. And the issue of clutch hitting is an important one, and I think a lot of people are confusing something. Everyone wants a big bat because we couldn't capitalize on clutch situations in the WS. Why don't you ask Ensberg about big bats capitalizing on clutch situations in the playoffs? Ensberg was our absolute best offensive player through the regular season. But when we needed him to come through, what happened? Nothing. So there's really no logic behind the thinking that "Our offense will get more clutch if we pick up more big bats", for the simple fact that Ensberg proved to us that big bats do not necessarily equal clutch. What we need is for everyone to understand their role better, and for Garner to not be afraid to play small ball like we're supposed to. You get on, you get bunted over, steal a base or two, you score, someone drives you in, whatever. That's the game we're supposed to be playing instead of everyone swinging for the fences. If we did that last week, we're the World Series champs right now. If we do it next year, we're World Series champs then. We proved that our pitching staff owned some of the best offenses in the league. Think about it honestly- what team can stand up to our pitchers when they're on their game? Even when they bring their B game (as opposed to the C and D games we saw in the WS), they're almost untouchable. At the very least they're capable of holding you to less than 3 runs over 6 or 7 innings every time. I'll take that. We don't need to change, we don't need to panic. Our guys just didn't get it done. They were more than capable of doing so and will be again next year.
as for Willie Taveras...my son just got an autographed baseball from him... it's signed by him then says To: Love Jacob. i wish it had Gullo Ford on it.
OK, I'll make a serious post. I really cannot see any major changes that I would like to make with this club. I strongly support starting Burke at SS over Everett, with Adam coming off the bench late in games as a defensive replacement. Keeping Ausmus at all costs should also be a priority. I think Berkman should be kept at 1st if possible. He's a horrendous defender in the outfielder and is miles better than Lamb at 1B anyway. That leaves an infield of Berkman, Biggio, Burke, Ensberg and Ausmus. In center we have Willy and in right we have Lane, which will not change in all likelihood although I would prefer to have Taveras replaced. His terribly low OBP at the top of the order really stagnates our offense...but he is there to stay. That leaves LF. Signing either Jacque Jones or Reggie Sanders (preferably Jones) would be a huge upgrade. It would also leave us with a deep and capapble bench. So our lineup would be: 1. Taveras 2. Biggio 3. Berkman 4. Ensberg 5. Lane/Jones 6. Jones/Lane 7. Ausmus 8. Everett Thats not a bad lineup at all and with Berkman healthy the whole year we will certainly not find ourselves being shutout in 9 Clemens starts. I think that lineup can (with a bench of Lamb, Everett, Scott, Bruntlett, Palmeiro, Chavez) average 4.5 runs a game. Our pitching relies soley on Clemens resigning and the Stros need to take all measures possible to resign him. If we have Clemens on board, our rotation is once again the best in the majors. For our bullpen, I think no changes whatsoever are needed. Maybe Astacio can transition into middle relief.
If Ensberg, Taveras, Lamb, Lane etc had produced scoring hits when we had runners on base then we wouldn't need to be having this conversation. If they could have scored some RBI's when we needed them then the WS could still be going on as far as I'm concerned. It reminds me of last year after STL knocked us out that people were calling for Everett's head as the weak link in the lineup. I was as frustrated as anyone by the bottom of the lineup's miserable hitting (possibly with the exception of Ausmus who went from instant out to probable out) but I don't think that is where this team needs to improve the most. SS is the most crucial defensive position, and the amount the Everett contributes is severly undervalued IMO. People talk about arm strength and wonder how Burke can play in the outfield but not at SS. The answer is that it requires a different kind of throw and a different kind of strength, clearly Burke doesn't have it otherwise they would have tried it. In the same way, when Kent came in we didn't move Biggio to short to get an extra bat in the Outfield. Throwing from SS to first needs to be an extremely explosive, flat throw which zips through the air to get to the base before the runner at a height which is comfortable for the 1B to catch. Having sat on the 3B line I am truly impressed with Everett's fielding skills. If this guy hit .300 we would be looking at a perennial all star. I also think that Everett's hitting was also inhibited by Garner. I felt that at a lot of at bats, Everett wasn't sure whether he should bunt or swing and wasn't able to concentrate on doing a good job of either as a result.
Just remember this guys....pitching wins Championships...always!! The Astros were in every game in the WS because of pitching. The point is, the Sox pitching was better. Lidge and the pen failed (pitching). All it takes is one run to win a game....Sox game 4...solely on Pitching. Oswalt shut down the Cards offense, TWICE in St. Louis...pitching!!! Pitching...Pitching...Pitching..Pitching.... More important than anything.......... You get a good staff and pen...then worry about filling in the roster. You DO NOT go after high priced hitters every again....they do nothing but hurt a teams chances. Get a few solid players and high priced pitchers and that's all you need to win a World Series!!!
We had the best pitching in the league this year, did we win the championship? No. Winning wins championships...and to win you must have no weaknesses. Our weakness is hitting and that is the area that must be addressed this offseason.
sox got the best pitching in the playoffs. they won. pitching wins championships, with few exceptions. pitching made the Astros NL Champs despite having a team that had a hard time scoring runs at points.
On the other hand, you could say that in the WS, the reason that the Sox had better pitching than the Astros is that we had bad hitters trying to hit their pitchers. I think it's a fully circular argument. One team has to score more. You could say they had better pitching and held the other team to fewer runs, or had better hitting and were able to score more runs. If we have Manny Ramirez, A-Rod, and Barry Bonds on our team, are we sitting here saying the White Sox had better pitching?
but major, it wasn't just the astros. it was the angels, too. and the red sox. they got great pitching. it was better than the Astros was. that's why they won. it's not as simple as saying that if the astros don't hit, the white sox got good pitching. you can watch a game and tell when a pitcher has his stuff, even if the batters find a way (good hitting) to get hits, anyway. if you sacrifice pitching to get hitting you become the Texas Rangers and you own their franchise history. if you have to start in order of importance of what wins in baseball...pitching is first.
I don't think you say you don't need pitching - I just think you need both. The Astros pitching wasn't bad. But their hitters did a phenomenal job frustrating our pitching and running up pitch counts. The first couple of games, they'd just foul off everything until they either drew a walk or got an eventual good pitch. We couldn't do such things. I think our pitching was just as good, but their hitting (and approach to hitting) were better and beat us. If both teams faced the same lineup, I think they pitch about equally well.
And while their pitching was great all playoffs, so was their hitting. They scored an average of 6 runs a game during their run - much higher than us. We scored on their pitching... if we had scored a bit more, we extend and maybe win the series. Games 2 and 3, certainly, they won with hitting, not pitching. Games 1 and 4, they won with pitching rather than hitting.
