I would like to have had the option. My point is just that there are a lot of bad moves that were made under McLane's watch (Lofton not included). He HAS given us a good ride but it could have been better.
huff posted a .819 ops in his (brief) time last year with houston, which also happened to be his career average (his #s this year are irrelevant, btw). carlos lee's career ops (including this year) is .840. so, yes, it represented an upgrade but not a significant one. and they had no one to replace scott's 1.047 ops. that's what i mean by misjudging or not understanding their team from last year. after the ASB, the went 37-30 on the srength of a lot of "flukes" - taveras, clemens (not that he was a fluke, but the circumstances of his return, etc.), scott... in bringing in lee, stat-wise, they basically replaced huff and had no one to replace the other elements.
I don't get this. As Sam already pointed out, if you compare Huff last season and this season to Lee, there's no comparison. Likewise, with Jennings, you think the Astros should've taken a greater look at his entire career (even though his pre-2006 years were in a very skewed Coors Field) instead of putting all the emphasis on his excellent 2006. That's fine. I think you might be putting a hair too much emphasis on career numbers, but I could accept the logic. The problem for me, though -- how do you blame the Astros for not putting emphasis on the entire career in the case of Jennings/Huff while at the same time arguing that they should've put all the emphasis on about 20 percent of Taveras' career? As for Scott, you're acting like he posted a 1.000 OPS the entire season. He didn't. He posted that over two months; the rest of the season, they mostly had Preston Wilson and his low .700s OPS. For the season, I'm guessing it averaged about .850... which is what he's given them in 2007. The problem with this team is the dropoff from Pettitte/Clemens to Jennings/Woody. Sadly, it really is that simple.
Because Taveras was a young player that was called up to the majors before he was ready (skipping AAA), and thus it's logical that he would still be learning/improving? Same basic logic that we would reasonably expect Burke to improve while Biggio would not.
Lee posted an OPS of .895 and .891 in two of his last three years. Given that and the fact that he was moving to a park very friendly to right-handed hitters, I think the Astros were reasonable to expect (and correct) that he'd be in the upper .800s.
The Astros have plenty of players who could get on base at a greater clip than .300. It's not as if with Taveras' departure, the Astros were stuck with batting Biggio leadoff with no other options. They have other options; the Astros just chose not to use them. Blame Garner for how he's constructed the lineup, not the trade.
Oh I'm not blaming the trade for Garners dumb lineup at all. Just saying that the leadoff position is important.
His #s this year are irrelevant??? Are you serious? I thought this went without saying, but the goal in acquiring talent is to get production from that point forward. Career numbers aren't the only indicator of future performance, in fact it isn't close to the best predictor. Teams look to a player's skillset to see if their current production will improve or decrease. And career trends are an important predictor of future success or failure. In Huff's case, his career OPS is a very poor number to use. The fact is that he was in decline for 2 seasons prior to his arrival in Houston. He posted a .749 OPS in 05. His 07 numbers, viewed in this light, are right in line with his 05 numbers and his career trends. As Cat pointed out, Lee's OPS trend has been upward. It was pretty easy to see that Lee's been improving as his career has gone on while Huff has been on a downward slide, and predict their divergent seasons.
But it doesn't matter why we contended. Us contending because our division sucked and us contending because we were genuinely good lead to the same result - having a realistic chance at going to the postseason. You are right that we lost Pettite, but we hadn't lost Roger yet at that point. They felt that Pettite was on the downfall and if they could replace his production with Jennings, and Roger came back, they wouldn't miss a beat. This, coupled with health issues surrounding the Cardinals pitching staff should have and did give them realistic hope to contend again. Obviously, it didn't work out, but you have to remember the thought process in hindsight - Roger was still a possibility. You kind of proved the point though. He was heralded through the minors as an ace. Like you said, most young aces if not flat out dominating from the start like Os and Liriano, atleast fair pretty well. Hirsh struggled and they must have realized his ceiling wasn't nearly as high anymore. If it was going to take him a while to develop into a consistent #3, and the chances of him becoming a #1 were nill, then you can't really fault a thought process that gambled on swapping him out for a player more likely to produce well this year in a time of need. Most teams don't trade their young players because they simply can't afford to retain vets, thus having to rely on building from within. As far as Cinci, I don't think it's analagous at all. If they are good in any specific year, it's an aberration. While you are right that the Astros are not as good this year as before, we are talking about an organization that has been in contention every year (save 1) in the past decade. Wouldn't it seem likely that it was a safe bet that this tradition of excellence would continue, ESPECIALLY considering how weak the division is? One other thing of relevance is that the trade deadline is in the middle of the season, so you have no firm grasp of whether or not your being in contention is legit. So if you're Cinci, and within 3 games of the division near the deadline, are you really willing to throw away 5 years of club control of some of these young guys for a rental when it's likely your success is a fluke? Now if you're Houston, and you have guys like Oswalt and Berkman who have dominated the postseason, and you contend every year, you have that confidence that your contention is legit.
