Even if Cordero is better than Qualls, I don't think he is that much better to warrant giving up Luke Scott who is a more valuable asset than you might think.
I rather have good starting pitching too, but with this team and our offense... we will play a lot of close games and will need a reliable closer.
Valid point, but instead of essentially swapping qualls (the team's one good reliever) for a closer, why not spend cordero's ~5million salary on a couple very good middle relievers/set up men. I'd rather have quality depth in the bullpen than a good closer with no one else around him.
i agree. i think too that if they have the ability to use sampson in the bullpen, it could pay HUGE dividends.
they were one extra inning hit away from potentially winning the WS? yeah...horrible season. You can't have any holes in your line-up come playoff time to win the WS. But starting pitching and a solid lineup are more important needs to address first.
I was able to watch Cordero a good amount the last couple of years.. I really don't think he's worth dealing for. He's been up and down...and seemed to have a turn for the worse this past year. Not worth it for Qualls alone, much less losing an asset like Scott
Would it be different if instead of Cordero it was BJ Ryan, Papelbon, Trevor Hoffman, Eric Gagne in his prime? Depends how much a closer is valued I guess. The closer position is generally overrated, but we Astros fans also felt the agony of Lidge and Dan Wheeler blowing games late. So its hard to tell sometimes if its just added luxury or worth getting a good closer for the calming influence. I'm for starting pitching here. But then if they threw in Tim Redding .....
I think it'd be different because all those guys are better (although I *think* Ryan is coming off an injury, so that would change things)
