Why? Because of Jason Hirsh and Willy Taveras? Please... Patton is projected to be better than Hirsh, and if the team finds an upgrade to Scott (which isn't that hard), they're much better off with Hunter in CF for the rest of his career. Hell, I still maintain they're a better team NOW with Pence/Scott+Berkman than Taveras/Pence+Scott. And don't just assume that Berkman/Oswalt/Lee are dominating for 5+ years, thus they can afford to "rebuild" for a run in 2010. I'd rather a team address specific needs/mask deficiencies year after year, as they build around their stars, instead of hold on to all the young/cheap talent in the hope that they'll all develop around the stars. Or, you can just root for the Milwaukee model... be god-awful for 5+ years, stock-pile high round picks, develop them judiciously, and then prepare for a run that may or may not guarantee long-term success (ask the Cleveland Indians about that).
The Astros took a chance with the Jennings trade. They traded young players for what they considered a #2 pitcher that filled a need and would keep the team in contention. Fact of the matter is that if the Astros do not make the playoffs this year, then the trade is a failure. It doesn't matter if Taveras becomes another Kenny Lofton and Hirsh becomes an ace, they wouldn't have helped us this year, this moment in time. The Astros don't need to rebuild, they need to reload. Trade Loretta, Lidge (who alot of teams would like to acquire), Lamb, Qualls or Wheeler. Make an offer to Jennings (say a 2 year, $16 million contract with incentives and a voidable player option for the next year) if he refuses, then trade him. With Buerhle signing an extension with the White Sox, there is a large void of starting pitching on the trade market and the Astros should be able to get a prospect or two in return. I will maintain that Lidge is the most tradeable asset that we have and the Astros should trade him to reload for next year. Lidge should be able to net the Astros at least a blue chip prospect and another promising one. Standing pat is the wrong thing to do and to believe that the Astros are going to make another miracle comeback is ridiculous, just ask Lance Berkman, he didn't sound like he "believed" this morning on the radio.
Because they are losing assets with no long-term benefit. Which would you prefer in your organization in 2008: Pence/Scott Or Pence/Scott/Taveras/Hirsh/Buchholz This is interesting. How did Hirsh go from being a top Astros prospect to trash in a year? Here was you and others a year ago when Hirsh was called up: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=116434&page=2&pp=20 Nick: There's always an adjustment factor to coming up to the big leagues... and Hirsh is a guy who's always started off slow whenever he was promoted (but come on like gangbusters after he made adjustments). ... (also, if he does get roughed up in his first few starts... please spare me from the Tim Redding comparisons. Hirsh is far and away the better prospect, and deserves the time to get accustomed to the MLB). Buck: He's not in Oswalt's class stuff-wise or control-wise (what made Roy truly special) but he's not too terribly far behind. Very much like Elarton when he came up (and people forget just how good Elarton was for a couple of years & how bright his future was...thanks Larry), but with a much better sinker & not as good of a slider, and without the hitch in his delivery that Elarton had. ... You'll see lots & lots of a great, heavy 2-seam fastball with a ton of sink on it. He'll bust the 4-seamer upstairs to get Ks & popups, show the slider outside & he's got an emerging changeup that should end up being and excellent 3rd pitch. He works consistently in the 90-93 range, and can touch 95 on his 4-seamer when needed. The Stros think he has the mental makeup to be a top of the line starter, he'll battle guys & has a lot of poise when he gets into a bit of trouble. Long story short...be excited. Nick: BT pretty much nailed it when describing the assesment of him... so I won't bother to repeat anything. ... Purpura: The Astros announced Tuesday night that Hirsh, 24, will make his major league debut against San Diego. The team is expected to announce a demotion after Friday's game to make room. Hirsh, a second-round pick in 2003, was the starter for Team USA in the All-Star Futures Game in Pittsburgh. He was 13-8 with a 2.87 ERA last season for Class AA Corpus Christi but arrived at spring training with a bad back. "We thought this was a chance to capitalize on bringing up one of our best young prospects," general manager Tim Purpura said. "All the pieces seemed to fit together to give him a chance to break into the rotation. Who would you suggest? We've had problems in RF for years such that we keep going back to putting Berkman out there. If it was so easy, why hasn't it been addressed? What does that have to do with next year? And if they kept Taveras, was Berkman benched or kicked off the team? Why does the latter scenario never include Berkman? Fair enough - but that's not the approach the organization has used to achieve its decade of success. They've taken a far more balanced approach instead of being overly aggressive in making trades to fill needs. Or you can do something in between and not damage your future for a chance at being OK for one year.
