Going on what value players bring to a team compared to what they're being paid. Lidge is worth $10 million a year because he's a dominant closer. Dominant closers are highly valuable... and their services are most of the time worth the premium, if they're succeeding at their job. Carlos Lee is a border-line all-star, but being paid like a franchise savior. I don't think there's much room to criticize the Phillies for "overpaying" for Lidge, when the Astros got an even bigger albatross on their hands.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that part of the reason the organization traded Wagner, in addition to his b****ing, was that they realized that there were cheaper options out there for the same performance. With the exception of 2 years of Wagner, and this year with Valverde, the organization over the 15 or so years has gone the cheap closer route. Of course, they tended to always have someone in the wings, but my guess is that if Lidge/Qualls/Wheeler were all still here, we wouldn't sign Lidge to an extension at $13MM/year. We'd go with Qualls or Wheeler next year. Absolutely - but you'd have Lidge, Qualls, Buchholz, Hirsh, Willy, and Burke to use to find that upgrade. It's purely an asset management thing. The Lidge-for-Bourn deal, in my opinion, was a good one for the exact reason that Jennings-for-Willy/Hirsh/Buchholz was a bad one. You traded a guy with 1 year left that you'd likely have to overpay or lose for a guy who you believe could be your CF for the next 5 years relatively cheap. It may not work out if Bourn doesn't pan out, but the logic of the trade was good. For a team with several big contracts (Oswalt, Berkman, Lee, Tejada), salary management has to be a priority, and having long-term cheap players to fill out your team with is an absolute must. I think looking back, I would have preferred to have kept Qualls over Valverde for the same reason, though I'm not sure exactly the contract situation of Valverde. It's just that it wouldn't have been necessary if not for the previous deal.
They did give him the 3 year $24 million dollar extension, with a 4th year option at $9 million (equivalent to what the Phillies are giving Lidge, 7 years later). The b****ing played a huge role in them not wanting to exercise or pay him the player option...as well as what the organization perceived they had in Dotel/Lidge. The organization didn't (and still doesn't) have the same backup closer options in 2008 as they did in 2004... Qualls comes close, but he hasn't done much more with the opportunities that Doug Brocail hasn't been able to do. Combine that with the huge popularity of Lidge (likely exceeding that of Wagner, on a national level), and assuming he had maintained his effectiveness (which he didn't), he would have gotten at least the same extension the Phillies are giving now. (and the Astros would likely have looked to move him towards the end of it, like they did Wagner). And out of all these guys, only Lidge could fetch something above average in return. Qualls, as mentioned, is a reliable set-up guy... but most teams have a guy who's similiar. Buchholz isn't a starter, nor is he a set-up guy. Hirsh and Burke have yet to become regulars (if they do at all), and Willy is continuing to be a mediocre player. And as far as Willy being the "cheap" option for 5 years... I don't think any single player, no matter how old or young they were when they make their debut, should be allowed that much of an opportunity to be a mediocre leadoff hitter. Chances are, they would have severly looked to upgrade at his position (whether by forking over $$$, or through trade).
As I alluded to earlier, your argument is technically correct. But to me, it's splitting hairs over a smaller problem while a lot of folks overlook the larger themes. The Taveras experiment -- followed by the Lidge-for-Bourn trade -- are both products of this organization's apparent belief that CF and the leadoff spot are places to effectively put track stars, instead of players with actual offensive skills. I suspect it's Tal Smith, but whoever it is, there's a decided overemphasis on speed in this organization and it comes at the expense of OBP and baserunners. Likewise, I think there's also far too much Pam Gardner and far too many decisions made to please the average Joe as opposed to the long-term health of the club. Given what little value Luke Scott had, I suspect the Astros could've easily replaced him with another player in the rumored Qualls+Scott for Bourn+? proposal that was rejected by the Astros before morphing into the Lidge deal. But, I think the Astros at least partially made their decision on Lidge based on the idiotic casual fan "he's a headcase" theory, as opposed to listening to their baseball folks and seeing things as they actually happened. I don't want you to take this as me disagreeing with you, Major, because that's not my intent. You're certainly spot on with your analysis -- it's just that I find the logic used to shape these decisions to be very flawed, and that to me is the real problem. I'll stop here, because I could rant all night on this...
Even though I'm a huge Lidge fan and I agree with the sentiment of a select few that he was going through bad luck, I didn't think he would ever be quite the same in Houston. The fans just wouldn't let him forget Pujols, no matter how he was pitching, and that must have weighed heavily on him every time he stepped on the mound. He also made the mistake of trying to develop another pitch. He needed a change of scenery, and I'm glad he went to a good team.
