Yeah, the more I think about it, the more it actually makes sense. If by any chance the Astros acquire a Sheets-level talent and potentially are competitive, then Wolf can be a solid back-of-the-rotation type to keep around. (They can use the last two months of this season to gauge how he fits with MMP.) If they're set to rebuild, let him go and take the pick. For a 26-year-old AAA player with mediocre numbers, it seems the risk is pretty low.
if the primary intention is to get a supp pick next year, then i'd have to say it's a smart trade. anybody else thing roy may be on the verge of getting shut down for the season and they dont want to suffer through runelvys and cassell making starts every 5th day for the rest of the way?
After my first smart azz response, I'm thinking the same thing...W/o Roy, we have no anchor...Not saying this guys is the next Roy, but we need something...
He's given up 14 HRs this season. He will fit right in. Maybe we can still get the record for HRs allowed in a season? I'm guessing that is why Ed Wade made this trade.
duly noted. decent enough trade, btw... we give up nobody and could potentially end up with a nice draft pick, one which we terribly need.
Sheets is a free agent. Houston is a desirable location to live/pitch. It's not impossible. I don't think this trade is as big of a deal as a lot of you. We gave up a mediocre minor league pitcher and got a mediocre major league pitcher who might end up turning into a draft pick. Don't really see how we lost in this deal. It isn't as if we gave up a great talent to get this guy...
Sheets is also from Louisiana so being closer to home might be a selling point. He's also pretty good friends with Roy, IIRC, from their Olympic days. On the trade, I guess it could have been worse. It only hurts my hometown team, Round Rock, as Reineke was pitching well of late (8 IP of shutout ball last night against Omaha). Otherwise, I guess he fits in well if he keeps the ball in the park. If not, we get a draft pick out of it. Could be worse...
No, but I see it as a low-risk potentially high-reward type signing. If he regains some of his old form, he can help solidify the rotation this year and possibly help us get another young piece in the 2009 draft. We need to keep our eyes and ears open to as many ways to acquire talent (especially young talent) that we can think of.
Haha....this thread is like a Richard Justice column. Watch all the flip floppers cry when they hear we might trade for the guy. Then, when we do trade and they find out what we gave for Wolf they say, oh this might not be too bad. Maybe we should refrain from making ridiculous comments until we find out exactly what's going on. Wait then it wouldn't be the internet.
I hope he does better than I expect...but from the way he has performed in non cavernous ballparks this year...People in the Crawfords might want to wear a batting helmet.
Morey for GM! Btw, this guyss era the last 3 seasons is 5.56, 4.73, 4.74 in the NL no less. If I'm Randy Wolf there's no way I do not accept arbitration.
As far as can tell, Wolf was neither a Type-A or Type-B free agent this past year. And he hasn't exactly done anything this year to vault himself into contention as one of the best 50% of starting pitchers in baseball over the last three years. In other words, I don't think there is much, if any, posibility of a draft pick.
That was my thought--hoping for a supplemental first rounder is a little steep. I hope we get a draft pick at all.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at this point you only get compensation for type-A and type-B free agents. If Wolf is neither (and I don't think he will be either) then you get nothing at all. If we don't get a signing team's 1st rounder (Type A) and we don't get a supplimental 1st rounder (Type B) for Wolf (which we won't) there are no other FA compensation picks and we get no compensation. I am almost positive that that is how it works. The later supplimental picks are for failing to sign your own draftees the previous year, IIRC.
Gonzales has had a much better career than either Caminiti or Kile. Finley probably did as well. Hell Harnisch arguably > Kile. Harnisch had twice as many seasons in the top ten in ERA+ (4) as Kile did (2). McLane kept Bagwell and Biggio in town through the 1990s and certainly deserves credit for that, but, imo, that shouldn't relieve him of criticism of his handling of the team's budget leading up the the 95 salary dump. There were five different position players on that starting lineup that would at one point finish a season in the top ten in mvp voting. And 4 SP that would win over 100 games in their career. And all of the core was in their 20s with the majority being 25-26 or younger. That's not even getting into the Shillings and Loftens that were let go in the offseason before the year started. To have a young core like that is pretty rare. It is somewhat similar to what Tampa Bay is doing right now. If the Ray got a new owner next month and then the Rays won for the next 10 years with this core, would the owner deserve all the credit? Or would a significant portion of it be due to the situation he inherited and the young talent the previous administration amassed? If anything, I think given the amount of young talent on the early 90s astros, you could make an argument that the team underachieved in the following 10-15 years . I mean they were good for a long time, but they weren't that good. They weren't a dynasty and they never won a championship. Let's not overrate the success the Astros have had the last 15 years.
2: There are different types of firesales. The reason that the Expos' fire sale was so egregious was because it was only aimed at saving money and the core they traded was still very young and on the upswing (walker was 27, grissom was 27, Deshields was 25, Cliff Floyd was 23, Rueter was 25, Pedro 25). The core of the Astros now, save for Pence, is all in the 30's and are either in decline or will get there very soon. No one would advocate just dumping salary for 10 cents on the dollar like the Expos did in the 90's (except possibly to get out of Lee's horrible contract). Selling now would be with an eye towards improving the team in the long run. 3. Sure. I think the criticisms of him is largely misplaced and irrational. He's proven that he'll spend in order to win (he gave Lee 100 million for goodness sakes). But just because he didn't "choose" the situation he inherited doesn't mean it wasn't an advantageous situation. And it is in no small part responsible for the Astros' success in the 1990's. 4. It makes sense sometimes to gamble and mortgage the future to try and win now. Sometimes it does not. It depends on the situation the team is in. It might be silly for the Pirates to sell off their farm to try and "win now", while it might be perfectly reasonable for the Angels to do so. Likewise, imo, it was logical for the Astros do try and "win now" in 04-05, while it is delusional and harmful to try and do it now.
Not that the Astros are making all the right moves or anything, but I always get a laugh from all the armchair GMs around here who forget: 1. The top guys everybody wants to trade Lee, Oswalt, and Berkman have this little thing called a no trade clause. That makes them very difficult to move. 2. Most of the armchair GMs GROSSLY overestimate the trade value of these guys. They are all in their 30s, with large price tags. Sure, the A's got a lot for Blanton, he;s very talented, he's 27, and he makes $3.7M. Oswalt, at this stage of his career, will not get you nearly what the A's got.
