I'm probably the only one, but of the trades in recent years I personally am still more bothered by Valverde, than Lidge or Jennings. It is the classic case of trading for saves which are notoriously volatile and replaceable, and trading inexpensive talent for more expensive talent. You get a moderate talent upgrade but with much less consistency in Valverde for 2.5x the price through this year (and if they resign him it will be for a much larger multiple) and you throw in a young arm that throws 96+mph and has thrown a ton of bullpen innings this season in Gutierrez. From a value standpoint, Qualls for Valverde straight up would be a loser in my book.
Stop it right there. Wagner spoke his opinion. It's obvious you agree with it and that's fine, but we do well not to confuse opinion with truth. Wait a second--I thought we were talking in the context of November 2003? You're all over the place, man. ok. But Wagner was making $8M when he made his comments, and the Astros had two incredibly promising young starters anchoring their rotation in Roy and WaMi (we were all hoping he'd recover still). Wagner, to me, had immaturity more than "a point".
Buchholz had one good year in the one position where the sample size is so small that freak years happen all the time -- and then his arm completely blew out, indicating he can't handle the workload. He's a reliever with one season in his repetoire with a sub-4 ERA, and Tommy John surgery. That's not a good resume. Taveras has been a starter for five years. He's had an OBP of higher than .333 once, and the last two years, he's had OBPs of .308 and .279. Colorado let him walk. Ask any rational baseball fan outside of Houston, and almost no one would consider those two resumes as "successful" major league players. Major has made a logical argument in the past that even with their failures, the Astros didn't maximize their value as assets. While I agree with that in theory, the problem is that it only examines one side of the equation. At the time, Jennings was a valuable asset as well and a player a lot of smart baseball folks were interested in. Just like Taveras/Hirsh/Buchholz didn't work out for Colorado, Jennings didn't work out here. Hindsight goes both ways. I'm not saying the Jennings trade was a good one -- it was just a rather inconsequential one, and even insinuating that it was a terrible deal or one of the "worst in team history" is beyond absurd.
There Rotation in 03 was.... Oswalt Miller Reynolds Robertson Ok...yes for Oz but he was injuried for much of the year, Miller was so so at best and Reynolds was horrible...Robertson was the worst 15 game winner ever lolol... Redding was beginning to be the failure we knew and loved while Hernandez was gold but we all knew what happened there...who else was there to help the club in the minors??? We lost out in the last week of the year I believe and strictly because we didn't have enough arms one more and it might have made a huge difference!
Sorry...brought this thread back with the same words you're throwing out there thinking..there's no way people can STILL think like this given even more time to look at what our "prospects" have done. But apparently the arguments still hold for absolutely no reason.
Well if its my opinion then my opioion is he spoke the truth...lol Yes 07 I know on Lee but the argument in this context was because of this statement "When was the last time he had the revenue stream to make it happen? Money doesn't grow on trees" not 03. Yes and he quoted the 8 million in his comments back then but when you're one game away with the rotation we had its exteremly fustrating for a player I imagine.
Shane was a member of the Br*ves (still hurts my heart) in 2003, not the Astros. Robertson, Villone, and Redding were the other three starters. In the minors were Saarloos (who still looked pretty good at the time) and Hernandez, recovering from the surgery, and I can't remember the others. Redding had posted a 3.68 ERA and a 1.38 WHIP. Hopes were still high for him at that time, despite the 10-14 record. That, and the Astros had every intention of going out and getting arms--no more than 30 days after Wagner shot his mouth off, Pettitte and Clemens were *both* Astros.
Miller was coming off a 15-4, 3.28 ERA season in 2002. He was considered an ace at the time, and rightfully so. Redding posted an ERA of 3.68 in 176 innings as a starter -- to call that a "failure" would be insane. Ron Villone consistently had an ERA right at 4. Robertson was terrible, but to blast the Astros for not trading for a No. 5 starter upgrade is nuts. And yet again, it also ignores the reality of money. The Astros were able to make the Pettitte and Clemens moves, in large part, because they dealt Wagner's bloated deal. Why did they move Wagner? Because they had become much more comfortable with Dotel, and especially Lidge, who everyone knew was the future. Those guys weren't nearly experienced enough to turn to in the heat of a pennant race in 2003, so Wagner stayed, and the Astros didn't have the money.
The Astros were able to spend on Lee because Bagwell's deal came off the books. It's not as if Drayton just decided to throw all that money out there at random.
You are right on Shane I am confusing 02 and 03...Ok so Miller and his 4:13 ERA was there and Roy injuried for most of the year along with Redding who Il give you his ERA was good but coming off two 5 era season and another to follow along with big rig and mister 15 win 5 era as your SR...we missed the playoffs by 1 freaking game!!! Yes, you go out and get another starter and you probably win the division!!! I still say some of the incentive for getting Andy P was because Wagner mouthed off and yes his money helped alot in aquiring him but if he hadn't said anything would he have been gone??? They would have made another move to free up the money in my opioion.
