The point was the team would be better off with an average defensive SS who can hit for a good average. The need for good hitting is much more important right now then people wanting to see a web gem on ESPN.
I'm not saying it's a terrrible idea or anthing; I just think the Astros have had success operating according to their current gameplan; that is finding a few core players to build around and keep matching pieces to complement them. And by the time that core of Oswalt, Berkman (and now Lee) are gone, hopefully we will have a new generation of young guys to lead the team. If you can find success that way, then you don't need to spend 3-5 years in mediocrity on the hope that you can become a contender (or even a pretender) again.
There is no need for a firesale. I think we have a core of a good offensive team in Lance, Scott, Pence, and Lee. Loretta and Lamb can give us decent offense for the next couple of years. Our woes this year center around Biggio, Berkman, and Scott. I believe Berkman and Scott will turn it around. We may be too late to compete this year, but that doesn't mean we need to burn the house down. This is what we need to do: Fire Garner. The new manager for the rest of this year should put a consistent lineup like this in the field: Loretta 2b Pence CF Berkman 1b Lee LF Scott RF Lamb 3b Everette ss Munson c On days when lefties are pitching at home. the lineup should be: Loretta 3b Pence CF Berkman 1b Lee LF Scott RF Burke ss Biggio 2b Munson C You can pepper Ensberg into the mix as an occasional starter at 3b against Lefties. In the off-season get whatever you can for Ensberg (not much), Everette(might get a prospect), and Lane (probably just release or keep in minors). You can peddle Lidge, Qualls, and Wheeler either at the trade deadline this year or in the off-season, but I would only give Lidge up for a legitimate top prospect or young veteran at catcher or shortstop. Wheeler and Qualls I would give up for a top prospect at catcher, shortstop, or 3b or for several really good prospects. We should only trade 1 of the 3 for the best deal we can get. Re-sign Jennings right now at about 8M. If he turns it around he's going to command 12m in the off-season. He is a ground ball pitcher who has a history of durability. I believe we were just unlucky this year. He is a decent #2 guy and a really good #3 guy in a good rotation. We should hold on to all our prospects that are above average or better in the minors and re-build that system through the draft and any deadline trades of veterans to other teams that we can manage (probably not going to happen).
Firing Garner midseason won't do this team any good; this isn't Jimy Williams redux... he hasn't lost the support of his players, yet. Best to wait till the offseason and truly evaluate the state of the team and the job he's done. Even if Garner's released and a new manager steps in this season, Biggio will still receive the majority of starts, at least until he hits 3000. That decision goes way above the manager's head. Burke will not play ss. And honestly, it's been said too many times but if you find production in those corner spots and upgrade catcher you can afford to have Everett. So he stays. Honestly I think I'd like to see Loretta platoon with Ensberg at 3b and Burke spell Bidge at 2b; Lamb should fill Palmeiro's role as the go-to bat off the bench. Scott shouldn't platoon with anyone; give him consistent at bats.
All reasonable ideas. Garner did say in the paper that Burke would occasionally get a start at shortstop, but I agree that is not in the cards long-term. I don't know for sure that Garner has been instructed to start Biggio most of the time, but if he has he should move him down in the order. Surely, that isn't being dictated to him. If it his decision to start Biggio most of the time and leave him batting first, then he should be fired now and that will help us this year. If not then firing Garner could wait. I would still try to find more offense at shortstop in the off-season. Just taking it as a given that we will always have such a poor offensive player at the position is not a very good option and puts too much pressure on hitting it just right at 3b, 2b, and catcher.
jason jennings isn't signing for $8M and $12M might be stretching it. if they're out of it by july, jennings, lidge, wheels, qualls and loretta are your only bargaining chips, and they could all fetch a decent return; you could maybe put lamb and williams in that mix, too.
The question is, What's the definition of "out of it?" In 2004, I was literally furious we weren't sellers at the deadline and getting great return on Beltran and others. Then look what happened. Now, I'm not personally saying that runs like that can happen every year or that it can happen with the 2007 squad. But I do think that, as long as those magical runs are fresh in Drayton's mind and we're not 20 games out of the Wild Card/Division lead, Drayton will never be a seller at the deadline. Which, by the way, is not uncommon these days. Very few teams have been sellers at the deadline the past few years. And, I have to admit, being buyers and not sellers was justified the past few years. Guess that's why I'm not a GM.
