I sure wish the Astros had

But he had a history of "arm troubles" despite throwing 200 innings, 35 starts and finishing the season strong last year. So it was apparently much smarter to invest 3 club-controlled players + $5MM in one year of Jennings than $24MM in Pettitte. Two years was just too big a risk for Pettitte, though apparently not so for a $12MM 40+ yr old Woody Williams.

 

Worst mistake that Purpura made was not overpaying Andy Pettitte. Yeah, it's a stupid move in and of itself. But then, everything else works out. His life partner also signs, you don't make the stupid Jason Jennings trade. You don't sign Woody.

 

Even though he wasn't going to sign for $12 million/year (he wanted $14 mil with the option)? I know..it's only $2 million of someone else's money. There is no "arm trouble". He had arm trouble period. He had it in 2004. He had it last season. Yes, he finished strong, but did you know for sure it wasn't going to happen again to a player that wasn't even sure he wanted to play baseball?

The chain reaction started by losing Pettitte is what is most concerning. They panicked...plain and simple. They knew that Roger likely wouldn't come back w/o Andy and they felt they had to do something. They overpaid for Jennings, who also apparently had arm troubles. 2007 has just been a year I'm sure they'd like to leave out of next year's media guide...save Hunter Pence and Carlos Lee. However, I'm not going to fault them for failing to sign a guy with elbow issues who wasn't even sure he wanted to play baseball again.

 

I think we're all forgetting that Andy was telling the Astros he still wasn't sure where he wanted to play in December.

The Astros tried to trade for Garland....and Pettitte got his feelings hurt.

 

Not to mention, that is almost precisely how NY let him go in the first place.

 

I may have the numbers wrong - I know Pettitte offered the Astros the same deal as the Yankees except $2MM less each year and the Astros said no. I thought it was $12 vs $14, but it might have been $14 vs $16. As for the arm trouble - he had surgery in 2004. He was incredible in 2005 - "best pitcher in baseball" level good. In the 2nd half of 2006, he was nearly that good again. If he doesn't want to play, he'll retire and no harm to us - I'm not terribly concerned about that aspect of it. He's not going to pitch for the hell of it - he's too much the competitor. If he pitches, he's going to give you everything he's got. If he doesn't, you don't owe the rest of his contract.

I'd agree with you if you were talking a long-term deal that there were some risks there of age/injury. For a 2 year deal? No way there's a major risk there. Especially not in comparison to the other two decisions they made: Jennings for 3 young players and Woody Williams who has been injured each of the past 3 seasons and is 40+ yrs old. (and who, oddly enough, has managed to stay healthy this year) I thought the Woody deal was a good low-risk deal, as was Pettitte. The key is not the $$ amount but the years involved. If they do get injured, it hurts you short-term but there's no longterm risk/consequence. (Jennings is the exact opposite - all the damage is long-term but not short-term. This is why I am so against that deal.)

I do agree with this - I felt everything we did was a chain reaction of panic this offseason that started with losing Pettitte.

 

Pettitte was certainly a risk--it might be only two years, but if he flames out in April of year two (and face it--it's a valid concern considering the amount of time he spent hurt in Houston) you're on the hook for $12 million dollars. $12 million for a player who won't play is a risk. And the same people who are b****ing about "cheap Uncle Drayton" right now would be calling for everyone's head when that $12 million isn't available because we gave it to a guy who'd spent 1-and-a-half of the last three seasons on the DL.

 

Out of 3 seasons, he pitched 2 1/3 for Houston - he missed about 120 innings total and that was in his first season here. Even when unhealthy in 2004 and trying to pitch through it, he had an ERA under 4. If he flames out in Yr 2 in April, that certainly sucks - but it's a relatively low-risk move. Certainly lower risk than Jennings (losing him after a year AND losing 3 cheap club-controlled players) or Woody Williams (less money, but much higher risk of injury). And you get a clear-cut #2 starter for potentially TWO years (instead of having to repeat he "we need a #2!" again this offseason) - not a guy who you hope might duplicate a career year and live up to his highest possible expectations.

 

OK, I thought Pettitte spent more time on the DL in 2005. I still put a little more into the risk than you do. And evidently the Astros did--but their position is arguable (and you've done a good job presenting the argument).

 

OH--and let me clarify that I am looking at Pettitte's situation completely separate from the Jennings trade. I've done a complete 180 on the Jennings trade. We couldn't have done any worse with a full season of Albers and Sampson than we did with Jennings and Sampson. We could then have traded Hirsh, Buchholz, and maybe even Taveras (or Scott?) for other parts later in the offseason, or during spring, or in May, or near the deadline.

That debacle, together with the embarrasment of the 2007 draft, is why (I believe) Tim was unceremoniously dismissed a few days ago.

 

Personally, I would have offered Pettitte the deal - but I can understand the Astros not wanting to do that due to the risk and whatnot. What really bothers me is the subsequent moves of Woody & Jennings. It just feels like they wanted to play hardball with Pettitte, and when that failed, they panicked and threw out their principles that were evidently in play with Pettitte, and made those high-risk moves. If they were willing to do it with Jennings & Woody (not to mention paying $100MM for a guy who many GMs feel is a DH-to-be due to weight issues), I feel like they should have been willing to do it for Pettitte, who was a much better pitcher, a proven postseason/late-season guy, a guy who actually made big contributions to the Astros' previous success, etc.

It just fits the whole mold of an offseason without a real good idea of what they wanted to accomplish. I think that's a big part of the reason Purpura is gone - so we'll see what happens with a new GM.

 

I wish the Astros had Ben Zobrist. And Your Mom.

 

I wish the Astros had a clear defined plan and an owner who knew that investing into their scouting department and trying to rebuild the minor league system is what will make this team better. Hopefully the hiring of a competent GM will be the first step toward this goal.

 

Wait -- didn't we sign Woody way before the Pettitte saga?

IIRC, the Woody signing was while Pettitte was trying to decide whether or not to play and before we were negotiating with Andy.

IIRC, Woody was not originally an either/or vis-a-vis Pettitte. He was signed as our 3 or 4 pitcher to complement whoever we got as our #2 (i.e. Pettitte, Clemens, or someone via trade). I don't think the Woody signing took resources away from signing Pettitte.

But correct me if I'm remembering wrong.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think Andy was ever going to return to the Astros and that the whole holdout was done to intentionally drag the signing period beyond the arbitration date similar to what the Yankees and Gary Sheffield did to the Braves after the 2003 season.

 

That may very well be - that just makes it worse, in my mind. Carlos Lee and Woody Williams were at the same time, whenever that was. If you were willing to take the risk on both of those guys, you should have been willing to take it on Pettitte in my opinion. I guess just the Jennings trade was the "panic" part in that case.

 

That contradicts what both the Pettitte side and the Astros have said publically - they both said that Pettitte was willing to sign with the Astros for the 2 year deal at slightly lower than what NYY was offering, but that the Astros weren't interested in the yr 2 option.

 

Yeah, I think this is an interesting point -- especially in hindsight. (Although I'm not sure I agree that Lee's possible future issues are as big a risk as Pettitte's actual issues the past few years.)

I remember being pretty psyched that we signed Woody but somewhat surprised we signed him for 2 years at his age.

Of course, never underestimate the difference between someone who is psyched to work for you (Woody) and someone who needs to be dragged kicking and screaming (Pettitte). That could have clouded their decision-making as they evaluated both signings -- not to mention having probably had their fill of the Hendricks Brothers tactics.