era+ IS park-adjusted, which is precisely why i used it. nick, the astros required a slew of flukey performances last year just to finish .500. they should have been more dubious; instead, it appears they accepted the flukes as a realistic portrait of their team and built accordingly. they did need pitching; this remains true. i'm at a loss, however, how they determined jennings and williams would be the answer - williams is defensible; reasonable contract and you didn't give up anyone from your roster. but jennings... this current make-up just isn't working. they're failing across the board; it's not fundamentally sound, the defense is poor, the pitching and offense too inconsistent...
era+ IS park-adjusted, which is precisely why i used it. nick, the astros required a slew of flukey performances last year just to finish .500. they should have been more dubious; instead, it appears they accepted the flukes as a realistic portrait of their team and built accordingly. they did need pitching; this remains true. i'm at a loss, however, how they determined jennings and williams would be the answer - williams is defensible; reasonable contract and you didn't give up anyone from your roster. but jennings... this current make-up just isn't working. they're failing across the board; it's not fundamentally sound, the defense is poor, the pitching and offense too inconsistent...
Well, they went after Garland, but the package wasn't good enough. They could have spent $120 million + on Zito, or given 4 year contracts to a horrible Marquis, a questionable Lilly, or an overrated Weaver. In the end, a trade allowed them the most financial flexibility (to accomodate Lee), along with still being able to acquire an established innings-eater pitcher who was expected to have better numbers away from Colorado (like most pitchers do). Jennings didn't work out... that in itself makes it a bad trade regardless of what the other players we gave up do. But, according to the "sentiment" of argument here, it may have been an "ok" trade if he had signed an extention (even though that would have caused the Astros to be falling flat on their faces right now, and even more hampered financially to improve). It also may have been an "ok" trade if they had simply gotten somebody else... even though the same package wasn't good enough to get just a marginally better/proven pitcher in Garland. The Astros have the same problem this off-season, and again will likely have to again explore a trade to solve it. I don't see them bringing in another $14 million dollar a year player on the everyday roster... and that's exactly what a front-line starter costs in this market.
i think, nick, for me anyway, it boils down to "need." they definitely needed to replace two guys who posted, combined, a sub-2.50 era over the team's 37-30 finish (and probably, roughly the same combined era during their 2005 run to the WS, fyi). but, imo, their attitude (and perspective) should have been: we'll look for players of equal value/production but are willing to stay put if they're not available. that's the EXACT attitude that has allowed them to build such a successful franchise over the past 10 years: they've been smart, creative, and, most of all, patient. imo, everything about this offseason felt like a total departure. lee's signing, though it's worked out thus far, combined with them dealing so much for jennings and then signing williams had a ranger/cub/oriole vibe to it - we had to do SOMETHING so... here are our three new, ill-fitting parts... happy now, public? but what if they instead took to the podium in december and said, "you know what? we think hunter pence is going to eventually be as good, if not better than carlos lee or alfonso soriano - so he's going to be our LF next year. we also think willy taveras is ready to be an everyday CF and lead-off hitter. and we think we can find 3 pitchers among hirsh, buchholz, wandy, sampson, patton, et al, to solidify this rotation." why was that appraoch not valid? why did they allow a perceived "need" to supercede their organizational direction?
It's interesting that in 2003-2004 a lot of the team's moves were rationalized (and rightly so imo) by the argument that the team had a talented but aging core so moves had to be made for the purpose of winning now. The team's window of contending back then was seen as short so trading prospects and losing draft picks were justified. 3 years later, after losing a number of their best players management still believed the same thing? At what point do you rebuild? Would purpura make moves in the best long-term interest of the franchise if it meant short-term losing and putting his job at risk? Maybe getting a top 3 draft pick and subsequently drafting at the top of every round is a silver lining to this horrible season. It maybe just the thing to jump start the farm system. When the Rockets win multiple championships in the next few years it will all be because of the terrible 2001-2002 season. Without 50 games and Franchise getting injuried they wouldn't have been able to draft Yao Ming. Without Yao, McGrady likely wouldn't have agreed to be traded here. Sometimes a horrible season can be an unlikely catalyst to future success. Hell, with all the money Drayton saved this year by not signing any draft picks the first 4 round, he should have plenty of money to reinvest in drafting/signing the best available picks in the 2008 draft. Right??
This is my exact problem with the whole deal. It goes against everything that made this organization successful for so long. Since we need a #2 again, perhaps we should trade Burke & Patton this offseason for another one year rental?
