And lost in this whole argument is that Willy AND Hirsh were needed to get Jennings. Buchholz was the throw-in. Hirsh, while he was our most MLB ready prospect, wasn't at the level of most other organizations... and certainly wasn't as good as his minor league numbers would suggest he is...unless you're that impressed with his 90 mph fastball, and 88 mph sinker... and his ability to keep the ball in the ballpark... which he stopped doing once he got to the major league level.
If I had had a voice inside I would not have made the deal without sealing the new contract. As for Jennings, he would have had the leverage to assure top dollar. Bow, if JJ walks away he will still win at the contract table. The 'stros would be on Plan G or worse.
And if this elbow problem is more serious than originally thought, the Astros are on the hook for a lot of money for a #2 pitcher who's not pitching. If he finishes the season healthy, and the Astros are pleased with his performance, they have a great shot at signing him. This is nowhere near the magnitude of Beltran (both in the players we gave up, and the signability of the guy in return).
I appreciate your more half-full glass take on this than I have - on this point. As for JJ's elbow, pitchers' arms are the great joker in a long term signing.
If his elbow is a serious problem, I'm glad as helll the astros didn't sign him long term. If it's not, then there's still a chance... either way, its still a better move if both parties don't sign the bottom line right now. This is like trying somebody out on a trial period... if you're happy with him, you pay to keep him.
if the astros don't resign jennings and because he has arm problems and it turns out to be true, that's not a good thing.
Sure, its not a good thing... but its a helluva lot better than had they already agreed upon a big-money extention (which is what the poster is advocating). If he's not going to be their #2 guy, they'll have to go out and get one... the biggest chance this move has of backfiring is if Hirsh starts to sniff those minor league numbers he put up in the near future (2-3 years), while Jennings walks.
last night, our 1 and 2 hitters had a .282 and .324 OB% respectively; taveras has a .378 OB%. and you want to somehow invalidate it because he's not driving the ball? that makes no sense to me. i'd rather a guy get on base via the bloop single and/or bunt than, you know, not get on base at all. more odd statements; you've repeatedly railed me for using small sample sizes, and dismissed taveras with a "wait and see" flip of the hand - and then in very nearly the same breath, applaud guys for hitting... in small sample sizes. [and, btw, here are scott's ML #s now: 2006: .336/10/37; 1.047 OPS; 214 ABs 2005/7: .211/4/28; .637 OPS; 204 ABs] my bigger issue is why had you had had enough of taveras' "paltry" bat; why not everett's? or ausmus'? or biggio's? or lane's? or ensberg's? why have you not yet had enough of scott's "paltry" bat? every guy i just listed is 29 or older and are either way past their prime, or never had one. taveras was 24 last year with, again, no triple A experience. why give up on him so quickly and not the others? generally speaking, what would be the better course of action for a team? continually investing in older players with, at best, spotty major league credentials; or younger players with better major league credentials? THAT'S where i'm coming from. and i think the mentality that led to picking burke, lane and scott over taveras is the same mentality that led to them panicking and giving away too much for a good, but by no means great ML starting pitcher in the last year of his deal.
You only think they gave away too much because you over-value Taveras and Hirsh... that is all. How else do you suggest they could have acquired a #2 pitcher after Pettite left? And my whole argument stems from the fact that I don't think you'll see these numbers where they are where the season ends... from both Willy T and Scott. I've seen these guys hit the ball... and even this year, Willy T is the same hitter as he has been the last two years where his OBP isn't .378. He's having a hot run right now... just like he did last August. Let the season play out. Stats are fun when you're using less than a third of the season to promote your argument... hey look, Hirsh gave up 8 earned runs the the "paltry" Cardinals lineup last night along with 2 more HR's (he wasn't supposed to do that, according to the plethora of minor league stats you read as dogma). Two weeks ago, he was "getting it". Now, his ERA is over 5.