If they are out of it by July, then you could shop Jennings to a contender and I might consider it if the offer was significant. Otherwise, I would re-sign him. I think 8-9M would be reasonable right now, but if next off-season is anything like this off-season 12M will be the minimum.
Unless Jennings gives you hints that he won't be back...I'd definitely try and resign him. He could be a viable number 2 for the rotation next year and help solidify that part of the squad for years to come. So there'd be no point in trading him away. I just never really understood the concept of selling at the deadline when you're not in the playoff race anymore. Unless you know the pieces you are moving won't be back or you won't have the money to resign them there's no point. And the Astros don't fall into either category yet.
I agree with you. I wasn't advocating getting rid of Jennings I was just responding to another poster. I think we should re-sign him now while he is affordable. I think if he comes around for the rest of the season his price is going to skyrocket past his worth (like Petitte, Lily, and others.)
Oh don't get me wrong I was agreeing with you too If Jennings wants to stay here for a reasonable price, they should keep him. But I'm not sure they'll be able to resign him until the offseason.
good point. my answer would be they need to be realistic. if they're still lingering 8-10 games under .500; if berkman is struggling... and you could get some young, ML-ready talent for your marketable assets... i think you'd be crazy to hold on to some delusional rebound with an obviously inferior team. rterry, jeff suppan and ted lilly signed contracts worth $86M last winter. jennings is 3-4 years younger than both of those guys and has a comparable career ERA despite pitching at coors field for the first 3-4 years of his career. so the notion he'll sign for $8-9M is very nearly absurd (unless he gets hurt and/or completely derails the rest of the way).
On the other side, you could trade him and still re-sign him in the offseason and end up with Jennings plus some prospects. That's one of the negatives of the Hirsh trade - you had him for 4 years and only have Jennings for one. We could certainly sign him as a FA, but we could have done that even without trading for him. The beauty of being a seller near the deadline is that it's a seller's market - as it has been the last few years. That means you can fetch a lot from some team that feels like they have a chance of making the playoffs the first time in who knows how long. That sets you up for a better future the next 3 or 4 years. Unless the Astros make some type of strong push and show not just that they could accidentally win a bad division but also excel in the playoffs, they should consider being sellers of components they expect to lose in the next year or two anyway.
Repeat after me: 2007, 200 innings, #2 starter; 2007, 200 innings, #2 starter; 2007, 200 innings, #2 starter; 2007, 200 innings, #2 starter....
agreed; lidge alone could bring them a pretty hefty return. unless his comeback derails, he would be the best player available at the deadline - teams COVET closers. i'd love to dangle him in front of the indians.
I'd like to see the Astros offer Lidge to the Braves for catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia, who is currently blocked by Brian McCann and would be a good young player (22) to replace Ausmus and a pitching prospect (Reyes, maybe). Or maybe to the White Sox who have 3B Josh Fields (25) who is curently blocked by Joe Crede and a AA or High-A ball player. If the Astros are going to trade Lidge then it needs to be for a bonafide stud at 3B, SS or C.
Well, in 2007, we're not going to get 200 innings from Jennings. But besides that, I'm not sure the relevance. A trade or FA signing is not judged by one year unless the player is thought of "the missing piece" to a great team. If the Sonics trade the #2 pick for Shaq and win a title next year, then it's a good trade. If they make that trade and don't win a title and lose 10 years of Durant, it was a dumb trade. This team showed no signs of being at the cusp of greatness at the end of last season. Making a trade that gets you 200 innings of a #2 pitcher at the cost of ~800 innings/4 years of a #3 pitcher (plus other parts) is probably not a very good trade unless you think it's going to help you win something big this year. And it's a risky trade in that if it doesn't, you just hurt your future.
