Astros summary Hidalgo update The domino effect that began Dec. 11 when Andy Pettitte bolted the Bronx to sign with the Astros and prompted the Yankees to trade for Dodgers ace Kevin Brown could end with Richard Hidalgo landing in Los Angeles. The market for Hidalgo picked up this weekend when right fielder Vladimir Guerrero signed with the Anaheim Angels. It is no secret the Astros would like to unload Hidalgo's $12 million salary for 2004 and $2 million buyout for 2005. General manager Gerry Hunsicker has fielded some calls about Hidalgo lately, according to industry sources. Hidalgo was selected as the Astros' Most Valuable Player in 2003 after rebounding from two subpar seasons. He led the club with a .309 average and had 28 home runs and 88 RBIs. He also led the majors with a franchise-record 22 outfield assists.
Why do they need to do this? With the increased revenue from having Pettite and Clemens they should be able to keep Hidalgo.
The Astros need to keep Dalgy. This is the year they need to just go for the championship and let everything ride. Let's see what this team can do and screw losing money for one season. Let's get a championship.
Keep "Doggie"! With the addition of Clemens and Pettite, hes going to want the championship even more! And esp. since he has one more year. itzIce
I'll withhold judgemant until I see what the astros get in return. And don't forget guys, Hidalgo had fine season last year but the the previous two were TERRIBLE. Who's to say that last season's numbers are what we should expect from him. If the Astros can get something of value then I'm all for letting him go.
I will withhold judgement to see who we would get in return, but in general, I would like to keep Hidalgo. I would sure hate to sign Pettitte and Clemmons only to lose because of lack of offense and outfield defense.
I'd say they are a reasonable expectation, Buck. Richard's problem the two years previous was he pulled a Ruben Sierra. Meaning he bulked up way too much and lost his best skill as a hitter: his incredibly cat quick bat speed. After he shed some weight and got a new perspective on life after being shot, he produced like he did in 2000 and he could like in 2000 pull any pitch he wanted. I don't see him making the same mistake twice, so he should be a quality major league hitter barring injuries for much of the remainder of his career, and it least next season. I think you can trade Hidalgo, but since the Astros don't need young pitching, are unlikely to get a solid big league caliber hitter in return, and are legitimate World Series contenders, I'd hold on to him. Unless I could turn the young talent or big league talent into a quality hitter and perhaps an extra bullpen arm, via another trade I pass. I like Lane, but the Astros are in win now mode, and with Hidalgo's contract expiring after the season, they hold the cards.
Please tell me this isn't a money saving move... I know Hidalgo is not a clutch hitter, but please tell me there someone besides Lane that is replacing him. {Just when my opinion of Drayton was changing...}
Keep in mind that if Hidalgo sucks, he's not likely to be benched, given his $12M salary. That means, like Derek Bell several years back, if Hidalgo returns to his '01-'02 form, he becomes this massive black hole in the lineup. I would love to trade him and get $12M in a salary flexibility for the season. Then as teams fall out of contention, we can trade for a star outfielder having a good season, looking for a contending team. Or, if Lane works out, then trade for another position of need depending on injuries or team weaknesses. Even with his season last year, he was overpaid - it's never a bad thing to get rid of an over-priced player when he's relatively of high value. That flexibility to go get players during the course of the season is extremely valuable, in my opinion. For example, we could use that flexibility to trade for 1/2 season of Randy Johnson again after Arizona continues to suck, and have a rotation where Wade Miller is the #5 starter.
Why does salary have anything to do with it? Given that he'd only sit for 1/2 to 2/3rds of the season, and be gone afterwards, and that the 'Stros have a seemingly adequite replacement, I see no reason why they'd trot him out every day if he returns to '01-02 form.
Exactly. It'd be one thing if he had more than one year left on the contract, but since it's his last year, you really have nothing to lose by keeping him. If he's not playing well, I have no doubt that they will play Lane more, especially since this is going to be a one shot deal, at least with Clemens. In this situation, they're going to play the best player, regardless of salary.
Why does salary have anything to do with it? Given that he'd only sit for 1/2 to 2/3rds of the season, and be gone afterwards, and that the 'Stros have a seemingly adequite replacement, I see no reason why they'd trot him out every day if he returns to '01-02 form. It's simply what teams tend to do. It's fairly rare that a big-name player is benched, no matter how badly he's performing - there's the undying belief that "he'll come around". They have a $14M investment in him for next year too, right? That means they'll continue to play him in the hopes that he'll improve. He played far more in '01 and '02 than his performance merited as well. For a team with a limited budget, I think $12M is way too big a risk for someone who's had 2 miserable years prior to last year's decent year. If you can get move him, you do it, in my opinion.
Or maybe he's not under contract next year? I thought he had a player option or something, but maybe not. Nevertheless, I still think $12M to spend on other players is better than $12M spent on Hidalgo.
I think another reason to take the chance on Hidalgo is that players tend to put forth much more effort in a contract year. Also, take away his potential offensive firepower, his defense, in our OF, is too good to trade away, IMO.
