There's no way any of these whiny, entitled, what-have-you-done-for-me-lately fans were watching this team 8-10 months ago, let a lone 8-10 years ago. I would carbon date their fandom to about October 2015.
By *same* I meant same-type... there will always be the same type of BBS bandwagoning 2nd guessing fans that have limited objective thinking ability, and overreact to any roster move or trade that doesn't work out. It was just hilarious that players with known deficiencies (Willy T couldn't hit, other than the bunt single... Hirsch was a giant who couldn't throw hard) get traded for an established pitcher that had a history of success... and the trade is widely panned as one of the *worst in franchise history!*, because of how bad Jennings was.
Willy Taveras was coming off two pretty good seasons at the plate, hitting .290 and .278 respectively. And then the season we traded him, Jennings turned out to be awful, and Taveras hit .320. Then the next season Taveras stole freaking 68 bases. Not to mention he threw Biggio out at 2nd on his 3000th hit. Now, obviously Taveras didn't turn into anything special, but being upset at the time made all the sense in the world. Jennings was awful.
Willy Taveras hit .320 in significantly fewer plate appearances (408 in 2007; he had 587 in 2006 and 635 in 2005) and posted an 89 OPS+. He stole 68 bases in 2008, which was literally the only thing he did that season. Even with that average, he was still a subpar offensive player who had wheels and horrible on-base skills for a leadoff hitter.
I can't with, any degree of clarity - recall the Jennings trade. (Nor do I really want to, frankly.) But there's a Grand Canyon-sized difference between bad trades and good trades simply not working out. Gomez (in theory, at least) belongs to the latter. The Astros needed a bat just like Gomez's down the stretch last year - no one can deny this, then or now. The trade made sense; it just hasn't, unfortunately, worked out. Having said that, if (as I've suspected) he's hurt (and the Mets did veto a deal for him because he failed their physical) and the Astros ignored or missed it... then it falls squarely into the bad trade box. You can't really control players not playing up to expectations. But missing on what might be a degenerative injury... that's inexcusable.
BTW, not that batting average means anything - but .290 and .278 for a lead-off hitter is incredible subpar - especially when you factor in his .329 career OB% with the Astros. Willy Teveras totaled 59 walks in two full seasons here. As a point of reference, George Springer totaled 50 last year alone - and he missed 60 games. For his career, Taveras walked 136 times in 2600+ PAs. Again, back to Springer: 111 BBs in 980 career PAs. Taveras was a terrible offensive player. He was fast and had a heckuva arm, though.
I'm not sure if you are referring to me, but I was staunchly opposed to the Jennings trade, but for none of those reasons. My opposition was before Jennings sucked - it would have been the case even if Jennings was great. It was because the team was clearly on the downslope and wasn't likely to contend, and they were trading club-controlled players for a guy entering free agency. If they had intended to sign Jennings long-term, I would have been thrilled with the trade. Otherwise, those assets should have been used to trade for people who'd be here more than a year - they still clearly had some value at that point, so you either keep them and see if they live up to expectations or you trade them for your future. Petitte was leaving, Clemens was gone, Bagwell was gone, Biggio was about done, etc - the window for that team was closed. Trading them to make a bad team mediocre was not really a good option. It was part of the whole "try to make this seem not terrible" strategy that Drayton had during the end of his tenure when he was trying to get rid of the team and that ultimately lead to the bottoming out of the team.
This whole post somewhat proves my point about everybody's declarations thus far on these trades. What may seem lopsided now may be vastly different (or simply not an issue) down the road.
Wasn't referring to you... But clearly some still have long memories of this trade. That package wasn't good enough to get Jon Garland. Don't really know who else they could have targeted, but it's presumpitous to think that other GM's would be oblivious to the deficiencies that ultimately kept Willy T and Hirsh from being anything special. I agreed with your desires for a fresh start and not a bandaid... But disagree that those two would have helped provide that. Now, the Tejada trade...
I repped your comment and largely agree with you. In regards to Giles, the one thing I will never understand why Luhnow and his team didn't look closer at is WHIP. For as dominant as his season was last year, he had an unusually high WHIP with such a low ERA. He allowed too many men to reach base and only this year, he's now started giving up the homeruns to go along with the baserunners he's allowing. And Velasquez. Holy crap Vincent Velasquez. Dude looks like he could be an ace. It's early no question, so nothing is a guarantee. Giles could turn it around and be our closer for the next 5 years and Velasquez could start sucking. But so far it doesn't look good. But yeah right now, the coaching is looking like a big problem.