Sampson and Wandy have both pitched as league-average or better pitchers this season. If this was the expectation, then it's example #1 of building based on best-case scenario. Berkman's AVG/OPS is certainly down, but his HR/RBI/Runs Scored pace is similar to his 2003, 2004, and 2005. He certainly had a slow start, but his season is not as terrible as it may seem. He's pretty much been normal Berkman the last 3 months. If a repeat of his career-best 2006 was the expectation, this is example #2 of building based on best-case scenario. Carlos Lee had basically a career year last year and is more-or-less duplicating that, with a chance at a career high OPS this year. Again, if this was the expectation, this is example #3 of building based on a best-case scenario. Because every one of us - fans, management, everyone - had questions about Lidge going into this season. If the expectation was that he would rebound, then this is example #4 of building based on a best-case scenario.
We also didn't sign any of our own free agents to big money or market value except for Bagwell... let alone go after other free agents for big money/market value players like Lee. If the Astros conducted business like they did for the teams they built in the late 90's, they would have let one of Oswalt or Berkman leave via free agency (or both), and not offered oodles of money at Clemens, Pettite, and now Lee. Hell, if they had this sort of mindset earlier, they wouldn't have held on to Scott Elarton in a potential Roger Clemens trade when he was with Toronto. The Astros either have to either hope that Patton becomes a dominant #2 sooner rather than later (best case scenario #1), or hope for the best from the core of Wandy/Sampson/Albers/Guitierez/Mclemore/Bogusevic/Brad James. (best case scenario #2). Then, of course, there is Backe... who is still essentially learning what it takes to have a pitching career in the big leagues. (and btw, they should have traded Burke for somebody halfway decent 3 years ago... given that he hasn't fit on this team since Biggio/Kent have been around).
I would have been fine if they had promoted Pence, and not signed Lee... but I felt that there wasn't enough talent among all of these pitchers just mentioned (with the exception of Patton, who I didn't want them rushing up here and having him suffer Willy-T-like growing pains). And the thing is, even this year... with Hirsh/Buchholz on different teams, and an entire season of Wandy/Sampson, the Astros would have been in the same position, if not worse than last season (worse being because Hirsh's trade value has declined, not that it wasn't all that high to begin with... he and Willy T alone should have been able to acquire a pitcher such as Jon Garland).
What's so important about Hirsh's trade value? Haven't you be arguing that the trade and free agent market for starting pitchers is outrageously too high right now? Given your thoughts on that wouldn't you generally want to keep good cheap young pitchers not trade them away?
Because Hirsh hasn't improved all that much this year from last year... road ERA actually higher than home ERA (not just a Coors effect), and the Astros still need pitching. Sure, they could wait 3 years for Hirsh to develop... like they have with Wandy... or they could trade him while his value is highest if they feel he's never going to put up the numbers he did as a minor leaguer... to try to acquire one that could give this team a definite shot to win a division in a year where its up for grabs. Wandy never had that sort of marquee prospect value... thus, if your'e not going to get much for him, you might as well hang on and see if it can become something (same goes for Albers, Sampson, Gutierez, Backe). Patton is also somebody who has more trade value right now than he likely will after his first year in the majors (assuming he struggles, as Hirsh has... which he may not). I'm not saying "trade him"... especially since they've already gotten rid of Hirsh (part of the thinking was also that Patton was still in the system when they traded Hirsh), but if you have enough offense/bullpen to win your division (the Astros may have had just enough), and you need proven starting pitching, you have to give up prospects to get it. Finally, if the Cardinals recovered from getting rid of Dan Haren with nothing to show for it, and the Braves recovered from getting rid of Adam Wainwright with nothing to show for it (two more heralded, more talented, pitchers than Hirsh)... the Astros will recover from trading Jason Hirsh. It also helps that the two mentioned teams have not only recovered, but overcame the loss of those two young guys in less than a year.
Yea a big .02 difference in his road and home ERA Why do you keep saying you'd have to wait 3 years for Hirsh? he's a quality middle of rotation starter this year
While his ERA is around 5. The argument you used was that it was because of Coors Field. The fact that he essentially pitches the same, home or road, in a division that features some pretty great pitchers parks (San Diego, LA, San Francisco) mitigates the "Its all Coors Field argument." Are your standards really that low? Suddenly, a 4.81 ERA with a penchant for giving up the long-ball is quality? That wasn't going to help the Astros get any better this year. Woody Williams certainly hasn't helped, and his numbers are very close to that, with more innings pitched. Maybe he gets better next year, and he likely comes into his own (if he's going to come into his own at all, and sniff the AAA stats) the following year... that's 3 years. The main point is that the Astros felt his minor league numbers last year, where he had a sub 3 ERA, and gave up ONE HR the entire year in the PCL were an aberration. Thus, they decided to trade him while his value couldn't have been any higher for something they need (and still need)... a potential front-line starter. Its not like they get rid of all young pitchers (like Steve Phillips did)... they've made mistakes in refusing to part with ones that eventually fizzled (Elarton, Redding). They've also let some go that didn't amount to much after they left the Astros (Wade Miller). They currently employ Wandy, who certainly hasn't earned a starting rotation given his last 2 years, but still has a job (and is eventually starting to "get it").
