The difference between .260 and .290 is just a few basehits--and I'd venture a guess that *all* of those were weak little squibbers to the left side of the infield. When he loses even half a step, all those "hits" will be gone.
I'm assuming you watch how he keeps his average in the high .290's, while not walking, not working counts, striking out too much, and not showing the occasional pop. Also, this team had zero problem getting his "important" bat out of the starting lineup in games 3, 4, and 5 of the 2005 NLCS... games that put this team in a position for their first World Series. Nobody's saying he won't improve... I'm saying he was expendable. The going rate for a bonafied #2 guy who throws 200 innings, and had a sub 4 ERA in Colorado was about what they gave up. By the time Willy is 27, he may have developed the strength to not get the majority of his hits on bloop singles or bunt hits. He may develop an eye to work the count more, get more walks, and be a real threat at some place other than the basepaths. But its still all prognosticating. Given his time with the Astros, including minor leagues, he is the same player. He had a great hitting streak last August... that definitely inflated his numbers if you look only at them after July. Luke Scott also has inflated numbers if you just look at last year. Hunter Pence had inflated numbers when he won player of the week and went 7-7. Jason Hirsh had inflated numbers at AAA where he had a 1.something ERA, and didn't allow HR's... they didn't exactly translate like that to the major leagues (he certainly is no Tim Lincecum, as far as pitching prospects go).
correction, he only batted .278 his second season, but I still didn't see the reason everyone was so down on him.
LOL! i love how this has evolved from an all-cap "HE LOST HIS JOB IN THE POSTSEASON!!!" to "he was benched in THE three most crucial games of the NLCS, never mind he started in THE most crucial, and then i'll just ignore completely that he started all 4 world series games and hit .345 in both series........" nice. i think major and now pgabriel have said it much better than i have; most recently, why did they give up wily t and no one else? i think that's a valid point/question. he's younger than scott, lane or burke and if all four aren't hitting, he at least adds value as a late-inning pinch runner and/or defensive substitution, whereas the other guys are virtually worthless. again, i was OK trading him for something of value; not as a throw-in to land a decent (but not great) starter. and if colorado coveted burke (which has been posted here), then why in the world would you protect burke over taveras with biggio in the middle of a 2-year, above it all run at 3k?
Because once again... you're overvaluing him by specifically looking just at stats after a certain month (July), and looking at an inflated batting average that still consists entirely of "willy t" hits. Also, he was more expendable than other commodities. They had Pence coming up as a CF. If he couldn't play CF, they had a Willy-T clone in Josh Anderson (high batting average, no pop, no walks). Burke was supposed to take over for Biggio, and his ability to play some OF was valuable. Scott had a productive 2006 and earned the starting job in RF, and Lane has zero value. Willy T isn't as special as you think he is... he wouldn't be making a huge difference now over the guys he'd be taking away playing time from (Pence, Lamb, Lorreta, Scott), and the guy we got for him is better than any of the other options we would have had (including Hirsh, Albers, Wandy, Sampson). But yes... lets assume Pettite would have resigned with us, and Willy T is going to keep up an OBP he has yet to sniff over an entire season. Lets also go back and assume that A-Rod is destroying the Yankees (as you said he would the Astros), and David Carr was blameless (even though I was with you on that argument).
no, nick - i'm not. i'm looking at his final 1,100 ABs in the minors in which he posted no lower than a .381 OB%; i'm looking at the fact he skipped triple A; i'm looking at his age, both then and now; i'm looking at his speed; i'm looking at his glove and range in CF... all things i've mentioned repeatedly throughout this thread. that, at age 25, he's gone on an extended streak of consistently good play makes me think he's starting to finally put it altogether and it makes you wonder why the team gave up on him, but continue to give scrubs like jason lane and morgan ensberg, and marginal talent like luke scott and chris burke so many freaking chances. when did scott "earn" the starting job in RF? after jason lane posted an OPS 125 points higher than his this past spring? if you include hunter pence in the RF mix, scott was actually running third. or, are you basing it on his 215 ABs, and if so, why so quick to grant scott the free pass, but so quick to yank it from wily t.? this is a strange statement; i'll grant you pence, though, in my "world," he would be in RF. but scott is debatable; he certainly hasn't outplayed taveras this year, or over the bulk of their careers. meanwhile, what do lamb and loretta have to do with our OF situation? and jennings MAY be better than those guys, but pettitte is better than jennings, and i'd rather have pettitte and hirsh than jennings and williams. neither of these statements have any relevance to our current discussion.