It isn't over. We have no clue what Brett Phillips, Domingo Santana, and Josh Hader will become. So sure, it's early to call it a top 5 worst trade, but it isn't looking good. Brett Phillips was our MILB player of the year. We gave that up for a guy that can't crack a .200 AVG and strikes out more than anyone in the league.
Giles and Gomez were both traded for to be superstars for this team at their respective positions. Look at what we gave up for both of those guys. They were packages just barely a notch under what trades for superstars go for. And both were thought to be top 5-7 players at their positions. Neither have been anywhere near that. But yeah I agree with your last paragraph completely. Except I wouldn't have been big on Chris Davis given his streakiness and low AVG. This team needs guys that can make contact. We've got enough long ball or bust guys in Rasmus, Valbuena, and Gattis. We need guys that get on base. Donaldson would have been amazing though.
Good post. Like I said in my second or third response, it was an exaggeration. But if even one of those guys in the Gomez trade turns into a solid, everyday MLB player, the trade IS one of the worst in Astros history. Maybe not top 5, but I don't see how it wouldn't rank in the top 10. We traded some of our best farm talent for a guy that has done absolutely zero for us. It's a horrible trade made worse by having to stomach Gomez and his "swagger". You can act like a gamer when you perform but when you completely suck, you have no business acting as outlandish as Gomez acts.
The Gomez trade was never a good trade when the guy was coming off a hip injury that has likely effected his speed for the rest of his career. He'll never be the same type of defensive presence he once was, and he'll never steal the kind of bases he did in those 2-3 seasons of his prime. When a guy like Cespedes was available at or near the same price, it was an utterly stupid trade. We could have low balled Milwaukee, waited for the price to go down, or just not trade for a ****ing guy who had his trade vetoed by the original trading team because of concerns over his hip. Face it, the Mets outsmarted the Astros, and it isn't even close. Milwaukee stuck it to us as well by playing hard ball, and we pissed our pants over excitement over a "superstar" like Gomez being available without any concern for where he was at currently. I called it when the trade happened, and I'll continue talking about it now until I'm proven wrong. It's a horrible trade, period. You and others can attempt to excuse your failure by justifying the trade as a good trade that just didn't work out, but fact is it was a bad trade then and is a horrible trade now.
This is probably, ultimately a semantic discussion - but the packages were due as much to age and control/cost as production/potential. People need to fundamentally understand how vital young, club-controlled talent is in this day and age. I think the absence of a salary cap in baseball makes it seem less important - but it's not. Assuming everyone lives up to expectation, Ken Giles is soooooo much more valuable than Craig Kimbrel - even if Kimbrel proves better - and it's because of the costs savings.
Gomez had an extra year on his deal. Cespedes was a FA after last year and very well could have left. That mattered a lot in the deal, and ignoring it (similar to the post above talking about Giles's years of control) is missing a massive part of the "price" you're talking about. Huh? Based on your elite knowledge of what other offers the Brewers were fielding and what the Astros offered and then countered with? I'll respect your opinion on the trade, but don't make stuff like that up. Just silly.
This is revisionist bull****. Players like Cespedes were why we needed a bat like Gomez's - boom/bust player with a nearly non-existent OB%. Gomez had a nearly 40-point advantage is OPS over the three years prior to the trade. I love the certainity you post with - oh, could we have lowballed Milwaukee? Tell us more, guy who was 3 kabillion miles removed the situation... If what is happening to Gomez is tied to the injury that led NY to veto the deal, I'd say their medical team deserves praise (and/or the Astros medical team deserves derision). But keep in mind, the Astros are the same team that correctly evaluated the health of a high school pitcher from nothing more than medical records - no examination, physical - heck, contact with the player. So I tend to give the Astros a little space here.