They needed a #2 pitcher going into 2007... who else did you think they should have gotten? Would you have been fine with Oswalt..... Woody, Wandy, Hirsh, Sampson (once again... without hindsight)? Also, you're quick to dismiss the possible 200 innings out of Jennings from this year (which is a total hindsight cop-out), and yet you right away assume Hirsh will be good for 800 innings for the next 4 years? Hirsh could just turn out to be a AAAA pitcher.... he's a sinker-baller who's had a less impressive debut than other notable sinkerballers such as Wang, Webb and Jason Jennings. He's also older than those guys were when they made their debut. You're also comparing Hirsh to as the same quality of prospect as Kevin Durant is? Garner's take on this is actually something that makes sense (and that's something that Garner doesn't do too often). Trades need to be judged more AT THE TIME of the trade, rather than many many many years later (when nothing can be done about it). Would the Red Sox have loved to have Bagwell? Sure... but at the time, they needed Larry Anderson, didn't have a need for Bagwell, and made a trade that helped them. There are so many non-trades that happen year after year for the fear of potential blunder that never get talked about... the Astros have held on to their share of guys who didn't amount to anything (and they had potential that eclipsed Hirsh's)... namely, Scott Elarton and Daryle Ward. The Astros needed a #2 pitcher for this year... they didn't have that guy in the minors, and they felt Jason Hirsh wasn't going to be that special "can't-miss" future HOFer, and thus they got something valuable in return for him. Garland would have been a better option, but the Astros didn't have enough to get him (because Ken Williams likely realized that Willy+Hirsh aren't as good as some of their numbers may show they are). Regardless of it all, this was not some franchise-crippling deal that has to = championship or else this organization will be in the doldrums for years to come... Patton and Pence have a good chance of ensuring that.
If you're not a contending team, then I wouldn't have paid a huge price for a #2 pitcher on a hope and a prayer that my team will magically be awesome. I wouldn't have overpaid for a #2 pitcher this season for the same reason I wouldn't have overpaid for a hitter the previous season even though we needed it: because it was a stupid idea that would hurt the franchise in the long-run. It's these kinds of moves - we NEED a so-and-so - that screw up a team because it inevitably leads to overpaying. I assume Hirsh will stick in the majors. Where did I dismiss the possible 200 innings of Jennings? I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that his last year - which wasn't anything like the rest of his career - will hold. If I wanted to dismiss him, I would have pointed out that last year might have been a fluke and he might just be the 5.00 ERA type pitcher that he was previous to last year. Regardless of how well they pitch, it's 200 innings of a #2 pitcher vs. 800 of a #3 (or #4 if you don't think much of Hirsh). I'm not sure what the age of Brandon Webb has to do with anything. I never made the claim Hirsh would be a #2 pitcher let alone an ace. I did no such thing. I compared the idea of a trade to fill a missing piece. I didn't compare any quality of players. It was the idea of trading a long-term component for a short-term solution. Definitely - arguing in hindsight is stupid. I'm arguing that it will not be a good trade 2, 3, 4 years down the line NOW, not 2 or 3 or 4 years down the line. If I changed my mind in 2009 that this trade was bad, you'd have a point. As for the Bagwell thing - that's certainly true. But if a franchise continually makes Bagwell-for-Anderson moves (short-term gain at the cost of future pieces - even if they are not Bagwell-caliber), they are going to end up a terrible franchise. This is the exact philosophy the Yankees have used the last 5 or 6 years, except they have a ton of money. The Astros needed a hitter in 2005 and 2006. Did you think management was stupid for not paying whatever it took to get one? Next year, when they have to pay $10MM for a #2 pitcher (whether it be Jennings or someone else) AND still need a #3 pitcher, we'll likely regret the trade. And we could predict that the day the trade was made. Lets take a best-case scenario and say that Jennings lives up to his billing AND we manage to sign him (both are questionmarks). Next year, the Astros would have about $60MM tied up in 4 players. That leaves about $30-$40MM for 21 other players, or less than $2MM per. Do you think that puts the Astros in any kind of reasonable position for consistent success going forward? They can't even sign 2nd tier free agents at that point. None of these moves individually are a problem. It's the combination of them that are a problem. If you're going to go get a Carlos Lee and lock up $17MM in payroll, you better plan to fill out more of your roster with young, cheap players. You can't simultaneously go sign the big free agent and trade your young, cheap talent that's locked up for years or you end up in a big mess - and that's where I suspect the Astros are headed. Again, my problem doesn't relate to this season at all. It is based on looking forward. If you were trading that stuff to try to win a title now, that's one thing. If you're making those moves to simply be sorta-kinda-decent this year, that's just a bad idea.
