This is the part of the article that speculates what the Astros would have to offer: Sure, they probably could obtain a guy like Baltimore shortstop Miguel Tejada, but at a cost that would likely gut the team's present bullpen and future prospects. To make such a deal for a player who could be gone in two months, since he could then turn around and demand a trade at season's end, would be foolish. You think that the offer is Nieve, Everett and Pence and to back your claim, you use Molony's article. Molony speculates that the Astros would have to "gut" the team's present bullpen. How does Nieve "gut" the bullpen? He further speculates that they have to give up future prospectS. Granted, Pence is a prospect but Everett certainly isn't. So, why do you think the Astros turned down an offer of Pence, Everett and Nieve for Tejada?
down 6-4 in the ninth, we scored 2 off bobby jenks to tie it; lidge gave up the GW in the 9th; game 3, we led 4-0 with oswalt on the mound and he gave up a 5-run inning. yes, the offense failed to drive in timely runs; but it wasn't like chicago won every game 1-0 (just the last one, coughcough). but we did score 14 runs in the first three games, or 4.7 runs/game. as a point of comparison, we scored 22 in 6 games against StL, or 3.7 runs/game.
i don't know how you could watch that world series and think that. in game 1, clemens gave up 4 runs in 2 innings...and every other pitcher they brought in gave up at least a run. in game 2, the bullpen imploded and we gave up 7 earned runs in game 3, oswalt gave up 5 runs in 6 innings...he was no where near what he was in the NLCS. again, we gave up 7 earned runs in game 4, you're right...our pitching was tough. we gave up 1 run. backe was outstanding. the astros bats were shut out in game 4....but they scored 5 runs in game 3, 6 runs in game 2 and 3 runs in game 1. not great offensive production...but they got to the World Series with those bats and great pitching. That was the formula. The great pitching forgot to show up. Scoring 5 runs won you games down the stretch when the pitching was there...the pitching wasn't there in the Series.
After attending last night's game I really can't take much more of this worthless offense. We must be the most unclutch team of all time. Twice we had leadoff doubles and were unable to put a run on the board. I really don't want to give up our future, but our present lineup is offensively inept. If we can get Tejada without giving up both Hirsch and Pence then I'd say go for it. Hirsch is amazing, but we have a lot of good young pitching in our farm system that will soften the blow of losing him. As far as the World Series, the losses were a combination of both bad pitching and a lack of timely hitting. Our losses in game one and four were due to bad hitting, game two was the bullpen, and game four was a combination of both. I don't think you can argue that the Sox were clearly the better team. At the same time though, in addition to another bat we could've really used a reliever who didn't choke in every pressure situation.
We scored 3 runs in Game 1, 6 runs in Game 2, and 5 runs in Game 3. With our pitching staff, that should have been more than adequate. Our hitting with RISP didn't help, but it was our supposed "lights-out" pitching that ultimately cost us.
did anyone catch what was said on cold pizza like 5 minutes ago regarding the astros and Tejada? I was at the gym and they had it on the tv with no sound. But it said something to the effect of "Tejada to the Astros?"
I'd say game one was more on the hitters and on Clemens' injury. Clemens gave up 3 runs and then our relievers held them to two runs over 8 innings. Bottom line, the game was tied after three innings and we didn't score anymore runs. Game three, I agree Roy blew it up, but so did our bats our bats. We were only able to score 1 run in 11 innings. Again, I think it was a combination of both pitching and hitting.
but the hitting wasn't what got you there in the first place. the formula was defense and pitching...and it worked. it got you there. then when we needed it most, the starting pitching abandoned ship. if clemens gives up 3-4 runs in 2 innings in one game...and oswalt has a bad start as well, you're done. that's it. you can't get to the world series and ask the team to re-invent itself all of a sudden. when you put up 6 runs and 5 runs for pitchers with names like clemens, oswalt and pettitte, that ought to be enough.
by the way...i continue to doubt that the orioles will trade tejada at all. i'm certain that will be mclane's fault, too.
True, good pitching was our major strength last season. However, you can't expect a starting pitcher (even Clemenes, Pettitie, and Oswalt) to throw a shutout every game. You can blame Clemens' injury, but you can't blame Clemens himself, and I think the bullpen did a pretty fair job considering how early Clemens had to come out of the game. So I'd still say it was the injury and our hitters not being able to score during the last 6 innings. Game 3 was partially Roy's fault and partially the hitters. Yes, Roy shouldn't have given up 5 runs, but the offense should have been able to score more than one run over 11 innings. You can't expect to win in the world series when you can't score any runs in a 6 inning span or more than one run in an 11 inning span. It's not asking a team to reinvent itself, it's asking for at least one or two hits when someone is in scoring position.
dude, you're arguing for the sake of arguing; no one here is claiming they hit like the '27 yankees; or even the '77 yankees. just that one single solitary additional bat would have cinched a world championship. it wasn't that easy. they fell apart across the board - they left too many runners on; the starters didn't carry their weight (save for backe and pettitte); and the bullpen was gasoline. add it up and the better, more deserving team won.
No, but it IS his job to discuss and counter the proposal with Baltimore's... errr... GMs and persuade them all he can (as well as persuading McClane why he should spend the money). But yes, if Baltimore is dead set against trading Tejada, anyway, no amount of Timmy the Hutt charm is gonna change that. And besides, my post was in jest, anyway.
i hear ya. and because the astros are tight-lipped, we'll never know. i've heard lots of commentators say the astros were ready to trade for tejada over the winter, but that the o's didn't want to. and when tejada came back and said, "please don't trade me," they gave up any thought of going further with it.
Uh, I wasn't the one arguing that we lost solely because of our poor offense. I said it was a combination of bad pitching and hitting. I wouldn't say the Sox were clearly better. We could have easily made it a much more interesting series if we got a couple more hits with runners on, our bullpen didn't blow game two, and Roy didn't give up 5 runs in one inning after being amazing up until that point.
they didn't need to throw shutouts. they needed to hold them to less than 5 twice, and we'd have won 2 games right there.
It would have also helped if our hitters had occasionally done something when there were runners scoring position.
they were better. went 11-1 in the playoffs, iirc, blitzing through a much better league. they came through time and again; got great starting pitching, stupendous defense; timely hitting and when they had to go to it, steady work from their pen. no team was going to beat the sox last year.
