Seriously? I'm merely defending why they made the trade at the time (because people are still asking "why did they make that trade?"), and I'm also saying that I'm more concerned with the current players we have now struggling (when we're paying them/counting on them to not struggle). Of course not... but that's using hindsight to know that Berkman would struggle the first 2.5 months, Oswalt would be pitching the worst he has in his career, the bullpen would be nonexistant, and Burke hasn't shown a semblance of any promise. I'm not simply going to say "I was wrong" becuase I was counting on most of the above being pretty consistent for this season... and if that's the case, I still make the trade. Obviously, it isn't the case... but nobody here saw that coming. And if you want to look towards 2008, stop decrying this trade every step of the way, stop wishing the Astros could have magically re-signed Andy Pettite... and start rooting for the players who get paid to produce to start producing. Because if Oswalt/Berkman/Bullpen don't peform close to 2004-2006 standards, nothing else really matters.
Is there a one among us who believes any/all of the ownership/front office/field management is up to the task? Maybe Roger and Andy will walk back in the door? (Sorry, Mr Pitino, but it ain't happenin' here, either.)
He's the one asking why I'm still discussing it... obviously, I'll argue it forever if I have to. Just like he'll argue the merits of David Carr vs. the pitiful offensive line forever. It won't ever be dropped.
In hindsight, sure... they've made lots of mistakes in hindsight. Is that what you want? Why do you really care?
I just can't understand what some people have against, even when he was an astro you had to defend. he was the only astro some on this site would criticize. i don't get. but I'm just on pms
"And here come the rolleyes"... dude, if you don't agree with me, fine (even though I was never actually talking to you... just Ric and Major). And keep your one-line smart-ass comments out of a conversation that never involved you in the first place.
so, you're of the opinion that, had everything worked out as planned, this would be a.... what - .500 team? a contender in the NL central? i mean, they have the 2nd-worst record in the NL. it's not like we're talking about a team trying to keep its head above .500. again, this was a team that struggled to reach .500 last year and it didn't get appreciably better. is someone here rooting for these guys to fail? and when looking toward 2008, why is it inappropriate for us to decry moves the GM tasked with rebuilding this thing has recently made? i guess you gave charley casserly and carroll dawson passes each and every year because its all about next year, and last year has no bearing? i'm very concerned purpura is, for the foreseeable future, leading this reboot. were i to merely post that, maybe throw in a "he's fat," i do myself no good and would most certainly be called on it. and here's the thing - that trade PISSED ME OFF. it did then, it still does now. every aspect of it. it was dumb, dumb, dumb.
He's just one of those guys for some reason. I liked him when he hit .300 and played good D and added speed on the basepaths. It's not like we need him to be Carlos Beltran, he was just another piece to the puzzle.
They were a .500 team in 2006. Adding Lee/Pence/Loretta would have addressed the offense (that let the team down big-time last year). Adding Jennings had the POTENTIAL to replace Pettite's medicore season. Having Lidge rebound (which he has.. but was injured) could help solidify the bullpen that carried the team in 2004 and 2005. Oswalt, Berkman, Lee, Wheeler, Qualls, and Lidge all had to be constants for any possible chance at having a winning team. Was that too much to ask? I guess so... depth or ability to compensate for struggling stars was never a strong-suit with this current nucleus (including 04 and 05). Of course, if it were up to me in my dream land, Pettite/Clemens/Oswalt would be pitching again this year... and I would have never signed Lee... but that's all after the fact.
This is where I think Ric & I come at it from a different angle than you and some others. I don't think either of us thought of this year's team as dramatically improved to the point that you should be willing to trade future components for an outside shot at being decent this year. Ignoring the Jennings deal, here were the major changes to the team: Add Lee & Loretta (Pence wasn't in the initial plans). Loretta was meant to simply be a veteran backup. They were relying on Ensberg. Lee was a legitimate upgrade. Subtract Clemens, Pettitte; add Woody Williams. This is a huge downgrade. Pettitte had a terrible sesaon, which was a 4.2ERA. He was still one of the better pitchers in the NL in the 2nd half of the season. Accounting for that, and they were a 0.500 team last year, there was no reason to think they were much better - maybe even a bit worse. Sure, they are terrible now - but I think our argument is even with Oswalt & Berkman doing their thing, we'd be a 0.500 type team. And that doesn't account for the fact that Loretta, Pence, and Lidge (and, to a lesser extent, Wandy & Sampson) have all outperformed expectations to help counter the guys underperforming. The Jennings trade took away what would have been our starting CF and a SP (along with a RP?) and added an SP that had a career year last year. You can say Burke was an upgrade over Taveras (theoretically) - but if that were the case, Burke could have been starting last year too. There's nothing that said Willy T had to start since we had him. All in all, this would be a sideways type move as well if our prospects improved at all. Except this sideways move hurt us in future years - that was the big problem. The exception would have been if we signed Jennings to a long-term deal, in which case you could at least argue that you're trading Willy T to upgrade your SP from Hirsh to Jennings for the long-term. But that didn't happen.
yes, they were. and getting there was a struggle. but therein lies another aspect of what made this a bad trade - pence WAN'T being added; they had no plans to promote him. they elected instead to invest in luke scott. and loretta was expected to be a role/bench player.
and people who argue it was a good move at the time argue that we needed a number two pitcher. since when is jason jennings a number two pitcher. Jennings is a career 4.75 era pitcher. he's pitching as we should have expected. but he had a career year so he was going to get better. yet the same people who argue that jenning was coming into his own, that would have to be your argument if you say he's a number two pitcher, turn around and say a player who is 3 years younger had hit a wall and peaked.