I'm not ignoring the importance of team control. It's certainly a vital piece. But if Ken Giles sucks donkey dick and never becomes this team's closer, calling him more valuable than Craig Kimbrel is the most asinine thing I've ever heard. Yeah, it's part of the equation, but actual major league production ALWAYS trumps some extra years of team control. See above. One has produced, the other hasn't. For all we know with the kind of production Cespedes had last season, he might have actually helped the team win a few more games down the stretch and instead of finishing 2 games back of the Rangers, we might have ended up in first place with better seeding not having to pitch our star pitcher in the 1 game playoff against the Yankees and having to pitch McHugh in game 1 and Kazmir in game 2. Revisionist history I know. No, based on the fact that Gomez should have automatically lost some value after having the previous trade vetoed by the team receiving Gomez. Please provide me one example of a trade being vetoed that then resulted in another team jumping in to equal or trump the other team's offer for a player the vetoing team didn't want due to injury concerns. It was completely and utterly stupid, no matter how you spin it. You're right. It's revisionist bull ****. Cespedes and his current body of work (2015 and 2016) has been better than he was from 2012-2014, the years when Gomez was at his best. Maybe the Astros should have just stayed put instead of shooting their entire wad hoping to win it all in 2015. Already answered above. What's a certainty (that's how you spell that word buddy) is the trade had already been vetoed by one team due to injury concerns. There was ZERO reason to jump in and equal or better the first offer. Let someone else take the risk. We weren't in win now or bust mode. We had a robust farm system, some good young talent in the majors, and a bright future. There was no reason to swing for the fences the way they did with Kazmir and Gomez/Fiers. So you think the Mets were making it up? I love memes. Learn to have a civil conversation based on actual content instead of cute little things like this. The fact that any of us are stupid enough to argue amongst ourselves over this bum is evidence enough of the idiocity involved when a person is more concerned with being right (supporting the Gomez trade at the time) than recognizing reality (that Gomez sucks and the trade was a giant bust).
I find reading someone's statement actually helps make it easier to understand: "Assuming everyone lives up to expectation, Ken Giles is soooooo much more valuable than Craig Kimbrel - even if Kimbrel proves better - and it's because of the costs savings." Here, let me help you out: "Assuming everyone lives up to expectation" - that's called a qualifying statement and it's there for a reason; namely, so no one thinks that I might think cost trumps production. Actually, we DO know... Cesepedes posted a 2.3 WAR as a Met; Gomez: .7 as an Astro. The trade has not worked out (hell, I started this thread...) But here's the thing - in the three years prior to the trade, Gomez totaled 15.6 WAR, Cesepedes 9.4. Gomez's track record was not just better than Cesepedes', not just significantly better than Cesepedes' - it was really, really good within the context of all of MLB. AND he had a full year left on his deal. If everyone played up to expectation (note the qualifying statement), Gomez had much greater value. The haul they gave up for Gomez did not and will not significantly cripple them; stop granting it more significance. So far, between Gomez and Giles, they gave up exactly one player they'll probably regret dealing. And if the Astros had stayed put, btw, I have no doubt you would have been leading the "Crane is cheap!!!!" train. There WAS a reason; the team had an opportunity to make the postseason and needed to add a significant bat to its line-up; a bat that, in theory, could do exactly what Gomez's had done the three years prior. Even his down year with Milwaukee in '15 was still very good. In fact - and, again, we're talking about a half season most labeled fairly disappointing (due to injury), Gomez's .751 OPS was the same as Cespedes' was in all of 2014. Hindsight is the only variable that places Cespedes above Gomez in July 2015. What? No. If it turns out what the Mets saw (here, btw, is the key phrase; I'll bold it) is related to Gomez's current struggles - and the Astros either missed it or, worse, ignored it, it is a terrible mark against the Astros. But, given that the Astros were so medically anal about Aiken... I have to believe they did their due diligence. But it's mighty suspect and worrisome. Again, go back to the very first page of this thread (a thread I started!): I've been worried since spring training that he might still be injured. And my concerns the Astros missed something potentially long-term have been around almost as long. Says the guy celebrating his winning the internet. There's no "right;" it's been a terrible trade - Gomez has been flat-out terrible (again, check who freaking started this thread...) But that doesn't mean the trade wasn't viable at the time - no one owns a time machine; we have no idea how these deals are going to work out. It's a risk, and this one has (thus far) failed. But the *idea*... it was/is 100% justifiable. (UNLESS, the Astros ignored a significant injury with potentially long-term ramifications. If so, the trade was a flaming pile from the get-go.) (idiocy, btw - that's how you spell that word buddy).
