Well, I figure at least one of them should be on this team next year... with an outside possibility at both if the club is truly giving up on Ensberg. Ensberg is set to make about 6-8 million dollars next year, which is what it would probably cost to keep Huff annualy for 3 years. If you can't trade Ensberg, you risk losing him for nothing... (and the possibility that he bounces back to his 03 or 05 level), and if you keep Huff, you know exactly what you're getitng because of his consistency (around .280 average, with 25+HR's, 80+RBI's), but you may not get much more than that. There's also the possibility that the club keeps Ensberg, he explodes next year, but then seeks a big payday in free agency (which would be justified... but still risky if you're the Astros, given his inconsistency). I've been back and forth with this issue... but I honestly feel the club shouldn't just toss aside Huff if they have any doubt about Ensberg. (interesting tidbit... Huff is actually YOUNGER than Ensberg... by a year)
An interesting thing here--if clubs were actually interested in Ensberg despite the down year, where is the line between "they gave up on Ensberg" and "they used Ensberg to get good talent in return--you have to give something to get something"?
Well, at this point, "giving up" can include: a.) not offering him arbitration b.) trading him for middle releif, or minor leaguers (so you at least get something). I don't see him getting "good talent in return", mainly because he's probably too old for the Marlins to want him, and San Diego's GM (towers) may sense our desparation, and not give up a Linebrink or any other valuable commodity for a guy who may just become a free agent anyways. Other than San Diego, I haven't heard of a possible destination where Ensberg is a desired commodity. But, if clubs are in fact interested, by all means we're simpy trying to "improve the ball club", not "giving up on him" (even though we are).
Philadelphia is another possibility, but the only way I can see them getting Ensberg is if they unload Pat Burrell on us.
I agree with this. Another problem with Ensberg is that he's unreliable. You can't build a team around him, because you never know what to expect. Sure, he may be great, but when he slumps, he *really* slumps - for months at a time. He's had minor injuries in 3 of the last 4 seasons that left him worthless for a month or more. So if you're building a team to compete in the playoffs (as opposed to just get there), it's hard to take the risk that bad-Ensberg will be there in October. In the long run, I'd rather have the consistent guy over the up-and-down one because you can better build the rest of your team knowing what you'll get out of Huff than Ensberg.
Best I can tell, Ensberg has just over 4 years of MLB service time. He won't be a FA until after '08. 3.095 years as of the end of '05, per here: http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/houston-astros.html Nick: Mo made 4.5M last year, there's no way the Stros offer him a 1.5M-3.5M raise prior to arbitration, and I'd be shocked if Mo wanted to actually go to a hearing. It would be UGLY from his side of the table.
...but while it may have been the first time in his career (I don't know), Huff sucked for a month and a half or two in Houston. Was more disappointing than Betran was, and without the benefit of an October in which to explode.
And then, you have to consider if Ensberg even really has a bigger upside than Huff (even if Mo is healthy). He's a year older, he's never put together a whole season without getting injured, while his walks were good he still strikes out looking a lot, and as you said when he slumps he's worthless. The Astros would obviously gamble on getting a 40 HR year again if they kept him... because at the 6 million he'll make next year, that would be a bargain. But, that is the ONLY possibility where I think the club should keep him. Anything else, and he's not worth it. Huff @ 7 million for 3 years, even if he doesn't play any position particularly well, is a much better "gamble".
Well, players always seem to get "raises"... even if the said player sucked last year. Ensberg, while he doesn't have the greatest of cases, does have a "case": they can point to his torrid April, when healthy, and his good OBP, and his numbers against lefties, etc. And if he does get a raise, 6 million would be about where I expect it. Whether or not the Astros want to even offer him that is the question I'm debating right now... cause Huff @ 7 is worth more than the Ensberg of last year @ 4.5.
Check that...Mo made 3.8M last year. If the Stros offer 4.5, the "YES" should be out of his mouth somewhere between hearing the "4" and the "point".
It wasn't even a torrid April. It was a torrid first 14 games of the season. From 04/19 to 04/30 Ensberg hit .194 with 3 HRs. From there it was .216 in May, .145 in June, .200 in July, .209 in August and he rebounded to a respectable .273 in September. The only positive for Ensberg over the course of the entire season is that he did get on base a respectable amount of the time, but the Astros (in arbitration) would argue that his main offensive job was to produce runs.
huff did NOT suck; in fact, he was actually quite good, and every bit as advertised. his career OPS is .819; as an astro, his OPS was .819 (in 224 ABs). his astro-pace over a full season was 35 HRs and 104 RsBI (based on 604 ABs, his previous three-year average); his career highs in those categories: 34/107. so which month and a half or two in houston did he suck if he was on, or near, career-high paces? he only hit .250, but that's meaningless. had they guy just gotten 5 more hits - seeing-eye bloops, weak texas leaguers, infield singles - he would have hit .272 as an astro (and those that watched him know, he hit A LOT of lasers right at people). would you take .272/35/104/.819? i sure would. i'd take .250/35/104/.819, too. and fwiw, enberg's previous three-year averages: .283/24/76/.864; but, and here's the BIG diff, he only averaged 440 ABs, 164 fewer than huff, which translates to (roughly) 41 games. huff should be the team's third priority behind a) getting a BIG bat and b) resigning pettitte. let's see if ensberg can fetch us anything.
Well done. I don't know what left me with the conception that Huff was a disappointment, but I was wrong. IIRC he *did* start pretty slow but picked it up nicely in Sept.
Probably because he had a stretch where he was around 0-20 with runners in scoring position (although he had a few RBI mixed in during that time) and the announcers harped on it every time he was in that situation.
I *try* not to be a spoon-fed drone, but that's possible. Which announcers, though? I don't have cable, and the only baseball I catch anymore is on the radio.
You're just copying my offseason plan. Copier. But yeah, I wouldn't mind holding on to Ensberg just in case.
Oh and I forgot. That Petit guy, one of the names they mentioned as the package of arms, is supposedly pretty good. He was ranked ahead of Lastings Milledge in the Mets system for awhile.
didn't he homer in his first game? i'm quite certain he did. against the floridas. anyway, i think he struggled adjusting to MMP; being left-handed, that's somewhat understandable. to hit well there, you really need to hit to the gaps, and he's not necessarily that kind of hitter (as oppossed to scott, who looks like he may be). it was built for RH'ers... actually, it was built for bagwell. but if you watched a lot of games, my god - that guy hit the ball HARD. i can't recall ever seeing an astro consistently hit the ball as hard as huff did. maybe bagwell in his absolute prime. my gut tells me more of those will find holes over a larger sample size (ie a full season) and that fans will be pig-in-**** happy with huff hitting 5th or 6th. my guess/hope is that a 2-5 line-up of scott, berkman, BIG STICK, huff will do some damage over a 162 game season. throw in a producitve burke, lamb and/or biggio on any given night, and i think the team will be just fine offensively.