Not at all true. In fact, this year, his numbers are very similar to his minor league stats. In his final three years in the minors, he never had an OBP under 0.380. He walked about once every two games. He had a career minor league OPS of 0.750 - similar to what he's doing this year. His OPS his final year in the minors (the only year at AA) was 0.788, and he had a 0.400 OBP. And he was called up at 22 years of age, well before most players develop plate discipline and such. No one declared this trade the worst trade of all time. If you want a real discussion, stick to facts instead of creating a bizarre strawman and then arguing with your made up claims. And now you're suggesting he prove it for a full year - in the post I responded to, you suggested he needed to do it for at least 2 more full years. Which is it? He had two full years, one of which he should have been in AAA, and the second of which he showed improvements at the plate though they didn't show up in the numbers. We talked last year about how he was going to get worse before he gets better because as he started making better contact, his crazy 20-ft infield singles would drop. That's exactly what happened. He was worse to start last season and then progressed. And the progression has continued, just like you'd expect with any other young player, unless you believe players peak at the age of 24??
great question. so far, they've: 1) recast his rookie season as a disappointment (yes, the year he batted .291, stole 34 bases, finished 2nd in ROY and, oh yeah, was the starting CF on the team's only pennant winner, all without a single AB above AA); 2) dismissed his second season as a fluke because of a 30-game hitting streak, dismissing the fact he... you know - had a fricking 30-game hitting streak; 3) rarely, if ever, even bother to acknowledge that he's a very good defensive CF; 4) and don't seem to care that he's a mere 16 months older than hunter pence. and now, they're clamoring for him to keep up his current *year-long* pace for yet ANOTHER year.... so i guess the sample size will continue to grow as long as it allows them to inexplicably disparage taveras at every turn and avoid admitting he's turned into a pretty decent player. i mean, the guy's posted a .366 OB% since last year's ASB - that covers 557 plate appearences. that represents a full season of him performing his #1 task as a lead-off hitter well above league average (which is roughly .335)... so, fo course, they'd now like to see him to do it AGAIN.... he's right now a better player than luke scott. period. he's a comparable hitter (taveras' OPS is six points lower - SIX POINTS LOWER!) and a significantly better fielder. i remain at a loss how drastically improving TWO glaring weaknesses on this team (lead-off and outfield defense) wouldn't make this a better team.
Nick - reading some of my posts from last night, I apologize for the tone if it came off as rude. I feel like on this board, people have a tendency to tear down ex-Astros or players we didn't get, while building up Astros. It seems like it's happened a lot this year - playing up the Jennings trade and the Lee signing, while criticizing the Soriano signing as another stupid Cubs move, tearing down Beltran, Willy, Hirsh, etc. That's not necessarily you - just a general trend I've noticed and always end up arguing with. Anyway, I was just really curious how long Willy has to be good for people to stop saying it's a fluke. I think one year is fair - personally, I think his improvement is a natural progression and already isn't a fluke. I think two more full years is just nuts. And while this isn't my issue with the trade, I do think this team would be better right now with Willy/Pence in the outfield than Pence/Scott, with Scott playing a backup role as needed. We have enough middle-of-the-order types - it would be nice to add some speed, basestealing, better defense, and a legitimate leadoff hitter to replace Biggio or so that Pence doesn't have to be in the #2 spot. We saw what the threat of speed on the bases could do with Reyes last week - not that Willy is THAT caliber of basestealer, but it beyond the actual steals, that type of speed puts that much more pressure on the other team.
and was 22 years old. it isn't just the board, charlie palilo was clamoring to get rid of willy taveras, and when he had a slow start to the year he was basically celebrating it. I just do not understand why people undervalued him so much and apparently continue to.
This is exactly my issue with the Willy T and Hirsh things - it seems that with them, only the negatives are talked about and all the positives are dismissed. With Jennings, on the other hand, only the positives are considered and all the negatives (85mph, only 1 good year - why wasn't that considered a fluke?, etc) are dismissed. It feels as though people are just looking at a move and then figuring out the ways to justify it, rather than evaluating it.
So it's ok to measure Taveras' hitting ability by combining his second half last season with his first half this season, but with Scott, his first half is the only real indicator? If you combine halves for Luke, Willy is not a comparable hitter.
This is a great point. Early in the season, when Willy was struggling, people had no problem pointing to his numbers to show how Willy was mediocre - the small sample size was never a concern then.
