Houston Astros biggest loser as wild trade market comes to close

Happ could be a very good second or third starter for us for the next 5 to 6 years.

Wallace appears to be very well thought of throughout baseball and could be an answer at 1B with power for a long time to come (if he is as advertised).

You just weren't going to get a lot more value for a 32 year old pitcher with a significant injury history and a limited number of teams he would ok a trade to.

 

Depends on who you believe. Happ has been nothing short of great in his short time in the majors. Scouts believe he's a 4th or 5th starter in terms of stuff, and his major league numbers so far are actually better than his minor league numbers. So it's unclear if he figured something out or will come down to earth.

Wallace is pretty well-regarded, but he projected to be an above average offensive 3B, not 1B. His supposed reasonable upside is 20-25 HR, mid 0.800's OPS type guy (ie, last year's Hunter Pence). That would make him a fairly average 1B. Not bad - and its certainly good to fill a position with cheap, quality players, but also not a star, or a player at a difficult-to-fill position.

Look - I'm not saying it was a bad deal. That's still to be determined. But I can completely see why someone analyzing the deals would think the Astros didn't come out of it great. They seem to have gotten fairly solid type players, but not a lot of players with big upside potential. There are different philosophies on rebuilding - whether you shoot for the moon and go with younger players where the sky is the limit and then build around those stars, or whether you get a bunch of decent players and fill out a solid roster - and it appears the Astros are going with the latter.

Except he doesn't have a significant injury history. In fact, there probably aren't very many players in all of MLB who've been as healthy and pitched as many innings as he has over the last 6 years. I agree on the no-trade clauses, though it's pretty clear at least 3 or 4 teams were seriously interested - that's really all it takes to create a theoretical bidding war. All the rumors said Oswalt didn't want to go to Philly, so we have no idea if or how many teams he actually vetoed.

 

I don't think the Astros could be considered deadline losers for a couple of reasons. For one, to me, being a winner or loser largely depends on how desperately you need to make a move. To me, there is infinitely more pressure and chance to be a "loser" if you are trying to buy.

For instance, the Red Sox strike me as a big loser. The Yankees made big moves and the Rays are one of the hotter teams in the league. For them not to get lapped, they had to do something. Instead, all they end up with is Jarrod Saltalamacchia and they had to give up a nice power arm to do so. The Astros would be bad for the next couple seasons if they had done nothing. The Astros still will be bad for the next couple seasons with these moves.

The other reason I feel you can't knock what they did is because the other option was doing nothing and that wouldn't be good for anyone. There was no way the Astros were picking up Berkman's option. The Yankees aren't going to exercise it either. He will be a free agent after this season either way. Oswalt was obviously growing tired of pitching for a bad team. Right, wrong, or indifferent, his heart just didn't look in it anymore. Say what you will about Richard Justice, but when you read between the lines, he seems to think that Roy's attitude put a damper on the clubhouse atmosphere. He quoted a veteran who said after the trades that "now it'll be fun to play here with a bunch of guys who want to be out there."

 

These trades should have happened two years ago. We would have gotten more talent, and we'd be much closer to being a good team by now. But we have a horrible owner and so we're screwed.

I can't think of a better way to start the new year than by the grocer selling the Astros after the season ends. Talk about a Christmas gift!

 

Oswalt's back disagrees. The Astros had to shut him down for the last month of the season last year because of his back.

Scouting reports on Oswalt indicate that baseball execs are concerned about his back and his long term durability.

In July 2009, Stephania Bell (a physical therapist who is a board-certified orthopedic clinical specialist and a certified strength and conditioning specialist) blogged regarding Oswalt's health and his 2008 DL stint from a hip abductor strain.

My point is that Oswalt's health is a concern to baseball people. It is not a huge concern, but enough of one to affect the players to be sent in trade.

 

1965-1992 called and they all say that you have yet to see a "horrible owner."

Has he made some mistakes? Yep.
Is he too involved with personnel decisions? Maybe
Did he fire Garner when he shouldn't have? Yep.
Have the Astros enjoyed more success than ever during his ownership? YEP!

If you think Drayton is a "horrible owner" you obviously did not live through McMullen trying to get Nolan Ryan to take a pay cut and let him leave for Dallas. Then he signs Jim Clancy on the cheap, telling us he would make us forget about Nolan. Clancy sucked.

THAT is a "horrible owner."

 

I agree with Stark compare the Oswalt trade to the Haren one (which should have been far more lucrative of a return package than what Roy O would command) and we got alot better stuff in return than what Arizona got.

JA Happ
Brett Wallace

Villar and Paredes good young talent that could develop into something.

and still 15 million off next years payroll. And it's not like we couldn't have Lance back next season if we wanted him.

 

WTF?!?!?! Oswalt in a Phillie uniform and Lance Berkman a YANKEE!?!?!?! WTF. Did I die and go to HELL?

then

Then I see the Little Kitty strike out... which made me :grin: ...

 

I agree with you here. There are many worse owners. He may meddle too much in baseball decisions and he may be unrealistic about the on-field product, but there is no doubt that under his watch, the Astros have had their greatest on-field success.

 

The hate for Drayton is ridiculous. He's far from a perfect owner, but at least he want's to win, and is willing to spend, maybe not spend as much as some want him to (it's not their money), but he's what seperates us from being Pittsburgh or Kansas city.

 

We'd still likely have been on the hook for the majority of their remaining salary... moreso two years ago than now.

Sure, we'd have more possible prospects that could be major leaguers... but we'd also still have Lee's ridiculous contract, we'd also still have the fact that we got 0 of our high 2007 draft picks signed, and we likely still have to make the same dumb stop-gap signings (matsuis, feliz, etc.) just to field an everyday MLB team.

This team is more flawed now due to lack of signing picks and development... trading those guys earlier may have helped net a better quality of prospect, but they would still be an overall down in the dumps farm system (that is getting better).

 

The biggest losers were the Milwuakee Brewers, they did nothing and I really think if they add a quality starting pitcher or two they could contend, but if they were sellers they should've traded Fielder and Hart.

No way were losers even if we didn't get top prospects, we get younger and have cash to spend this off-season. The Astros just went from a team with overpaid aging veterans with no future, to a team who's future looks brighter in just a couple of days. The media makes it sound like we just traded away two 26-year old superstars and got scrubs in return

 

I agree on your first point, but for $15MM, might as well got your moneys worth...all we did is get some scrubs and still had to pay salary...how is that salary relief?...that just doesn't make any sense...

 

If the Astros learned anything from this, it should be to avoid including "no-trade" clauses in the contracts they negotiate with players. That really came back to bite them in the arse with Oswalt and Berkman.

 

What if they are elite players though, as Berkman and Oswalt were at the time of the contracts? I believe one of the reasons Beltran "cited" as not signing here was the lack of a no-trade clause.

But Cliff Lee will be a FA this year -- and you can bet the bank he'll demand a no-trade clause after being dealt over and over the last few years. I think generally, you'd want to avoid them, but in the end you have to get that impact player you're going after.

 

Berkman's no-trade clause was a moot point since he was 10 and 5 man. Depending on how they count service time, his 10/5 no trade claause kicked in sometime last year.

 

If I was a free agent, that's one thing I would want for sure... and I would not go to or re-sign with any team that wouldn't give me one.

So there.

 

Well that was a reason Boras gave but it's not really the full explanation...not when you demand a no-trade clause 5 minutes before the deadline.

 

We got the runner up for rookie of the year last year and the Blue Jays #1 prospect.

Fail to see how we got little in return.