Overpaid? What is the going rate for a #2 pitcher these days? Given that this same package couldn't land Garland, and that Hirsh's value may have been a tad overrated due to his minor league numbers (that any team with a scout could see)... I still don't see how the Astros could have gotten similiar value for less than that. That, coupled with the Astros having a backup plan for Taveras (as well as a pitching prospect they expect much more from in Patton), this deal still isn't as crippling as you make it out to be. Hirsh may develop slower than Wandy has... and may be more ineffective. None of that helps the Astros now, or possibly next year. You're willing to waste two more years of Oswalt-Berkman's prime with no proven pitchers in the rotation? What automatically makes Hirsh the "long-term" component? He clearly has more value as a AAA prospect than he does a 6'9 finnesse pitcher with a greater than 5 ERA, thus it gets you a #2 pitcher NOW. A more apt comparison would be if the Sonics had Ray Allen and 4 other starters who you could make a case for possibly not even belonging in the NBA... which is a very possible scneario the Astros could have been faced with this year having Oswalt and 4 question marks (and playing in baseball's version of the Eastern Conference). And if you constantly hang on to your "prized" prospects that may not turn out, you're simply wasting the chance to improve your current team now. Once again, this move only backfires big-time if Hirsh hits stardom... something you've already said you're not forecasting. In hindsight, definitely... but its a good thing that I value pitching more than hitting. You can win with a crappy lineup but good pitching... and not vice versa. I could have cared less for them signing Carlos Lee... if they didn't add any pitching, they're essentially wasting the season. Next year is next year... a year where Patton can possibly make his debut, a year where we'll know more about Sampson/Wandy, and a year where Backe comes back from Tommy-John surgery. None of that was as clear going into 2007... a year I don't want them to waste without a #2 pitcher. They'd be in no different a situation than when Bagwell, Wagner, Hidalgo, and Biggio tied up most of the payroll (except that now the payroll is bigger). They're going to rely on guys like Pence, Patton, Estrada, Burke, Scott, Lamb... as well as their high priced stars to produce. Like they always have. When was the last time the Astros were a consensous LOCK for a division title? 2000? Every year since then, going into the season, they've looked like a sorta-kinda-decent team that may or may not contend (2004 being an outlier, when they "overpaid" for pitching). They've managed to not do too shabby in that time. This year they looked worse than some of their past teams, but they now play in a league that has less overall talent now, and in a division that's comical. Yes, they're not building a world-beater... but they're still not going to sit back and throw away the season simply to keep young/cheap players that may or may not amount to anything. They needed a #2 pitcher... not to guarantee a championship, but to be competitive this year. Jason Jenning was/is that guy. Next year, more moves will have to be made... just like every year... but as I mentioned above, there are options. The franchise won't be crippled if this doesn't work out.
I'd say the year that they signed Jeff Kent. I think they were heavily favored to win the division that year.
That would be 2003... the year after the Cardinals won the division by 13 games, and lost in the NLCS to the Giants. I doubt the Astros were favored to win that division, even with Kent's addition... the Cardinals ended up having major injury problems, along with still struggling to recover from Daryle Kile's death, that caused them to have a mediocre 2003 (which was clearly an abberation, given their 2004-2006). As it was, the Astros lose the division to the Cubs who didn't even win 90 games. But yes... they were competitive, and they had a chance to go to the crapshoot playoffs where anything can happen (just like they have that chance this year).
The Astros HAD to have another top of the rotation starter THIS season. They planned on competing. The FA market was underwhelming & expensive. They traded assets that were immediately replaceable (CF/young SP) for an immediate need that was not. I cannot comprehend why this is so difficult to understand.
I agree... the way people are talking, they would have been content just wasting away another year, with the hope of eventually being able to compete in 2009 or something. In a division where any semblance of a "team" has a shot to win... and a sport where once you're in the playoffs, ANYTHING can happen... I would have been extremely dissapointed in just standing pat this year with what we had (minus Pettite and Clemens). We have Oswalt (a top NL pitcher) and Berkman (a top NL hitter)... those two things don't come around too often simultaneously. They're both locked up... its up to the GM/owner to build the best team around them possible, trading expendable parts for areas of need, using free agent $$$ wisely, and calling up prospects who are ready.
I fail to comprehend how it's so difficult to see that people think that looking beyond 1 year is important to consider when making a trade. Based on the standards y'all talk about - "we needed a #2 this year, so it had to be done" - it appears that every trade ever made is good since they all fill an immediate need and that all that matters is one year - the future be damned. I think that's a terrible way to run a franchise, and it's everything we didn't do for the past decade that made us successful.
They did not mortgage anything. They didn't trade anyone who's not replaceable in the very near future; how is that not taking the long view into account? Did they overpay? Probably, Purp's admitted as much. Does that necessarily make it a bad deal? No. Were you saying the same thing about the Huff deal last year?
Past decade??? Even the Randy Johnson deal was more of a mortgage.... yes, they were trying to win a championship... but as you said, "If they don't win one, its a bad deal." Freddy Garcia and Guillen are >>>>>>>>>>>>> than Hirsh/Willy T. Hell, the 99 team may have had a much better shot to win it all with Garcia, Reynolds, Hampton, Lima.... with Halama providing some lefty releif. If the Astros recovered from that (which they did)... they'll certainly recover from Hirsh/Willy T.
