It's a playing time issue. Lidge faced 291 batters last year. To draw a comparison to a hitter, Burke had 356 plate appearances. The baseball value of closers is highly overrated. They only pitch about 5% of their teams total number innings and that's about equivalent to NBA players who play about 3 minutes a game.
And if I factor in the 4.62162 runs per game from June to September(I was right the first time and with so many numbers one mistake skews everything) instead of the offense we saw in April/May without the real Lance Berkman(in May he had to get his timing back and it takes a few weeks), they score 748.7 runs. That would make them 87-75 or 88-74 with Astacio/Wandy in place of Roger.
His 2005 is fairly comparable to Bob Gibson's 1968 even accounting for Gibson's 90+ innings advantage. A better September would have put firmly ahead of Gibson. FWIW, Drayton is not a tightwad, he spends, but not always wisely. For me the jury is still out on Purpura. I just don't get all the hate for the guy.
I believe he knows that. He's just pointing out that with a completely healthy Berkman, we were pretty damn productive. That bodes well if he can stay away from the flag football field.
I'd have to think Weaver would command more than that, unless there's injury or clubhouse issues I'm not aware of (and isn't he a Boras guy?). Major, I have no idea what the market for these guys will be like, but that sounds like a good start. Kaleidosky - Armas has a bad arm, IIRC. The pool of 5 or 6 starters yall mentioned who were non-tendered could maybe help, but I don't think any of us have watched enough film to advocate any particular one (but I'll do it anyway - Josh Fogg). A 1-year deal would be perfect. Throw one into the mix with Wandy, Zeke, Buchholz, Nieve & Hirsh for a couple of spots in the pen and the #4/5 in the rotation, go with the hot hands coming out of ST, then reevaluate May1. Remember that #5 starters are not that important the first month of the season, due to off days. Chad Bradford could be a solid arm for the bullpen. I'd like to point out (again, if it was mentioned before) that after a poor season with Boston, Wade Miller was not tendered a contract. And his arm is about to fall off. There was much to-do over this last offseason. Maybe the Astros knew what they were doing?
But 4.5 runs a game is not that far above league average, and I doubt that the Astros will again lead the NL in fewest runs allowed in 2006. I'm not saying all is lost, but we could be returning to 2002-03 when the Astros were not quite good enough to make the playoffs.
I apologize for so many corrections, as I was adding up the runs game by game until June and I think I had a number or two off a couple of times. They scored 180 runs by my calculation in April and May in 51 games. That means 513 in the other 111. Dividing 513 by 111, I get 4.62162 runs per game. Multiplying that times 51 gives me 235.7 runs. Add that to 513, and it comes out to 748.7, or right about my first number. That number would have come in 5th in runs in the NL last year, behind Cincy, Philly, Atlanta and the Cards. It would also have produced 87-88 wins even with Astacio or Wandy in place of Roger. The point is the sky is not falling, and I expect the offense to be much closer to the June through September totals than the April and May total.
You also have to factor in a healthy Ensberg and allow that Lane & Taveras & Burke should improve (most likely one of them won't, maybe they all won't, who the **** knows?) now that they've been there for a year. By all accounts Lane's a serious grinder & was pressing like hell last year, he's a more patient hitter than that. Nobody really knows what will happen with Bagwell, other than he'll be in ST the way things are looking. Bagwell & the team were pleasantly surprised at how the shoulder recovered after the surgery. I'm not torn up about the prospects of Berkman and Lamb-Bagwell-Burke-Rondell White splitting time at 1B/LF. Of course if you *can* get an Abreau-Tejada-ManRam - an actual lineup changing bat - you try like hell to make it happen. There's another team involved & there's always a line where you give away too much. And I don't get the hate for Purpurra, either. On the 2nd tier of players, I'm sure they're asking about Garland. ChiSox want multiple high level prospect starting pitchers. Texas needs to deal an OF (Mench or Wilkerson) but have been asking way too much (multiple starting pitchers) so far. Will that change after the Young/Eaton deal? They didn't really gain anything pitching-wise, but I dunno. How much starting pitching can the Astros afford to trade away? Not much if you want to have options other than Wandy & Zeke as starters. Agreed on the relative value of closers to everyday players (why Lidge/AE for Tejada might not make sense for Baltimore? [more on that below]), lots of front office people operate with this in mind - develop good young arms that you have control over on the cheap for 5 or so years and be very careful about spending big $ on multi-year deals on them after that. Developing young pitching is the #1 task these days for any club acting under any sorts of fiscal constraints - all but about 3 clubs. btw: that Stark article is confusing. He cites 2 league sources saying that the Orioles unequivocably want another comparable offensive player in any Tejada deal (a "big bat" is exactly what the Astros *don't have* to offer in a deal) Then Stark says that the *biggest* factor preventing a deal is Drayton's miserly ways. Couldn't be that the Orioles meant what they said.
I'm a little more pessimistic than you, but I'm not Billie Joe MacAllister pessimistic like some of the folks here.
That was hardly "fact". Fact would actually be making it happen. Talking about it doesn't count as "fact". Talk is cheap.
"In the past, after 10 throws, it would get weak and hurt like heck," he said. "Now it seems to get better the more I throw." ... "I tried to honor my contract because I didn't feel right sitting at home," he said. "That bothers me, that people would be down on me because of that. It's so easy to sit down. I tried to at least honor it somehow. "It's easy to look at it and say, 'Get him out of here, he's killing us.' The one thing I have that makes me keep going is I know how those 24 [teammates] in there feel about me. And what they want from me. And that's what keeps me going. "I want to honor what I signed," he added with a smile. "And then I'll go away. I promise." http://houston.astros.mlb.com/NASAp...t_id=1286261&vkey=news_hou&fext=.jsp&c_id=hou
Yeah, the Wagner deal that was publicized as giving the Astros "financial flexibility" (i.e. saving money) and a deal that prompted Wagner to trash the Astros commitment to winning (i.e. calling McLane cheap). Nice example. Clueless.
Not a big deal in the context of this discussion, but the Yankees are profitable every year. Even with the huge payroll, even with the luxury tax. Their local TV revenue is impressive.
According to the latest report, they lost 80 million last year... the first time in 2 decades that they've lost that much. Nobody realizes that they actually do fork over a ton of $$$ in the revenue sharing plan... and they're the only team that has to do it. I honestly think it will start (eventually) changing the way they do business... and its probably already started, with them not goin for Beltran last year, and this year settling for Johnny Damon, and not overpaying for Nomar.
Well, the Yankees also have an equity stake in the YES network, which has appreciated significantly in the last few years, so their net worth is likely not declining. They've also got a new stadium on the way. They may lose money on an operating level, but the valuation of the overall entity is no doubt rising.
Wagner signed a 3-year, $27 million deal with the Astros, owned by ever-frugal Drayton McLane. He trashes the team while still an Astro and is then dealt. He trashed the team by saying "It's going to be a tape job," Wagner said after the season finale. "It's not like we're going out there and getting any marquee pitchers.". This was before he was dealt to the Phillies (presumably because most teams don't keep players who trash the organization, rightfully so) and after the first season of a 3-year, $27 millioncontract he signed with the Astros, owned by ever-frugal Drayton McLane. Like you, he had no idea what he was talking about as we signed two marquee pitchers that offseason.
One thing to note about this - the Yankees have the ability to shift money around because they also own their TV network. So the Yankees can pay $100MM to their TV network and show $100MM loss for the Yankees and $100MM profit for the network if they want. Do that number on how much the Yankees lost might be misleading, depending on whether they did any such thing or if its beneficial for them to show a loss for the Yankees.
