I'm iffy about the trade... but not because of what Garland brings to this team. The guy has PLUS stuff, and would be a very very solid #2 in the NL. If the Astros feel like they have to make this trade because they know something about AP going back to the Yankees... they better hope they can make a deal like this (or similiar to this). I don't really mind losing Willy (who wouldn't be batting leadoff or starting for a lot of MLB teams, let alone playoff contenders)... and Buchholz's inconsistency after he pitches a couple of innings points to him being a bullpen guy (for now).
IF...and this is a big IF.....but IF getting Garland costs us AP AND Hirsh...not so sure how that sits with me...gotta think about it...especially if it , in turn, costs us Rocket as well
You have to accept the reality that Andy may not want to be an Astro next year. I know he came back to be at home, but he also loved being a Yankee. He is very close with Joe Torre, Derek Jeter and Jorge Posada. I'm not saying he DOESN'T want to be an Astro, but don't think that they get to pick him or Garland.
I have to think that if this goes thru....and we cant sign AP...that another deal is forthcoming I cant see us feeling comfy with Roy/Garland/Woody and 2 days of rain...
Rosenthal's article really has me admiring Ken Williams' vision. He's right... salaries are out of control, and if you can get young pitching locked up NOW (before they start making the big bucks), you can attribute resources to your lineup/bullpen that need more veteran presence.
The only NY reporter I trust, Peter Abraham (lohud.com) thinks Andy to Yankees is a done deal but he's trying to save his hometown hero image in Houston by taking time.
I just heard on the espn radio here in Chicago this morning that the deal for Willy Taveras is NOT going to happen... the funny thing was.. it wasn't Jon Garland they mentioned... I think I remember hearing them say it was for Vazquez.
Pre-break: 3.12 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, 0.247 BAA Post-break: 3.50 ERA, 1.19 WHIP, .239 BAA A bit worse, but not substantially. That said, there are plenty of examples like Mulder and Hudson who just didn't translate to the NL all that great.
The sad thing is that we'd be doing exactly the opposite. We'd have $30MM invested in 3 starting pitchers, and would be giving up two of our better pitching prospects who could be cheap starters this year or next for us. For a lot of reasons, I'm not a fan of this deal, but if we are willing to trade Hirsh & Buchholz, it seems like we could get something more than a $22MM/2 yr Jon Garland.
y would getting garland mean no Pettite for us? its not like Garland is making that much? If anything, it might mean no Clemens, cause we'll already be 4 deep?? Is there something I'm missing here?
I'm all for pulling in Garland.This is EXACTLY the kind of move I wanted to see. He will give us plenty of quality innings. I'm OK with WT and Taylor going over,but when you add Jason this deal gets very expensive. I guess we'll have to see how it goes down. Andy has been inconsistent due to health problems.Let him finish up with the Yanks.We can't wonder what we're going to get from one game or one half of the season to the next....Our window is open now....esp. with Roger year to year.
I'm very iffy about giving up Hirsh. Unless we're confident with Lane/Burke, we now have a hole in CF and still 2 holes in the rotation. We upgraded and have a young and fierce 1/2, but now after Williams the potential options are...eh. But on the other hand, 2/22 for Garland is pretty good if you consider Ted Freaking Lilly just got 4/40.
That certainly could be, but consider his April numbers: 26 Innings 12 Hits 2.05 ERA 0.76 WHIP 0.135 BAA I'm not saying he's all that - but I'm saying there looks to be *something* there. It's hard to fluke into those kinds of stats for a month. The ERA, sure - but the WHIP/BAA numbers are hard to fluke into. Considering this was his 1st year in the majors, I'd want to give it more time to see what exactly is there. Even if Hirsh tops out as a solid 3rd starter and Buchholz a decent 4th - that's two huge parts of any team's rotation, dirt cheap for another 4-5 years. That's a valuable commodity to have so you're not having to run out Astacio or Wandy's all the time and gives a team so much flexibility elsewhere instead of having to spend $5-$8MM on mediocre starters in free agency. I think, if anything, it might be more that I don't think that highly of Jon Garland. For $10MM a year, I think he's OK, not great. But it's all a budget game. I'd rather have Buchholz and Hirsh as my 4 and 5 starters, Willy T to trade, and $10MM to play with than Garland as my #2/3 (depending on how you rate Woody) and a big hole at 4 and 5.
thats my concern...if we can sign AP (assuming we can if there is no Garland)...we keep hirsh and have one spot to fill.....if getting Garland means no AP, we have 2 spots to fill
http://blogs.chron.com/baseballblog/archives/2006/12/purpura_and_ast.html Purpura and Astros playing offense, getting rewards The 2006 winter meetings could go down as the year the Astros told the world they were tired of having others set their agendas. Barring a late breakdown, the Astros are close to landing righthander Jon Garland from the Chicago White Sox early Thursday morning. With Andy Pettitte still flirting with the Yankees even though the Astros have a $12 million offer on the table, Astros general manager Tim Purpura has done the right thing by remaining aggressive in the trade market in search for front-line pitching. Pitching, pitching, pitching wins titles. And with Roy Oswalt, Garland and Woody Williams, the Astros have a solid core to build a tremendous corps of starting pitchers. With Carlos Lee already in the fold to solidify the middle of the lineup, Purpura entered the winter meetings hoping to land a major starting pitcher. Garland fills that hole. The Astros cannot afford to wait to see how a bidding war ends with the Yankees. That's not because they don't have the money. It's because they learned their lesson a few years ago by waiting too long for Carlos Beltran to make a decision. Good for Purpura, whose critics must now admit he can have success when set into the free agent and trade market against the big boys of the industry. As we told you earlier: Just give Purpura a chance to prove himself.
I hear ya. I was rooting for Buchholz like crazy. But he's wildly inconsistent. Given, he's young. But I've heard it said that the Astros had no intention of having him in their starting rotation at this point. Honestly, if that's the case, I'm fine with seeing what we can land in return for him.
Except for Garland's great '05, Lilly's numbers are fairly similar to Garland's but with higher strikeout totals. Certainly there's less risk with Garland since it's only 2 years, but then you also have to go replace him in two years in perhaps an even more expensive market.