yes, because you weren't replacing huff; you were *specifically* replacing huff's 2006 #s. in constructing your team - on paper, since there's no other way to do it - it would have been unreasonable to expect lee to be anything more than a slight upgrade over what huff provided last year. again, huff posted an .819 ops and lee's career ops is .840. the astros were 45-50 at the ASB last year. they traded for aubrey huff and, iirc, a day or two later, called up luke scott. they would finish 37-30. they did so on the strength of: clemens' return (he made just 4 starts prior to the ASB); huff's arrival (his .819 ops, i believe, placed 3rd on the team behind scott and berkman, meaning he was our third best hitter); taveras' terrific second half (360+ ob%; 30-game hit streak); scott's wicked second half (1.047 ops); wheeler stepping up for lidge; and then the usual suspects (oswalt, pettitte and berkman). it's safe to assume the astros wanted to reconstruct the 37-30 version of the '06 team. but they lost clemens, pettitte and huff, and they had no one (unless they were living in denial) who was going to post a 1.047 ops like scott did. they should have recognized they were a mediocre team that overachieved and built a more realistic plan. they didn't; they bought into the idea that they were a 37-30 team. so they broke out a box of band-aids: williams for pettitte (and his 2.80 post-ASB era); lee for huff (an upgrade, but again, not a great one *on paper*) and then, the killer: decided they had gotten close enough to that 37-30 team that all they needed was a 200-inning pitcher. they then dealt a key component of that 37-30 finish (taveras, not to mention hirsh, who posted a decent 4.20 era in 5 september starts) to try and fill what they had wrongly assumed was their last remaining piece. the net result was a worse rotation, a worse everyday line-up and a worse defensive team. it was a cataclysmic miscalculation. and worst of all: now, going into the '08 season, they STILL need a #2 starter, plus young arms to throw at their rotation, an upgrade defensively in the outfield, a lead-off hitter..... the trade made no sense.
The actions of the Astros had more to do with them attempting to replace Pettite/Clemens in a year where they could EASILY win the division... even with the mediocre "37-30" team that they had (hell, that winning percentage has them in first place right now). Sure, if they were able to keep Pettite for 2 years $32 million (even though he's saying he may retire), and re-sign Clemens for $25 million, they don't have to go out and give up prospects for more pitching. The problem is, once Pettite leaves (and Clemens won't be considered till early May, if at all), what do you do? What should they have done? Stand pat? Play for 2009 or 2010, when 2007 is infinitely more winnable if they had quality starting pitching? Hell, in 2009, Pettite-Oswalt-Clemens or Oswalt-#2 quality pitcher may not be good enough to contend in this division... and maybe they don't make this sort of trade under similiar circumstances... but in 2007, WE KNOW that a mediocre team is going to win the division, and that a #2 200 inning pitcher, combined with Lee/Loretta, an improving Burke, and MVP Lance (offense wasn't the problem this year), is an aspect that puts the Astros in a decent enough position. Complaining about trading for Jennings in particular is fine... I'm not going to pretend to be nostradamus and say his numbers were going to be a 6 something ERA this year, and get worse after leaving Colorado. But, saying that they should have "stood pat" and simply tried to compete with the team they had... after Pettite had already left... is wasting a HUGE opportunity while Oswalt, Berkman and Lee are all still in their primes. Yes, they still needed a #2 pitcher. Who else was available that they should have gone after? Remember, the SAME package (that apparently will set this team back for 10 years, even though none of those guys likely make an all-star team while Oswalt/Berkman are still viable) was REJECTED by the White Sox (who obviously had their own "miscalculations" about what this season was going to be like). Yes, they still need pitching next year... and given the still crazy FA market, a TRADE of players you feel you can replace for an established MLB pitcher is a clear-cut option. #2, #3 pitchers and bullpen are the main needs... the latter can be built from within, the #3 guy could be some hybrid of Backe-Sampson-Williams, but the #2 guy doesn't appear out of thin air. You have to pay for him.
they were "mediocre" prior to the ASB/after you subtracted (and failed to replace) 4-5 of the elements that made them not mediocre, post-ASB (clemens, pettitte, scott, huff, taveras...) yes. "WE KNOW that a mediocre team is going to win the division." -- explain to me again why they HAD TO HAVE A #2 PTCHER!!!!!!!!!? no one. if your team proves too mediocre to compete in 2007, you could have signed jennings this winter. no one has said it will set the team back 10 years. and if i remember correctly, chicago pulled out when buchholz failed a physical. they didn't "have" to do anything. see your, "WE KNOW that a mediocre team is going to win the division." for further explanation.
