you're determining how much a player's past accomplishments are worth to you and then paying him with intention he'll live up to them. absolutely nothing else matters. i mean, i doubt anyone outside of the meche family is buying one of his jerseys if he's posting a 5+ERA or because he's planting trees in nearby parks.
I disagree. First of all, jerseys most certainly *do* sell. Secondly, if he does his job well enough and helps the team win, there are more advertising dollars--and this helps media outlets, not just the franchise. If more people are interested in the team and are buying more jerseys, retailers are happy, not just the franchise. Let's ask Academy how much they enjoyed Clemens donning an Astros jersey for three years, for example. If the team is winning, then attendance at the games are up--and so is business before and after games at area establishments. Good players can have a decent economic impact on a community, it seems. I wonder if it's measureable, and if, were it indeed measureable, the impact is nearly negligible?
It just seems that you'd have a better chance of resigning someone that was on your team rather than someone that's never played here. But we needed a #2 starter at the time and decided to move our most expendable tradeable asset. The only downside to me is that you don't have a great leadoff hitter, but statistically speaking Taveras/Pence is no better than Pence/Scott. At that point, you have to decide which is more important to you: pop or someone getting on base at the top of the lineup. I know it's early in their careers, but the two pitchers we traded didn't excite me too much. They're certainly no better than Jennings this year (aside from Jennings missing some time). It's silly to base a trade's success on the win/loss record of the team when we only had one player in return. Saying something like that (and I'm not sure you have) implies that we would have made the playoffs had we not made the trade which is simply not true. We were in desperate need of a #2 starter and thought we had the people to replace who we traded. For the first month of the season, that wasn't true (and IIRC, Taveras had a pretty terrible first month as well). And I'm not going to criticize anyone for not predicting a 50 and 40 point jump in Taveras' BA and OBP, respectively.
This is only true if he takes less money to play here. If he takes the best offer - as most players ultimately do - then it wouldn't matter where he played the previous year. You still have to offer him the most money. That's true if you're on the receiving end of prospects. But if you're trading away future players for a guy you've got for one year, it better help your win-loss record this year - otherwise, there was no benefit at all to the trade. If you're on the other side, even if it doesn't help you this year, you (1) saved money and (2) have players you'll be able to use for the next 4 years.
it's not like an underperforming player is going to offset his outrageous salary by selling a lot of jerseys. jersey sales are a by-product of a player's success. you don't see a lot of jason lane jerseys at MMP. again, it's a by-product of the player succeeding on the field of play. i lived in dallas for arod's tenure there - trust me: winning (and the rare exception) is what draws fans. and clemens would be the rare exception.... again, the key word being "good". how much of an impact do you think woody williams is having on the franchise beyond the field of play? enough to justify his $12.5M salary and offset his whatever it is ERA?
A couple of benefits by doing a trade rather than a FA signing (in the general scheme of things, also note that I am not saying this is necessarily a better situation): 1. He will cost you a draft choice. 2. If someone else signs him, you may get a draft choice.
Also...all the talk about Pettitte, since June 1st his ERA is over 7.00. Even if you take out his two horrible July starts his June ERA was 4.76. At this point, I am glad the Astros are not on the hook for his contract.
hugs and kisses, andy pettitte. like nick before you, i think you're significantly dilluting the nature of the deal. first of all, taveras and scott are NOT comparable offensively given expected roles. secondly, taveras is a light-years better fielder than scott and any other OF'er on the current 40-man roster, and OF defense has been a problem this year. lastly, you're giving up to young players for one year of a guy you could have had for "free" (meaning not loss in personnel) this winter. so i think there's more plenty more "downside" to this. and that's assuming hirsh never "gets it" and taveras levels out. so why deal taveras (+ the pitchers) if the guy you're getting back isn't a difference maker? but you're ok with the astros investing in scott's second half last year? as both major and i have pointed out, taveras is doing exactly what we thought he would after 3 solid years at lower levels of the ML system. he's not performing beyond himself. scott was far and away performing beyond himself last year.