You have to give something to get something. Why does trading someone for a valuable player (and yes, Jennings was indeed valuable) amount to "giving up on" him? It was the going rate for #2 pitchers. Ted Lily got $10 million freaking dollars, for heaven's sake. Ted Freaking Lily. Jeff Suppan got a fat paycheck, too. The market was ridiculous. Did the Astros "give up" on John Buck? Did they "give up" on Freddy Garcia? You have to give something to get something. IMO, the players the Astros "gave up" on are more along the lines of Shane Reynolds, etc. Guys they just unceremoniously cut of DFA'd.
But, this is "your world". Where you're basing your arguments after less than a third of the season at a time where your arguments fit the current trend. You bring up Willy's minor league numbers that clearly have yet to translate over the last two years... just like Luke Scott's tremendous minor league numbers haven't translated... just like Jason Hirsh's tremendous minor league numbers haven't translated. You also use spring training stats to say Scott should not have been given the job, which is a very weak argument. That's the problem with assuming everybody will reach their potential they had in the minors in the majors... that's not saying that Willy may never become a guy who can put up a .350 OBP for an entire season, work a count, cut down the strikeouts, and hit with the "occasional" pop. He may... he may not... the Astros, with this offense, were not in the position to wait a few more years to find that out (given that they had multiple backup options at CF). Also, in "your world", signing Pettite is apparently a foregone conclusion... as everything about him possibly retiring because of his ailing elbow is forgotten. If you honestly think Scott will continue to stink it up, and never approach last year's performance because it was a complete fluke... and Willy has now finally figured it out, and will be a future leadoff guy forever with a manageable OBP, then I can't really argue with you. I just doubt you would have made these arguments a year ago, or before this season.... not without knowing Pence would bust on the scene, not without knowing Willy would be serviceable this May (after just one hot month last year), not without knowing Lance would be a major reason why this offense has been horrible, and not without knowing Scott would be as bad as Lane was last year.
If you were Jennings, why would you sign an extension right now? If you were the Astros, why would you take the chance of giving a ton of money to a pitcher who looks like he may succeed away from Colorado... but may not? I think its a good wait and see by both sides... and so far, nothing has been done to sway the pendulum either way (much like Huff's performance last year).
nick, i've said repeatedly that this is more than just a knee-jerk reaction. you have two guys with impressive minor league numbers; one is 3.5 years younger, definitively better defensively and has a longer "history" of success on the major league level. if i'm investing in one of those players, THAT'S the guy i'm going with. it's not because he's had a hot month or two. nick, i never said this - i asked how luke scott had "earned" the starting spot in right field, a statement you made. what does his ailing elbow and possible retirement talk have to do with anything? he was obviously involved in negotiations with the astros. anything beyond that is, imo, posturing bull**** that means absolutely nothing. never said either such thing. no, i wouldn't, something i've said repeatedly as well. but a year ago, i didn't realize just how good a prospect pence was - that changes the entire dynamic for me. a year ago, i thought luke scott was our best option in RF (internally). but i contend me not knowing this is fine; purpura not recognizing it, however, is a big problem.
i'm not sure what inflated free agent contracts have to do with setting the market for trades...? i guess we could go 'round and 'round on what players would "equal' a $10M contract, but in my estimation, jennings wasn't worth your TOP pitching prospect AND a young, still maturing OF with speed and a terrific glove with an organizational history similiar to taveras'. sorry; i would have never given up that much: one or the other. not both.
It seems one would certainly influence the other. "Come on Tim, this guy would command $12 million as a free agent this year..." But, I will admit that is speculative as I've never been privy to GM discussions. I'm with you that we wouldn't get anywhere but a long discussion accomplishing nothing. And in my opinion, you would never have gotten Jennings--not in last year's market. It's only my opinion, and it's arguable.
You're basically declaring Pence as a guy who will keep having greater than a 1.000 OPS, and declaring Willy T as "getting it" based on less than a third of the season. Yea, its not a "knee jerk" reaction... but yes... lets bring up Willy's age and minor league numbers again (as if they changed over the last 3 years). That still doesn't mean he's going to start getting more walks, and not get the majority of base hits on bloop singles and bunts. When he learns how to hit (and still, watching him this year, he still has the same tendencies)... you'll win this argument. I had definitely had enough of his paltry bat in this lineup, and was happy that guys like Scott and Pence showed they could actually hit the ball (even if it has been a short stretch). While we're at it, lets bring up Jason Hirsh's age and minor league numbers... they were fantastic. Is he as good as Tim Lincecum? Is he as good as Troy Patton? Obviously, your estimation of this organizations "best pitching prospect" and what it can get are quite a ways off.