That's incorrect. It's been well documented that pitching in Coors Field or the "Coors Field Effect" alters the pitcher's performance in Colorado and away. It's be documented by numerous statistical studies. The rational, as i understand it, is that one of the main problems in pitching in colorado is that it affects a pitcher's breaking ball. Essentially to survive in coors a pitcher has to alter his pitching and throw less breaking balls. So essentially colorado pitchers go half the season without throwing breaking balls. This basically cause them to lose their "touch" and affects how well they pitch when away from colorado. You can see the extend of the "coors field effect" in other pitchers who came to colorado. It's why Darryl went from having a 2.55 road era in 1997 while pitching in houston to having a 4.26 road era in 98 and a 5.89 road era in 99 while in colorado. Once back in st louis starting in 2000 he rebounded to post a 4.19 and a 3.43 in 00' and 01' respectively. hampton when through a similar experience. He had a 3.49 road era in 99 with houston and a 4.83 road ra with the mets in 2000. Once in colorado his road era rose to 5.10 (01), 6.44 (02). In atlanta he rebounded to a 4.47 (03). These are common experiences because the "coors field effect" as you put it, actually affects how colorado pitchers performance at home and on the road Again you have to view Hirsh's performance in the context of which he's pitched. Any analysis without taking that into account is essentially meaningless. A 4.8 era in colorado is MUCH different than a 4.8 in houston or basically any other mlb park. This is essentially why the astros thought jennings was a #2 despite putting up era's over 5.00 3 of the 4 years. BTW Jennings ROAD era's the last 4 years were 5.38 (03), 4.86 (04), 4.87 (05), and 3.97 (06). So much for coors field only affecting home pitching,huh?
So why are people continuing to bring up Jennings' career ERA as a reason for why we shouldn't have signed him? Why, as of just last year, was Jennings able to put up a sub 4 ERA in Colorado... and why should we have expected more from Hirsh in Houston rather than Jennings in Houston, if Hirsh isn't able to duplicate Jennings' performance as a Rockie in the same setting? C'mon... bashing Jennings for his injury, and the Astros choosing him over the other available pitchers (except Garland) is one thing.... but bashing Jennings, and then defending Hirsh's numbers for pitching in Colorado (even though Jennings put up better numbers more recently there) is getting hippocritical. The bottom line is that Hirsh doesn't have the trade value now that he had a year and a half ago (regardless of where he pitched), and he's not in any more position to help the Astros now than Albers, Wandy, or Sampson are. The Astros need more than that.
I guess this is all Drayton's fault... is Redding now the Boki Nachbar of the Astros? Should they have signed him to a 5 year extention, even though they gave him every opportunity possible from 02-04? (his 03 gave us tons of promise... but his 04 fall from a cliff was almost deadly to a team that needed to go all-out to win).
huh? Hirsh has a better career era while pitching in colorado than jenning. That's a fact. My argument is that Hirsh would have given the astros almost the same value this year as they should have expected from Jenning's (based on his career numbers). I never "bashed" jenning. I just pointed out his numbers in the context of what Hirsh put up this year. I think Jennings pitched extremely well in colorado, and should have rightly been viewed as a solid #3 and possibly a #2. This is because of, not inspite of, his career lines in colorado. However, my argument is that Hirsh would have given the astros close to the same value as jenning's this year PLUS is 1/15th the price and under club control for the next several years. Further that a cheap price tag and club control should be extremely important to the astros given the situation they are in. I cite Hirsh production this year as evidence to back that up. I think the move was a panic move and shortsighted. Please tell me where this is hypocritical? You are the one claiming Hirsh is years off from being a good pitcher while at the same time arguing Jennings was a legitimate 2/3 starter. I'm just pointing out that that's an inconsistent belief, especially now, given Hirsh's year and Jenning's career line in colorado. Further i think his production this year coupled with his age/ prospect background, clearly indicated that Hirsh is a better short-term and long term pitcher than sampson or rodriguez (though this is an interesting standard as both of them have been above average starters this year). He certainly was a much better bet have a better year than them going into the year. Hell, having 3 cheap good young starters to fill out the back of the rotation isn't a bad thing. Especially when you can then use the money from a jennings and/or a williams to help fill the team's numerous other holes.
What other holes? At the beginning of this season, the projected, major hole was a #2 pitcher. No one expected Berkman, Burke, Lane, and Ensberg to tank or Pence to shine for that matter.