But we're automatically in the running. Do you think we'd have been in the running for Beltran without that trade? But if a player plays up to expectations, but our team sucks for other reasons, I can't call it a bad trade. At least in anyway that criticizes the GM that made the trade. You can't expect a GM to know that Lance Berkman would have a horrendous start and that our bullpen would be so terrible, neither of which have to do with Jennings/Taveras. I don't think Hirsh or Buchholz would've been in the bullpen, either.
And you admitted yourself earlier that we were in the running to sign him. Our OF defense is not why our record is what it is. Plus, Taveras was just as bad in CF his first year as Pence is this year, yet you don't seem to be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. And it wouldn't necessarily be free due to draft pick you'd have to give up to sign him. I stand by that I think a team is more likely to resign a guy than sign a guy that's never been on the team. There's no way Houston's even mentioned as a possible Beltran destination had he not played here. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about needing a legitimate #2 pitcher. Plus, in baseball, one player doesn't make a difference. Jennings wasn't the one giving up leads in the ninth and he wasn't the guy who's a perrenial MVP candidate with 5 doubles 50 games into the season. That's awesome. Willy T's first half will be his norm, but Scott's half last year is performing beyond himself. Awe. Some.
no, but it was the GM that deemed jennings/williams an upgrade over some combination of pettitte/clemens/hirsh/buchholz; that deemed pence "not ready;" that picked burke over taveras; and invested his 2007 season in guys like morgan ensberg... yes, just as were three years ago when he had never thrown a pitch for us. it helps, sure - if the guy likes the team, organization and city. but it guarantees nothing. taveras' first year is irrelevant, and i've never closed any book on pence's defensive abilities. i'm looking at both this year (in which there's a significant difference) and down the road, in which pence will never be as good as taveras because his arm simply isn't as strong. in RF, he covers less ground and has taveras flank him. we'd be a better defensive OF with taveras and pence than we'll ever be with pence and (fill in the blank). with regards to needing the #2 starter - it is understood; they simply overpaid for jennings (who's a borderline #2 starter). what the deal did was zap purpura of legitimate plan Bs moving forward - it cleared at the top level of our farm system (dealing three young players) and made burke/scott's emergence pivitol. you completely misread that. in his minor league career, taveras posted a .296/.368. since the ASB last year, he's posted a .317/.366 (511 ABs); in just the first half this year, he's posted a .325/.371 - nothing about those #s, based on his minor league career, jump out as incongruous. for a sold year now, or just over the first hald of this season - whichever - he's been delivering on the promise of his ML #s. scott, otoh, posted a .336/.426/.621 over the second half last year. his minor league career looks like this: .280/.366/.534. he jumped 56/60/87 points.... at the age of 27. that is the very definition of incongruous.
So, Pence covers ground with speed (what you'd want in a CF), but doesn't have a strong arm (what you'd want in a RF)... and he should be a RF? Here's a bet... Pence will be a CF at next year's all-star game, while Willy T won't. Wow.
when the argument that scott is better than taveras is shot down, you guys start to argue that pence is better than taveras. we all know that, that's not the debate.
yeah, "wow" is right; as in "wow, have you really gotten so desperate that you're having to throw something as meaningless as an all-star game on the table?" here are some other people who won't be in next year's all-star game: luke scott. jason jennings. oh, and adam everett - so i guess we should let that dictate what we think of his defensive skills, right? and while pence does indeed look to be the real deal, i'd maybe wait to cash in next year's all-star vote. and yes, a big arm is requied to play CF in MMP. again, for like the 40th time: i've never said pence won't get better; just that taveras IS better. much better. you'd be hard-pressed to find many people that disagree with this, so why is it contantly being brought up?