aha! that's the rub; i wouldn't have let pettitte leave. nick, no one would like this discussion to end more than me; but it's hard to walk away when you keep boiling my stance down to this over and over again. yes, i do believe 340+ ABs of consistentcy is noteworthy; especially for a young guy we suspected might stumble before eventually righting himself because of his (perhaps too) rapid ascent, especially given the fact he's previously been productive in the major leagues. but it is by no means the sole basis of my argument. i think there are A LOT of reasons to prefer taveras over scott, burke and certainly lane; and i've listed them repeatedly. but you keep running back to this as if my only response is to keep shoving ".378" down everyone's throat. frankly, that seems to be YOUR only recourse; to continually bring us back to that because many of your points keep getting shot down.
And I wouldn't have let Randy Johnson leave, or let Beltran leave, or let Hampton be traded, or let Lance be sucky now. You really think its just that simple. Well, it isn't... Pettite's gone... he's back where he really wanted to be (its not like we lost him to the Cardinals), after saying he would retire. This team needed a #2. At that point, what do you suggest they should have done? I'll bring it up over and over again (while not conceding a damn thing... name one point that I had shot down?). I don't think Taveras is as good as you think he is. He's certainly a commodity... one that was a big part of a trade to get a much needed #2 guy that this team didn't have after Pettite left. Burke was also a commodity. The Astros decided on Burke... as a more versatile guy, with more upside with the bat, who could also take over for Biggio once the 3000 quest had ended. The Astros also had other viable options at CF. I keep shoving that OBP number because it means EVERYTHING. We know Willy is never going to be a big power guy. Hell, at this rate, he'll never even have the occasional extra base hit. He still doesn't work counts... he still doesn't draw walks... he still strikes out plenty. Your premise is that as of last August, he "got it". My take is that he had a great August, and is having the best start to a season he's ever had... but he's still very much the same hitter that had his OBP in the .330 range the last two years (unacceptable for a leadoff guy, ok for a #7 or #8 guy... but of course that's not the situation we're in). But whatever... I'm all wrong, and all my points are about to be "shot down" by you. Its wrong for me to conisder Scott's 215 AB sample size as him becoming a decent hitter, but its right for you to consider Willy T's hot August (for which you'll then say, "hey, look at his minor league numbers too!"... whatever...)
There's far more evidence that he wanted to be back in NY, rather than the Astros saying they never wanted to have Pettite back. Hell, there's far more evidence that he was mad for the Astros for attempting the Garland trade, even though he had said he was considering retirement. The spin is out of control... all signs point to Andy wanting to be back in NY, and the Astros not standing in his way.
offered less for jason jennings. a few choice cuts... "when he LOST HIS JOB IN THE PLAYOFFS that very year (where Burke's bat was very very hot)." he actually totaled 29 ABs between the NLCS and WS (more than burke); started game 6 of the NLCS (when the astros clinched the pennant); started all 4 WS games; and hit .340-something for both series. re: hirsh: "why else did it take so freaking long for them to promote a guy who was dominating AAA, not giving up the long-ball at all?" i'll quote major directly: "Wait - what? He spent 1 year at A ball, 1 at AA, and half a year at AAA before jumping to the majors. He was promoted pretty quickly." to which you responded: "Still not as quickly as this organization has promoted quality pitchers in the past... definitely not as quickly as Oswalt, Redding, or Carlos Hernandez (and now Albers)." again, major: "Hirsh was called up more quickly than Oswalt. He was called up in his 3rd full year in the minors. Oswalt was called up in his 5th year." "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)" neither lamb nor loretta play the OF; neither would have their playing time impacted by willy taveras. "Because once again... you're overvaluing him by specifically looking just at stats after a certain month (July)" here, i'll actually quote you: "but its right for you to consider Willy T's hot August (for which you'll then say, "hey, look at his minor league numbers too!"... whatever...)" so, IOW; i'm not "specifically looking just at stats after a certain month"... and yet, you keep bringing that back up... over and over and over and over again....