Yes but this opens up another argument Id rather not get into...ill just say pitching wins titles not fat LF, although I do like Lee, still....
Of course Wagner would've been gone regardless of what he said -- the Astros had one of the best prospect closers in the game (Lidge) in waiting, at a cost of nearly $10m less. It made perfect logical sense for the Astros to shift salary from Wagner (who was at a position where they had cheap replacements) to a position where they were more thin (starting pitching).
...but it's quicker to say "cheap". That just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? "Cheap! Cheap! Cheap!"
Brings us full circle...this was my argument if you are going to trade him right then and there you do it for more then what we got him for...thats what ive been saying!!! lolol By the way I dont think he would have been gone that year considering he was a top all world closer and with the team we had in 03 are back end of the bullpen would have just been unstoppable and Lidge wasn't ready in there opioion...again just my opioion.
Oh, my deepest apologies for not providing an in-depth analysis on both trades . The point is that Bourn has emerged as a solid leadoff bat for the Astros, and he's shown definite improvement offensively during his stint with the club. He's among the league leaders in runs scored and stolen bases. The Lidge deal doesn't look as lopsided as it did last season, when Bourn was struggling mightily and Lidge was a dominant force in the pen for the Phils. Lidge is now having a rough time, having blown 6 saves, so the tides have turned. Overall, I don't think the Lidge/Bourn trade was too bad from the Astros' perspective. On the other hand, Jennings was a disaster in Houston, and yes, you're correct, Willy T, Hirsh, and Buchholz weren't very impressive with the Rockies. But, Taveras and Buchholz both made minor contributions to a World Series squad. Willy T hit leadoff, and hit .320 with an OPS of .748. He also stole 33 bases that year. I'd say he had an impact on a successful team. Yes, his numbers have declined drastically the past two seasons, but I'd still give the edge to the Rockies in that deal, considering Jennings was down right horrible in Houston.
Who are you to say with any certainty at all what a player can fetch on the trade market? They thought it would take Lidge about another half-season (exactly right) and that Dotel was a decent enough bridge. I'm not trying to talk down to you, but I've worked with the Astros -- I know this organization, and I know MLB, and the baseball world doesn't take this elementary-school attitude that you seem to think it does. Every general manager and owner has a definitive long-term plan. The Astros didn't trade Wagner because he threw out a little insult that hurt Drayton's feelings. They traded him because they had an extraordinarily cheap replacement (two, actually) waiting in the wings, and for a team without significant revenues, they figured that as a result, that $10m could be better spent elsewhere. This was a plan in motion for some time. Likewise, Drayton's not "scared" of spending on starting pitching. It's a matter of having available money/young talent coincide with the right market opportunity, like two veteran pitchers and best friends from the Houston area both becoming free agents in the 2003 offseason. When you aren't the Yankees or Red Sox, you can't just go out and buy a pitcher every deadline when you're close. It's much more complicated. Yes, I know there are other teams, such as the Phillies, that made deals (though they still have better revenues than the Astros). How'd they do it? Because they have an incredibly deep farm system, and they can trade a couple of good prospects without the entire system collapsing. Now, how did they get such a deep system? Because they didn't mortgage the farm every trade deadline to get that "one extra arm"! Patience is a virtue, and it's also a necessity to build any kind of baseball organization. What you're suggesting is a continuation of this patchwork approach the Astros have tried for years, and it's not the answer.
It always makes me laugh when amateurs spout off this line about how pitching wins titles. If this game really were that simple, do you really think all these multi-million dollar organizations (all of which would have their bottom lines boosted significantly by winning) couldn't figure it out? You, armchair couch Richard Justice-wannabe, know it, but guys that have studied the game of baseball for their entire lives can't? Pitching doesn't win championships. Hitting doesn't win championships. Defense doesn't win championships. Having a good team wins championships. That can come in many different forms. The Phillies last year had one stud starter but an incredibly deep offense, and went all the way. There's no magic formula. It's just put together the best overall team you can, get in the playoffs, and hope you get hot at the right time. As far as the Lee acquisition specifically, were you on this planet between 2004-06? The Astros had as much pitching as anyone. On the other hand, they couldn't hit to save their lives. The Astros offense, outside of Berkman, was a laughing stock for pundits everywhere. You know how you make the argument that one more arm could've made the difference in 03? You could make the same argument that one more bat could've made the difference in 06 -- i.e., if they made a midseason trade for Lee, the way the Rangers did. The Astros had an enormous hole in their lineup, and went and filled it. And as much as you and a couple of others like to complain about the pitching, the offense is still a bigger problem, even in this, the year of Ortiz/Hampton/Moehler.