People keep talking about giving up Hirsh wasn't that bad because he wasn't a proven commodity. Jennings isn't overly proven himself and he costs more. His ERA hasn't been that great. Over the last 3 years his ERA is 4.5 on the road, so it isn't just Coors field. They aren't exactly numbers that look like a number 2 guy. People are also acting like he is an innings eater when in 5 full seasons in the majors he has only pitched over 200 innings twice with 201 and 212. He has had one winning season and only one with an ERA under 4.5 and two under 5. I'm not saying he isn't a good pitcher, he just isn't a proven commodity. Jason Jenning's Stats
Okay... so if people had said 180 innings (which is still a workload), that would have been better? (since he has pitched 180+ in 4 out of his 5 years). If 200 is the magic number, so be it... the guy is durable, and that's what the Astros were looking for. There are also several scenarios where the team was in the position to expect improvement from Jennings: 1.) The Coors field factor - which does equally (somehow) effect road ERA as well as home ERA. See Hampton and Kile's numbers. The fact that Jennings never got a chance to pitch away from Coors before, and has a pitching style that is very non-conducive to Coors, is something to take into account. 2.) The Humidor factor - where for the first time, they try to level the playing field with the altitude, and Jennings posts a sub 4 ERA... the first time a Rockies pitcher has ever done that. Coincidence? Fluke? Humidor really working? A player coming into his own? It could be a nice combination of all of them... the key is that Jennings had something to build on in a free agent year. As for what I've seen from him this year... a guy who can sink the ball consistently, and pitch into the 6th and 7th when healthy... there's not much more to expect. The bottom line... more was known about Jennings (even if you're just looking at his one year last year) than the unknown in Hirsh. Garland would have been a better choice... but the package was not enough to get him. It was enough to get Jennings. BTW... Rockies fans aren't too enamored by this deal... and if Willy T's numbers start to go down, they'll be just as pissed off as we are if Jennings doesn't stay healthy.
Keeping Pettite and Clemens could be considered a "win now" move...but the organization decided to move on and go with someone that could help out the team not only this year, but possibly in years to come....rather than sit on Hirsch and hope he pans out in a few years...seems like the team was looking at it from all angles.
Since when are decent SP's easily replaceable? If they were, we wouldn't have gone into this season with questionmarks all over the pitching staff.
And in retrospect, it was a bad deal. But it was a good deal at the time because the team was good enough to win a title. This team wasn't nearly that quality, with or without Jennings. I never said it's impossible to recover. They just made their lives that much more difficult, which gives the team much less margin for error.
Colorado introduced the humidor several years ago - not last year. Well then they are idiots. They weren't going to be in the playoffs with Jennings, and he was going to leave at the end of the year. Why wouldn't they be happy with the deal? They have 3 major league players as a result of it, all of which they control for several more years. If they didn't make a trade, they'd have nothing in 2008. Worst case, even if they release all 3 guys outright, they end up in the same place going into next year.
Here's the problem with that argument - the "possibly years to come". If they had signed Jennings long-term, that would certainly be the case. Or if they do so during the season (though I believe they have indicated that won't happen). But he's going to be a free agent at the end of the year, and we'll have to pay market value to get him. We could have done that *without* trading for him had we wanted to. So the trade itself only gets us one year of Jennings. We may re-sign him long-term, but that's independent of the trade. If he was signed long-term, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem as I have with the trade, because you're basically trading several years of Hirsh for several years of Jennings.
But according to your logic, you should always look at the deal 3-4 years down the line. If the Sonics don't win a championship with Shaq next year, its a bad deal... etc. Now, we're evaluating deals "at the time" as well as down the road? Well, I'll say "at the time" this deal puts us in a better position to win now... and possibly later, given the unknowns of Hirsh, and possibility of re-signing Jennings. As for the Johnson deal, Astros' lives were MUCH more difficult after that trade, that didn't result in even getting out of the first round, left them without a starting pitcher who was a consensous top 20 prospect (much better than Hirsh), and have them still searching for a SS who can hit the ball. As far as this team, and baseball in general.... the goal is trying to make the playoffs. Once you get there, anything can happen. They kept that goal in mind when they made the trade... and given our division/league, it was entirely plausible that they would be competitive (Hell, they STILL have a chance to get back into this thing). And I don't need to remind you how big of a crapshoot the playoffs are once you get there. Its why the 98 Astros didn't make the World Series, but the 2005 Astros did (and the 2006 Cardinals won it).
So Hirsh is now a decent SP, giving up long balls, and maintaining that 5+ERA? Or will he become decent 3-4 years from now? Either way, the Astros weren't going to be better off NOW, and still a big ? later.
How is their lives any better if they keep Hirsh, he doesn't pan out, and they're stuck with one of the worst starting staffs of Oswalt + 4 unknowns, in a year where the division is UP FOR GRABS, and the league overall is watered down enough to where there's no dominant team?
They had Sampson/Wandy/Albers ready for this year (or readyish, just about where Hirsh is); they have Gutierrez & Patton for the near future. Hirsh would have been one of those question marks as well.
Sorry, I didn't explain that Sonics thing very well at all. The idea was that the Sonics are terrible and thus it would be dumb to trade the #2 pick for a one-in-a-million chance to win the title. If they were a better team on the cusp of being great, then it would make more sense to trade the #2 pick and 10 years of Durant for one year of Shaq. So the Sonics trading the #2 for Shaq is a dumb move in foresight, rather than hindsight. This is true, to an extent, because of the high luck factor in the baseball playoffs. But it's based on the idea that only 4 teams make the playoffs, meaning that all the playoff teams are really good. It doesn't apply so much to a terrible division. You can win a series by accident. It's not likely you'll win 3 that way though. Certainly if you can get in, you want to try - and I won't argue that you can win if you get in. But the question here is what price are you willing to pay for that "we might accidentally win 3 series" chance? [/QUOTE] I'd argue that the 2005 Astros made it because they were the best team. They didn't show it the first half of the season, but from June on (or something like that), they were the best team in the league. The 2006 Cardinals are a good example, but keep in mind that on September 20th, they had the 2nd best record in the NL. They just had a terrible 10 or so days to close the season rather than always having been a mediocre team.