Tell that to Ric, who is doing nothing but comparing them both as CFers (as Willy's defense to Pence's defense is apparently as big a disparity as Everett's defense is to Loretta's defense... which, unfortunately, I don't buy). I'm still standing by Pence/Scott will provide more punch to an offense than Taveras/Pence... pretty sure RM95 is too. Nobody is backing down from that. And, by having Pence play CF, it opens more possibilities to who you can acquire in RF if Scott doesn't pan out over the season... both in free agency and in the minors... rather than trying to find another CF. And for the last time... they needed a #2 starter. Unless you want to magically re-sign Pettite (which is only feasible in Ric's world), how else do you propose they get one for this year?
For the 40 millionth time... they needed a #2 starter which is why Willy is not here (they didn't simply let him go)... and Pence has been the serviceable plan B that has been just as good (if not better) than expectations... and the Astros aren't in as desperate shape as you make them out to be (if Berkman and bullpen play like they should, why wouldn't they be 10 games above .500 right now?)
no, nick - i'm looking at the team. i'm not suggesting we replace pence with willy taveras; i'm suggesting they should have never dealt taveras and kept pence in RF; i'm further suggesting that taveras/pence is a MUCH BETTER DEFENSIVE OUTFIELD than pence/scott. this is very nearly irrefutable. fine and dandy - everyone's on record. but so far this year, you've been wrong. that taveras/pence make a better defensive combo, too, only further solidifies how wrong you've been. this is the infuriating part, on two levels: 1) you continue to assume finding competent RFers is an easy snap of the fingers. jason lane, preston wilson, aubrey huff and luke scott would ALL beg to differ; 2) we HAD our plan B if scott didn't pan out - he's playing CF right now. so rather than having to invest ANYTHING, we could have solved BOTH areas of possible concern by keeping taveras AND had payroll flexibility to go out and add pitching. and, apparently, in tim purpura's world as his quote cited earlier means he was either posturing or in less touch with the situation than you. yes, they needed a #2 starter (as well as a #3...). we know that. no one is disputing that. but those of against the trade felt the team had grossly misevaluated itself in making the deal, dealt out of panic and FAR too early in the process: they assumed - in december - that they were a pitcher away; they deemed pence "not ready"; they picked burke over taveras; and they invested in burke, ensberg, lane and scott coming through while dilluting the top of its minor league system and therefore negating any potential plan Bs (minus hunter pence).
what's interesting about this post is that we could ctrl+c it right now and ctrl+v it again in december, because, guess what? they're STILL going to need a #2 starter. if jennings walks, then yes, they essentially did "let (taveras) go." sorry; i'm just at a loss how anyone could stand firm in trying to defend this deal. it makes absolutely no sense to me - didn't then; still doesn't today; and still won't in december, either. and i don't think the astros are "desperate;" but i don't think berkman + a better bullpen equals a 20-game swing, either. i think this is a .500 team under "normal circumstances" - they've played .508 baseball since the start of the 2005 season covering 413 games. a year of jason jennings wasn't going to change that. i think this year's offense is the best they've had since 2004; but the pitching staff is considerably worse. how, moving forward, can they address that? that's where i stand: with taveras, hirsh and buchholz, you had infinitely more pieces at your disposal.
Well, for starters, Berkman has been his normal self since basically the beginning of June - and we're 17-19 since then. As for the bullpen, let's take a look: Lidge: performing probably above expectations, if anything Wheeler: below expectations Qualls: slightly below expectations Moehler: better than last year Borkowski: having the best year of his career Miller: sucking White: sucking Certainly the bullpen has been below expectations overall, but it's not like it was an elite bullpen going in. White, Bork, and Moehler all should have been expected to be around 5.00 ERAs, and no one had a clue what to expect of Lidge. If 5 or 6 players on the team (Berkman and an array of bullpen guys) all played better, we'd certainly be better. Then again, what about all the players exceeding expectations? Lidge, Loretta, Pence, and Wandy have all played above what you'd expect going in. Overall the team is probably a 0.500 team at best - so they are slightly underperforming, but to expect them to be 10 games over is a bit unrealistic.