No, I'm asking a serious question. If you make the exact pitch you want to make -- perfect velocity, perfect location, perfect movement -- how can there be a mental error? I mean, it'd be one thing if Lidge was wild and routinely missing spots, but that wasn't the case. To an extent, missing location was a problem in 2006, so you might could make the mental argument then. (Though Lidge and the team firmly insist the problems were mechanical, and the results after some slight tweaks seem to bear that out. As a result, I don't think it was mental then either, though at least there's a case to be made there.) But missing location and/or missing pitches wasn't much of an issue at all in 2007, and that's where I draw the line and where I can't see a rational case for his problems being mental.
i'm not going to have this argument again, its semantics I don't know what your issue is with people saying its mental, but I saw this guy come in too many games and his mechanics go south because he's trying to over throw the ball instead of pitch. that's my reasoning
The entire game of baseball is predicated on luck. Players routinely crush balls right at fielders for outs, while end of the bat bloopers can fall in behind the first baseman. When you're healthy and throwing the same exact pitches you were when you were successful and your peripherals are generally similar, odds tell you you're unlucky if you aren't having a similar amount of success. Berkman told me once that he had never seen someone more unlucky in his entire life of playing and watching baseball. Said every pitcher makes a slight mistake here and there, but that most were only victimized with singles, whereas seemingly the smallest mistake for Lidge meant a home run. Likewise, he said some of the home runs Lidge had allowed were almost unhittable. Of course, baseball is a game of random luck and crazy things happen. But when you're dealing with a small sample size (as is the case with a closer), things sometimes don't even out from an ERA standpoint over the course of one season.
It seems more likely that faulty mechanics would lead to overthrowing. Regardless, I could see and respect that argument -- in 2006. Ask anyone with the club or any pitching coach -- his mechanics were rock solid last season. Talked to one person (not affiliated with the club, no bias issues here) who said Lidge's mechanics and throwing motion were better last season than even in 2004 and 2005. I guess my problem is that people want to lump everything "post-Pujols" together, when in reality Lidge's miscues in 2006 were completely and totally different than in 2007. In the former, overthrowing and mechanics were definitely factors. In the latter, not so much.
In addition, there's the issue that in August and September (when his ERA jumped), Lidge was effectively throwing off of one leg. He couldn't go anywhere before or after games without loads of ice packs around his knee, and he knew he'd have to have surgery immediately after the season ended. While he managed to keep his mechanics relatively sound, it was definitely another factor to consider, and one much more likely to have a negative impact than any supposed mental issue.
I wouldn't say Lidge was the only one with value. Qualls and Burke got us Valverde. People here thought Jennings was really good - Willy/Hirsh/Buchholz was enough to get him. A bunch of miscellaneous junk got us Tejada. As a sidenote, Buchholz is now the Rockies primary setup guy for Fuentes. He consistently pitches the 8th inning in close games. I think all of his last 6-8 appearances have been in the 8th or 9th inning of close games. Sure - but that doesn't mean you have to trade him for a last year of a contract player. Keeping Willy didn't mean he had to be the everyday CF - it just gave us more options. You could always trade him for something of better long-term value. Bourn, after all, fetched Lidge for the Phillies.
Absolutely. I think this stems from the Beltran situation. After years of really, really bad defensive centerfielders (Biggio, Berkman, etc), I think having Beltran out there was so exciting and such a huge change that they got enamoured with that. They forgot that the guy still needs to be able to hit - especially when you have Ausmus/Everett/Biggio/etc in the lineup as well. This may very well be - and if so, that's really sad. Lidge had problems last year, but they were very different problems from the previous year. At the end of the day, Lidge had a 3.3 ERA last year - not great for a closer, but not terrible like the 5+ ERA the previous year. And he was fantastic for 3 months in there last year. So the knee explanation makes perfect sense. Yeah, I think that's the core of the problem. The whole front office doesn't have a coherent strategy for fixing the team. They seem to just make moves kind of randomly, but I don't see a long-term plan. Part of that may just be the change in front office starting with a different strategy, so hopefully Wade has something in mind. I just have no idea where they are going with it.
Quite plausible. I know I've made this argument before, but I really think there was an element of self-fulfilling prophecy in moving Pence to RF. Berkman told me once that a big part of his strong initial reaction against replacing Burke with Pence was the assumption, based on the scouting reports, that Pence was an average speed, power-hitting prototype corner OF simply being thrown into CF to get his bat into the lineup. Berkman didn't know about Pence's speed or his history (prior to the Astros, and some in the minors) of playing CF. After a few weeks, he completely changed his tune and praised Pence's D. Now, that's not to say Pence was a great defensive CF, because he wasn't. He made his mistakes. But he also wasn't Biggio or Berkman out there. He was very solid defensively, and his value as a hitter and a player rises significantly if he's in center. But this team was quite obviously hellbent on replacing him at any cost -- and I can't for the life of me figure out why. My gut instinct tells me that every mistake Pence made in center was magnified and blown out of proportion because of their preset expectations, instead of looking at the situation objectively and giving it a real chance.
