Sure - but you just said you don't like that he's never willing to make moves that *could* turn into big deals. Those examples you gave are just more examples of him doing exactly that. They haven't all worked out, but he's made those types of moves when available. Hunsicker had some that didn't work out as well.
Williams posted a 3.65 ERA last season; why wasn't he on the downside of his career then? And, while Petco Park makes some difference, it doesn't make 2+ ERA difference. Also, you should realize that you're comparing small moves Hunsicker made over the course of a decade to Purpura, who has only had two years. It's not a fair comparison.
Who cares if Luke Scott's OPS is higher than Taveras? He and Lane have sucked to the extreme point that they had to move Berkman back to right! As far as offseason moves turning out well- Jennings and Woody have not turned out well by any stretch of the imagination. Yeah, Jennings might be fine, but guess what he's a free agent next year. And we're stuck with Woody for another year! If it wasn't for Gunther Pense this would be really ugly.
It was pretty easy to see that Williams had a bit of a fluke year last year. He had his best season in 4 years at the age of 40 with absurd home/road splits. I didn't think he would be this bad, but an ERA in the upper 4's and miscellaneous injuries throughout was pretty reasonable (also what he had in 2005). The ERA has been worse, but he's stayed healthy so far.
That's not what I meant. I'm talking about how all the offense-deficient guys were from the days when Hunsicker ran the team and how Purpura inherited a poor offense since 2005.
The bottom line, for me, is that I don't understand where this thread or ones like it are coming from. Why quibble over Woody Williams or "small" in-season pickups, or debating the offensive production of Willy Taveras vs. the current RF situation (both are bad)? There's a much bigger problem. The Astros had four expected big bats going into the season - Lee, Berkman, Ensberg and Scott. The latter three are incredibly below their 2006 performance. That's why this team is losing games right now. It's not because they don't have Andy Pettitte. It's not because of Woody Williams. It's not because they didn't pick up a Stan Javier. It's because they've scored 8 runs in the last six games, and that's in large part on the shoulders of those three. They need to step it up. It's that simple.
While I agree that Purpura's moves of late look really bad, lets not forget what the deal was with Andy Pettitte. Pettitte wanted a two year deal. He didn't one year $16 million, he wanted a player option second year, so he really wanted a two year $32 million dollar contract. That was too much to give him since his elbow was suspect at the time. Pettitte continually said that he questioned whether he wanted to play baseball anymore and then all of a sudden he wanted a two year deal? How do you go from wanting to retire to demanding a two year deal? Hunsicker was a different animal than Purpura. Tim watched over the minor league system while Gerry looked for the little extra deal that would pay big dividends. Purpura looked out of place and had his hand forced last year when half the city and the hacks at the Comical were calling for Hirsch to come up and contribute at the major league level. IMO Tim wasn't comfortable with that move because he said earlier in the season that Hirsch wasn't coming up. Purpura tried to make the Jon Garland deal happen and it blew up when Buckholtz allegedly failed a physical or there were reports that his arm was ailing. Tim quickly scurried and gave up the same package for Jennings. The only thing that bothered me in the deal was that we only got Jennings in return. Purpura is a loyal guy to a fault with all his players. There is no reason why Jason Lane should still be on this major league roster. If he doesn't clear waivers back to the minors then good riddance. The guy is in his 30's and is still considered a young player? Is Brad Lidge going to be the closer again? If not then why not trade him and get some major league ready prospects at 3B, C, SS or RF while he has value. If Lidge is going to come back as the closer, then maybe trade Qualls or Wheeler since they have trade value. One move isn't going to right the ship, but a couple of smart ones can set the team right and allow the Astros to reload for next year and the forseeable future.
The point is that Berkman in right, Lamb at first and Pence in center is a more productive lineup now than Berkman at first, Scott in right and Pence in center. However, if Taveras were still here, the Berkman/Lamb/Pence combination would still be clearly more valuable than a Berkman/Taveras/Pence combination. I think it's a valid point to make. There's no reason to complain about Taveras not being here (which some posters have done) because there's no evidence that shows him being much of an upgrade over the guy he'd be replacing (Scott). Also, I'm still not sure why you're upset about the pitching. For the most part, it's been fine. The far and away biggest issue with this team is the lack of productivity from three of the four big hitters, which is why it's hard to understand fans getting so upset about the other stuff.
I understood that was a possibility, but I saw the scenario you described as somewhat of a floor. I expected numbers in the upper 4's with around 150 IP as a worst case scenario, and that's still fairly decent for a #4 starter. Like you said, I didn't think he would struggle to this extent.
If Purpura considered Ensberg and Scott big bats, then that is some bad "GMing" right there. Now Ensberg is worthless and Scott is essentially being benched for Loretta.
I think this is the perfect summary of our problem. But to be fair, Purpura does shoulder some blame here - though Berkman hitting as expected would make this team look a whole lot better by itself. Ensberg is exactly what he was the last 4 months of 2006, so his performance this year isn't particularly surprising. I agreed with the idea of giving Scott a chance in RF and am a big Luke Scott believer, but ultimately he had one good half-season and we have/had no alternatives except for Lane if he didn't pan out (which was a reasonable possibility). That's one of the many reasons I wasn't a fan of the Jennings deal. We could have had Pettitte and Hirsh (instead of Jennings and, say, Woody Williams) and still had a tradable commodity in Willy T (and, in my opinion, Buchholz - but that seems to be just me). Alternatively, had we gotten Woody also, we'd have two tradable commodities in Hirsh and Willy T to fix other holes that we find (like RF or 3B, it seems). I'm a big believer in the Mark Cuban GMing philosophy - collect as much talent as you can and then figure out what to do with it. You can always trade it away for a better fit if needed, but at least you have more talent to work with. As it is, we have holes and not a lot of options to improve. Same problem as the Rockets, really.
Well said, Major. And at least the Rockets have the MLE to work with and some expiring contracts next year.
Yeah. He'd also look a lot better if he weren't relegated to being our #2 starter right now due to the Jennings injury. He's more a 3 or 4 starter and is OK for us in that role. Basically, this year, all of the "hopeful" things have not worked out. We hoped Ensberg would improve - didn't happen. We hoped Scott wasn't a fluke - hasn't worked out so far. We hoped Clemens would sign - nope. We hoped Jennings would be a solid #2 - not so far. We hoped Williams would be a competent #3/#4 - mixed results, but overall not so good. If all 5 worked out, we'd be really good. If none do, we'd be really bad (as we are right now). If some do, we'll be decent probably. It's that much worse due to Berkman's performance thus far.
Ensberg's OPS was .859 and Scott's OPS was 1.047. I can't think of any GM in the league who wouldn't have given those two a chance considering those 2006 numbers. It hasn't worked out so far, and that's unfortunate, but I don't fault the decision-making process with giving them a chance.
No one said don't give them a chance. Nobody said to just waive them. But you could look to trade one or both, or you can at least have a reasonable Plan B, like Major suggested. If there isn't a GM who wouldn't give them a chance, then that means their trade value was pretty high, right?
Cat and Major, great posts. I enjoyed writing my post; thanks for your responses. You guys are both right in the issues you challenged me on. You both would be fun to sit next to at an Astro's game.
Why would you trade them? Both played at need positions. Both were reasonably low cost (financially), so it's not like they'd clear much salary room to sign a replacement in free agency. If you traded them, you'd essentially be dealing them to give a full-time job to Jason Lane and a 3B to be determined later. Ideally they could've had a Plan B, but this team doesn't have the budget of the Yankees. Every team, save the Yankees and Red Sox, has to take a few chances and gambles each season.
