Yes, even cheaper in terms of long term... Pettite got basically a 2 year deal at 32 million dollars. Willy and Buchholz aren't long-term main-stays. Hirsh is the one we had to give up that had value, but was unproven on a staff full of young kids + Oswalt. After Pettite, this club would still have to find somebody (perhaps earlier if Pettite's elbow gives out). Don't underestimate the market correction. The Cubs gave two scrub pitchers (Lilly, Marquis) unwarranted deals based on last year. The Royals gave Meche a deal that raised eyebrows. Pettite got a $32 million deal. These things aren't going to be forgotten by GM's next year, especially if they look like huge mistakes. Also, the Astros are in a position to give him a long-term deal if he proves worthy... no more Bagwell, Pettite, or Clemens on the books, and the only abritration player looking to break the bank are Ensberg and Lidge (haha).
Well maybe I'm tainted more by his horrid start last year...but he clearly had a better second half than first half in '05. Still, my point remains...he didn't exactly produce as much as I think the organization would have liked him to.
So what are ya'll saying then..that the organization should have taken a chance and risked 32 million over two years for Pettite? Doesn't going after a younger, more durable arm capable of being a number 2 better for this teams current and longterm goals instead of banking on two guys at the twilight of their career to be the saviors for this team for another season. Should the organization keep playing that roulette?
Please describe Hunter Pence's game for me: how's he look in center, how's he look at the plate. What does he struggle with? What are his strengths? Thanks.
Certainly he struggled a bit more than expected, but I think a more realistic description of his time year is this: 2004: Average half-season (when he was healthy - 15 starts - he had a 3.9 ERA. Not bad, not great) 2005: Absurdly good. One of the best 3 or 4 pitchers in baseball, and the best in the game for the 2nd half of the season. 2006: Terrible first half, Great second half (2.8 ERA) So of his 3 years, you had 1.5 great years, 0.5 average ones, 0.5 terrible, and 0.5 injured.
Couple of things to consider: 1. We don't know that Jennings is capable of being a #2. He certainly was last year, but the rest of his career is nothing like that. 2. Jennings certainly doesn't help our longterm goals. He's a free agent this year, and Hirsh is gone. We might be able to resign him, but we also could have signed him in free agency next year as well. 3. A two-year deal is not a real risk in baseball. It's the long-term deals that are the killers. The money wasn't going to be spent elsewhere this year, so that really leaves next year as the risk. 4. Roulette describes the Jennings deal more than the Pettitte one. Signing a guy giving up money for only 2 years is far less risky than giving up a prospect under your control for 4 or 5 more years for what could be a one-year rental.
Once again... the Colorado effect has to be taken into account, as well as the ability of starting pitchers to IMPROVE (especially sinkerball/groundball pitchers) once they leave that environment. The thing that the Stros loved most about Jennings is his durablity... something they weren't convinced Andy would have. We were looking for a new #2 at a time when Pettite wasn't even sure he was going to pitch next year. Add to that Pettite's questionable elbow, and you can see why Pupura/McLane were NOT going to go into next year without a guy who they knew could throw at least 200 innings. A big money deal is ALWAYS a risk for a pitcher who's undergone elbow surgery... especially when we were competing against the Yankees for his services. Also, its not like signing Andy was a slam dunk. Pettite told us he wasn't sure he even wante to pitch, and even if he did, it was at most one year... and then the sticking point on his deal with the Yanks is the 2nd year option. Maybe his heart was set on going back there all the time. Frankly, I'm suprised we even made the $12 million offer at all... as soon as the Yankees let their intentions known that there was no limit to their offers. Yes... they're willing to take that risk at the expense of competing THIS year... with Berkman/Oswalt/Lee in their primes. Also, don't underestimate market correction occuring (as GM's watch Lilly, Marquis, Meche, and Pettite possibly not living up to their undeserved deals), and the fact that Jennings and his elbow will still be more affordable next year than Andy and his elbow were this year.
I just think the organization played it smart this time in dictating things rather than have Andy and Roger and Beltran play them. And I think Jennings, even though he may not sign here, is better longterm for this team than a guy who doesn't know what he wants to do one year to the next and is pretty set on retiring soon. Plus if Jennings doesn't sign, there could be somebody else on the market. With Pettite, you're pretty much screwed because HE holds the second year option, which you can bet he'll pick up no matter how he performs this year.