I know there are more people than just me debating this, but in my case, I was arguing this well back into last summer. I was consistently begging for more Burke starts in center for the better at-bats at the plate, and I was quite pleased when Burke started for the better part of a month around last July in place of Willy. I've been very consistent in my thoughts on Taveras, well back into the last two years... doesn't have to do with figuring out a way to justify a trade.
Regardless of Taveras' stats this year or in the past, the Astros felt they had to make a move for a number 2 starter. I suspect if they could go back in time, they would not have made the Jennings trade. The thinking was that Taveras was a tradeable commodity and they had a stop gap solution for this year (Burke) and a long term solution for the future (Pence), so they sold while the known value of Willy was high. Willy has improved and may continue to improve. At this point in his career, he is probably comparable to Otis Nixon. Until his speed goes away, he should hit in the .270 - .300 range. He'll play good defense. Will he ever improve the slugging percentage - perhaps. That seems to be the one facet of his game that he has not really improved upon. For a guy with his speed, it is ridiculous that he has yet to hit more than 19 doubles and he is on pace for less than that this year. The trade may still work out if Jennings continues to sport an ERA below 4 AND he remains healthy AND they re-sign him. If Hirsh and Bucchholz continue to put up sub-par numbers, then the trade will boil down to Taveras for Jennings in the grand scheme of things. The trade was mainly made for results for this year and regardless of what Jennings does the rest of the year, this trade will forever be a failure if the Astros don't make the playoffs this year OR they don't re-sign a healthy, effective Jennings. The Astros would be better off this season with an outfield of Taveras, Pence and Lee, but it will forever be an unknown question as to whether or not Pence would be in RF today, if Taveras was in CF. We'll never know.
"undervalue" is the word i've been searching for - thank you. nor do they discuss another important element - the $$$$. IF they resign jennings (big IF is intentional) - and let's be really conservative and knock $8M off of the deal buerhle just signed - it's going to cost them $48M. plus the $5.5M this year. so you're going to pay a good, but by no means great jason jennings $53.5M for five years. PLUS, because you dealt one of your top pitching prospects (plus buchholz), you had to shell out $12.5M to woody williams, bringing your grand investment to $66M. what you could have done instead is give pettitte the additional $2-4M he was seeking (roughly $34-36M for 2 years) while maintaining not only your 25-year old CF (who you had under club control), but also the pitching prospect who could have been groomed to step in for pettitte once he retired/left and who you also had under club control. and pettitte, of course, increases the likelihood of clemens coming back, which makes the additional $2-4M worth every penny. i mean, any way you slice it, it was a bad string of decisions - baseball-wise; financial-wise - and how anyone can stand up and defend it... i see where you're coming from, major. it seems people are bending over backwards to avoid ripping apart the astros.
fair point, though i wasn't using taveras' 2006 statistics to determine he was a better hitter than scott *right now*; i was referring to the 2007 season exclusively. but in assessing something as unscientific as flukes, i'd be far more skeptical of scott's half-season than taveras', given their ages, experience and minor league performances. scott was performing above and beyond any reasonable expectation last year; taveras has started to live up to his ML potential while getting MUCH better defensively.
No problem. My thoughts on Taveras stem from my frustration that I had with the team playing Willy everyday for the last two years when the guy was nowhere close to being ready. Yes, he's a guy who will improve... yes, he's a valuable commodity (hence the trade)... but I've been fairly consistent on wanting the Astros to upgrade that position, and the offense overall, since Beltran's departure. As for the Jennings trade, Bobrek pretty much summed up by thoughts. Its a failure if the team doesn't make the playoffs (as every season is a failure with this nucleus if contention isn't in the picture), but its completely justifiable why they did what they did given the pitching they had post Pettite/Clemens. Willy was a tradeable asset... it wasn't like they gave him up for nothing. He also was given a legitimate chance here... even if he wasn't ready/mature enough (unlike Kenny Lofton). As far as how the team is currently constructed, they HAVE to figure out what they have in Burke. If that takes simply putting him at the top of the order without any reservations, and leaving him there regardless (kinda like how they did with Willy), so be it. I've liked what I've seen from him lately, and I loved what he did last year in his playing time (when healthy). Finally, as for Pence/Taveras vs. Pence/Scott... I may be the only one to think that the Astros are fortunate that they discovered Pence can play CF. Sure, he's not a gold glover... but neither is Willy. He's also much better out there than Burke, Berkman, Hidalgo, or Biggio were. He's got above average speed, he hits for a high average, has gap to gap power, and will get stronger as he fills out.... those are great-great tools to have in an everyday CF. As for replacing Scott (which still isn't totally called for right now, given the options on this team), corner OF'ers are out there... the team just got one in Lee last year, and have consistently filled that position well when needed with high turnover (Berkman, Scott, Alou, Hidalgo). Just a side-note.... while Reyes has the speed, I'm still more enamored with his extra base capability, occasional HR, and plate disicpline. Its those factors that will serve him well when he evnetually does lose a step... and its those peripherals that Willy will need to work on over his career to ensure his improvment when his speed declines.
