Taken by itself the deal is a net positive deal. I don't like the fact that they keep going to the same well and digging themselves a bigger hole. It seems to me they are robbing from Peter to pay Paul with these trades, and the well they are drawing from is a well that is always dangerously shallow, but they keep going back to draw on the same well to make the trades. I think to some degree they are playing musical chairs and there is a very good chance that when the music stops they will be caught without a seat. Who would that guy be? There is one guy who fits that bill that I can see, Carlos Silva, and I'm going to bet that we don't get him. And I think best case you need at least two dependable starters. More likely (especially since all the guys you sign will be injury risks) you will need three, or four, or even more.
When the best prospect in your organization is projected to be a 3rd starter at best, you didn't have a good farm system in the first place. Instead of keeping guys who needed major development to stick as big leaguers, they received a very nice SS, and a guy with nasty stuff to handle the 9th. If those marginal guys stagnate, you won't get anything for them next yr. If they develop sure, you might get burned, but with the construction of the team it's a risk worth pursuing. I'd rather have Livan Hernandez than Silva though it looks like they are looking more into guys coming off injuries. I prefer livan because he always gets you 200 innings, and has postseason experience. Not to mention he won't take a long term commitment.
It's not my only criteria...but I don't go the other way and suggest it's unimportant, either. I wonder...if he comes in and nails down 46 saves for the 'stros, will you still argue this was a bad deal?
Besides that with a REAL potent offense now we can win them at home if he blows one every now and then. Late inning heroics becoming more consistently a happening? Hey with this offense our bullpen might actually have to be taken for walks around the block because they may become "THE MAYTAG REPAIRMEN" This just in ... the Central is STILL wide open. The Astros have been the most aggressive, STL? Their chances don't look good. Chicago well they're the Cubs so you know uh ... nevermind. MIL nice run last year but ... Pitt improving bullpen, pitching not much else. Cincy? Like they scream division champs either. Hey why not the Stros in 08?
Definitely a new look Astros this season...I can't say I dislike it, but as Big Puma has said, it's all about chemistry...You know, like dating...If you don't click, you don't stick...
Sorry..have to disagree with this. Why do teams go on streaks? Teams hit in bunches and pick each other up. Pitching is elevated. (assuming you have the goods) Concentration/motivation levels increase,etc. It's a long season.Sometimes it takes awhile for a team to find it's identity,but when they do and start peaking all sorts of good things happen. When the pressure is off and your just playing the game you've always played throughout your life things come much easier.......natural. When everyone's on the same page it makes a big difference.
My prime example of chemistry in baseball is the year Oswalt and Barrett went at it. Bagwell publicly told the media he didn't like the fact that Roy was hitting people in fear of Bagwell or others being retaliated on. On top of that team was struggling and coming loose. Barrett jaws at Oswalt when Roy was in the batter's box and guess who is the first man over the dugout fence backing up Roy. Yup, Bagwell. That team goes on and wins the division or wildcard. Don't quote me but I think it was the 2004 or 2005 team. Also, the Yankees of the '90's had role players who created chemistry. O'Neill/ Brocious/ etc. They won those years, those guys retire and the Yankees bring in all stars and they haven't won since. I really think Chemistry dictates success in baseball.
Agreed. But who wants a team that only gives 100% the last month or so of the season? I'd rather have a team with chemistry that dictates winning consistently.
Why is everyone just assuming that their chemistry will suck? Why does Berkman have to be the leader? Because he's been around longest? When has he led before? And what kind of chemistry did they give up? If Chris Burke was the heart and soul of the Astros, then that team deserved to be euthanized anyway. I don't see what's going to prevent the team from coalescing around Lee, Tejada, Bourn, or anybody else on the team except that the new guys aren't white.
Right on. Berkman's statements alone doesn't help create good chemistry at all. In fact, it does the opposite. Maybe he should just concentrate on improving his play so he won't pull another slump early in the regular season again. If he keeps this kind of talk up, HE may very well be the one that replenishes the Astros farm system.
Damnit, I didn't know what to expect from Valverde, but I had this feeling like Qualls could be more than an adequate closer for this team.
so did I, but he hasn't proven anything like that yet. He's still a setup man. So let's not make any assumptions in that regard..
Why does he show the ball at his release point during his wind up? He's like a pitching machine. You know right where to be looking for the pitch.