I think a lot of those trades were made prior to teams finding out the true value of the Astros' players, along with some teams looking to dump a player for salary purposes (Tejada, Valverde). Yes, two years ago Willy T is a key piece of a trade based on the perceived notion that he will in-fact "get it" at the plate, given his 'improving' plate presence. Now, Willy is 4 years in and still looks clueless. Likewise, Bourne is attractive much like Willy T was... a player who hasn't gotten a fair shake as an everyday player, with perceived tools that say he will be a devil of an offensive player. Good for Taylor... who I never envisioned as a starter, and was kind of dissapointed that the Astros didn't put him in the bullpen themselves. However, he still was considered basically as a throw-in in the Jennings trade and is a far cry from the "center-piece" of the Billy Wagner trade that Gerry Hunsicker thought he would be. More on this later... Again, see above. Willy in his 4th year of mediocre offense, would not fetch a Lidge-type pitcher. Bourne, with all the necessary hype, flash, and "unknown" apparently did. Which leads me to this overall struggle of trading established players for prospects/young players... and vice versa... and trying to re-build your team. As you see above, all teams involved on both sides of the trade (Astros, Diamonbacks, Phillies, Rockies, Orioles) can get burned either with the younger guys they get back (Astros getting Buchholz for Wagner, Bourn for Lidge, D-backs getting Burke/Qualls for Valverde) or the veteran they trade prospects for (Jennings from the Rockies). The problem with the Astros is that they've backfired trying to do both... selling off the young guys for a veteran, and selling off a veteran for young guys... whereas most teams don't suffer on both ends. Thus, leading me to believe that I'd rather the Astros stick to doing what they've done best over the last 15-20 years... draft, sign your picks, and DEVELOP them. There will always be the $$$ to re-sign the few "franchise" players this team is able to produce here and there (Berkman, Oswalt). At that point, its important to have the smarts, finances, and flat-out "luck" to be able to build around those rare players. If you don't have it, you can't panic and simply grasp for straws (which is what they've essentially been doing), and hope it all works out. The lack of overall direction comes right from the top down. And I can guarantee that until the Astros start developing some DECENT projectable prospects in the minors... not the ones we all overvalue when we're being spoon-fed the usual rhetoric by the local rag... that this team will find it very hard to be much more than .500 (hell, even the Cardinals have figured out how to at least maximize their farm/youngins, rather than panic and go all-out for high-priced offense with little results).
Why am I not shocked that one of our resident SABR superstars discounts the fact that its even conceivable that the mental side might factor in and that if the sacred "perephrial numbers" were similar that any struggles would have to be an aberration caused by the evil villain every time something doesn't go the way a true disciple of Bill James expects it to. And that villain is "sample size". Why I have every confidence that if Ensberg and Burke would just be given another 1500 at bats or so they would be the juggernauts their ability to take the occasional walk foretold. My observation has been is that the great closers have an "aura" that affects both sides. They expect to succeed every time, and the hitters who face them for the most part expect them to succeed. Lidge pitched better in stretches last year, but I have no doubt that being away from "the scene of the crime" at MMP is working to his advantage this year. I guess I will be dismissed as a mouth breathing, slobbering "casual" fan. I did, after all, only watch every pitch of all 81 home games last year.
So if two players perform under expectations, that means statistics as a whole are worthless. Got it. Look, I'm not saying it's not conceivable that the mental side could factor in. What I'm saying is that if you make the perfect pitch exactly where you wanted it with the velocity you wanted, the problem isn't the pitch. It's that the hitter hit it. That, from also watching all 81 home games last season (most while being in the clubhouse before and after the games), was how I saw it, and it's also how Lidge and the team saw it. If you disagree, that's fine. But talk in specifics. Tell me pitches that Lidge threw that you believe were products of a "mental" problem. If you can't fault the pitch... it's not the fault of the pitcher. It's just a great AB by the hitter. That's baseball. You know, it's funny that you dismiss what I'm writing as SABR stuff when I think I mentioned peripherals once in this thread. For the most part, I'm talking about personal observation. You want to talk about watching every pitch of all 81 home games? Guess what? I did too. You want to talk about "aura"? Having been in the clubhouse and talked to Lidge hundreds of times, I think I have a decent idea of his mental state. Also, from being there, I watched him hop around on one leg with multiple ice packs around his knee before and after games -- coincidentally right around the time his ERA jumped from 1.5 to 3! So, here's what we have, Major. In many of Lidge's failures last season, you have documented quotes from him confirming that he made the exact pitch he wanted to make in the right location. You have visual evidence too (check MLB.com). You have every member of the club praising his mechanics and his throwing. His ERA was almost flawless (under 2), until it became a problem for him to even walk and he decided to have knee surgery. That's one scenario, based on personal observation and direct testimony -- nothing to do with any of the random SABR insults you love throwing out. The other scenario? Some "mental headcase" conspiracy, in which the theory's proponents can't even point to one specific example of Lidge making a mental mistake on one of his pitches. Followed by a vague description of "aura," which I can also refute based on being around Lidge and the team. Maybe that's how you felt, but don't assume things on everyone else, especially MLB players. Y'all tell me, which of those two scenarios is more likely?