btw, nick - comments like this are why me, personally (and i think major would agree), feel like there's some preconceived, locked-in, "i'm going to cover my ears and scream as loud as i can so i don't hear any dissenting viewpoints" bias against taveras that seems to fly in the face of reality: (emphasis mine) intentional or not, that reads like you're using his status as a rule V draftee as yet another reason to denigrate him, as if rule V draftees are good for nothings that never amount to anything - which johan santana thinks is just a silly, petty perspective.
yes, we know - one of them is currently playing CF... and defending pence's defense by listing a litnany of awful defensive CF'ers does not make him a better defensive CF'er. he is well below average currently, while taveras is significantly better - better range, better instincts and MUCH better arm. the team's anemic outfield defense is rarely discussed, but it's horrendous - lee, pence and scott may very well be the worst defensive OF in baseball. letting pence roam a much-smaller RF while taveras nails CF shut is a significant upgrade. i find it interesting how this board, generally, bends over backwards to defend adam everett, but now seems content to shrug off the importance of having an above average defensive CF'er. i doubt may of the pitchers would share your apathy.
You still beleive keeping (or letting go) of Pettite was exclusively the Astros' management decision, and would have been as simple as throwing exorbitant/undeserved cash at him... it wasn't (and seriously... 2 yeras, 36 million? for a guy with quesitonable elbow, questionable 2006, and questionable age?... and you think that's a good baseball-wise/financial-wise decision?) All moves made thereafter stemmed from Pettite leaving... and even though his ERA continues to rise in the AL (4.25 now), I too wish he was still here. Currently, they can have both payroll and player flexibility if the moves they made don't work out. If Jennings isn't who they want, they don't resign him for undeserved cash... they look for somebody else. They would have had the same problem if Hirsh wasn't going to turn out to be a front-line starter (still a big if)... they'd need to look for somebody else. However, they wouldn't have that flexibility if Pettite is sitting there thinking about retirment (still), while getting paid 18 million to have a 4+ ERA.
How is he "well below average" currently? I'll give you that Burke was well below average... and all the other well below average CFers the Astros have had before Beltran. But, I don't see Pence losing games out there for us with his defense... I don't even see him giving up the routine extra bases per game that I'd see Biggio/Berkman allow. Hell... I don't even see the mistakes that Willy made when he first came up here (mitigated by his speed), while he was only in his second year of playing big league CF (he struggled in RR as well, initially)... and Pence is only in his first year. To me, he's average... maybe slightly below with rome for improvement... just like Willy is slightly above (but not gold glove contending)... and if you're dealing with that range of quality, it isn't all that big a deal. Now, if you're comparing gold glove calibur players to average ones (like an Adam Everett, or Jim Edmonds, etc.)... then there is undoubtedly a dropoff... but if the Astros lose games, Pence's CF defense is not even close to being a major reason why.
pettitte made 68 starts the last two years (17 more than jennings over the same timeframe, btw), and posted an ERA of 3.27 and a WHIP of 1.23. of course, $16M is exorbinant/undeserved; most of these guys are overpaid. but i'd rather spend $16.6M this year on pettitte/hirsh/buchholz (plus have taveras AND a better shot at clemens) than $11.8M on jennings/williams and be stuck having to find jennings' replacement next year. and i have no idea what really happened with pettitte and the astros. but i would have made him my #1 priority. where do all these viable replacements you NEVER cite by name exist? there are apparently better RF'ers abundantly growing on trees; #2 starters that are both cheap and readily available... and yes, losing jennings gives you "flexibility".... to go out and sign his replacement, thereby zapping your flexibility. but they're going to end up paying jennings/his replacement + williams (anywhere from $16.25-$18.25M) the same, if not more, than pettitte/hirsch/buccholz/taveras ($17.2M based on their 07 salaries).