You honestly thought they'd be able to compete in this division with Oswalt, Williams, Wandy, Sampson, Albers/Hirsh/Buchholz? Hell, that's essentially what they have now thanks to Jennings' freefall, and you can see that even THAT is not good enough to be better than the 65-61 division leading Cubs. Thus, there's a difference between being mediocre and having the second worst pitching staff in the history of the Astros. Pettite/Clemens, with last year's offense/bullpen = mediocre team (even though it essentially was a WS team the year before). Pettite/Clemens, with this year's offense/bullpen gives them a chance to be a healthy 10 games over .500. When Pettite and Clemens leave, what do you do? You say "do nothing".... right.... You can't win with Oswalt and a bunch of #4 and #5 pitchers (and that's excluding Jennings... who certainly didn't help anything, but wasn't supposed to be a 6 ERA pitcher AWAY from colorado). To win in this league, you need pitching... established pitching... they needed another starter that could carry himself with Oswalt. (btw, Buchholz apparently fails his physical with Chicago, but was good enough for Colorado? That alone tells you that Chicago wasn't too hot on the trade once the backlash/critics got hold of the players involved... our prized players weren't enough to get Jon freaking Garland). You simply can't mail in a year by "standing pat" with a painfully below-par pitching staff, while you have Oswalt-Berkman-Lee in the primes of their careers... you can't simply take for granted you'll have max performance of a $14-15 million dollar year player in 2009, or 2010 (which I assume is what you want them to build towards), nor can you take for granted that the division will be as winnable next year, the year after, or 3 years from now. I can't fathom why you'd want them to stand pat... not when they had a golden opportunity to cruise to a divsion title in 2007. And, I'll take my chances with any team in the playoffs... the 2005 Astros, the 2006 Cardinals, and even the 2003 Marlins can attest that you don't need to be a 100 win regular season team to have a hot playoffs.
The idea that aces dominate right out of the game is pure ignorance. Some do, most don't. Phil Hughes, the consensus best pitching prospect this year has struggled. Roger Clemens didn't. 4.32 era in his first season (20 starts) Greg Maddux didn't. 5.61 era in his first season (27 starts) Tom Glavine didn't. 4.56 era (34 starts) Randy Johnson 4.82 (28 starts) CC Sabathia 4.39 (33 starts) Jeremy Bonderman 5.56 (28 starts) etc, etc.
they entered a 3-game series against milwaukee with a chance to cut their deficit to 5.5 games just two weeks ago with berkman having an off-year, oswalt by-and-large having an off year, jennings/williams having terrible years, pence on the DL... so, yes, i honestly thought/think that a better everyday line-up, a better defensive team and a better rotation (since it's hard to imagine hirsh posting a 6+ era) would have been able to compete in this division? no, pettitte/clemens with last year's *post-ASB offense /bullpen* = 37-30. they were 45-50 prior to the all-star break, before tavers and scott went on their tears, before they dealt for aubrey huff... it sure as hell beats sticking band-aids over festering wounds, yes. do you realize pettitte/clemens posted a combined 2.49 era in 184.1 ip after the all-star break last year? how is throwing a bunch of average arms at those two voids beneficial? the 37-30 finish was so flukey - clemens came back, taveras got hot, scott went absolutely bat**** crazy - hell, even berkman posted a 1.078; he had never posted an ops that high in any other season. i mean, they were OFF THE CHARTS in terms of peak seasons. but, sure - let's throw jason jennings in there; he can make up all that slack...... if you looked at that team objectively after losing clemens/pettitte, the smart, reasoned outlook would have been, "we have a .500 team. if we're lucky." the 2006 cardinals disagree with you. nick, i've said this repeatedly - i think the 2007 astros with taveras, hirsh, buchholz, pence from day 1, etc., would would have been a much better team than the one they trotted out on opening day. so standing pat does not by any stretch mean "be bad." further, i don't see how surrounding elite talent with average to below average players is somehow a better path to take. let's ask hakeem olajuwon how he enjoyed the late 80's/early 90's playing with mike woodson; purvis short; sleepy floyd; jb carroll; buck johnson........
There aren't many baseball people who would prefer Willy Taveras in a lineup to Luke Scott or Mike Lamb. I can accept the better defense (although marginal, imo) and better rotation, but replacing Scott with Taveras makes the offense worse.
cat, wadr, i'm at a loss how anyone could term taveras a "marginal" defensive upgrade over scott. ask those baseball people if they agree with that assessment. scott is a boderline awful defensive outfielder. offensively, you're continuing to compare different hitters expected to do different things. taveras would certainly represent an upgrade over the team's current lead-off hitter. and pence has been a better hitter this year than scott. thus, it's a better *everyday* line-up.
Most people consider Scott an average defensive outfielder, which I would agree with. Also, I'm not sure if it would be more than marginal. I think Taveras and Pence are comparable defenders; edge to Taveras with his arm, but Pence is as good or even slightly better in range. Maybe slight edge Taveras in center, but not much. Scott has a fairly good arm; Pence's is very inconsistent. That's why I'm hesitant to say Pence over Scott in right would be a dramatic upgrade, considering the emphasis RF has on arm. Offensively, you leave out that Biggio would take the place of Scott/Lamb in the 5 or 6 spot in your "everyday" lineup. So, you have to ask; would you rather have Biggio batting leadoff and Scott/Lamb hitting fifth, or Taveras batting leadoff and Biggio hitting fifth? I'd prefer the former, and it's not a difficult decision at all. So no, I don't see how it's a better *everyday* lineup.
