Post by: Fredia on March 25, 2006, 11:57:38 am
they have him on the dl list but he seems to be (in my opinion only)saying he knows its over
Post by: Nate in IA on March 25, 2006, 04:52:32 pm
I really do think this is the best thing that could have happened for both Jeff and the Astros. He's been one of my favorite players for his entire tenure with the Astros and I wish him the best. Hopefully he can be a great asset for the Astros in retirement.
Post by: astro pete on March 25, 2006, 05:04:44 pm
Quote:
So, this means the starting outfield will be Wilson, Taveraz, and Lane from left to right? I think that'll be one heck of an outfield.
I really do think this is the best thing that could have happened for both Jeff and the Astros. He's been one of my favorite players for his entire tenure with the Astros and I wish him the best. Hopefully he can be a great asset for the Astros in retirement.
Best thing that could have happened? WTF??
Post by: Nate in IA on March 25, 2006, 05:26:42 pm
Quote:Quote:
So, this means the starting outfield will be Wilson, Taveraz, and Lane from left to right? I think that'll be one heck of an outfield.
I really do think this is the best thing that could have happened for both Jeff and the Astros. He's been one of my favorite players for his entire tenure with the Astros and I wish him the best. Hopefully he can be a great asset for the Astros in retirement.
Best thing that could have happened? WTF??
Given the circumstances. Of course, in a fantasy world, Jeff would not have a degenerate shoulder and could play on. Given the description of what's left of his shoulder however, this is better for everyone involved. Do I really need to add the "in my opinion"?
Post by: CrawfordBoxes on March 25, 2006, 10:41:18 pm
Post by: OldBlevins on March 26, 2006, 12:01:37 am
Post by: No? in Austin on March 26, 2006, 11:49:20 pm
Quote:
So, this means the starting outfield will be Wilson, Taveraz, and Lane from left to right? I think that'll be one heck of an outfield.
Maybe not. They could leave Berkman in the outfield and start Eric Munson at first. That would be one heck of a lineup as well. As is, the fight for the #25 man just got a whole lot more innuresting.
Post by: Tralfaz on March 27, 2006, 12:17:22 am
Post by: No? in Austin on March 27, 2006, 12:19:19 am
Quote:
That sounds like a Sunday line-up Noe.
'Tis what I meant by my very last comment about the 25th man. I expect Berkman to get the lion share of 1st base duty, but you're going to see more of Munson at first to finish this spring than you probably will anyone else (other than Berkman that is).
Post by: Reuben on March 27, 2006, 03:01:04 am
Quote:Quote:
That sounds like a Sunday line-up Noe.
'Tis what I meant by my very last comment about the 25th man. I expect Berkman to get the lion share of 1st base duty, but you're going to see more of Munson at first to finish this spring than you probably will anyone else (other than Berkman that is).
Any chance they'll pick up Carlos Pena? He might be more valuable than Lamb at this point.
Post by: No? in Austin on March 27, 2006, 12:48:11 pm
Quote:
Any chance they'll pick up Carlos Pena? He might be more valuable than Lamb at this point.
Post by: Nate in IA on March 27, 2006, 12:49:27 pm
Quote:Quote:
That sounds like a Sunday line-up Noe.
'Tis what I meant by my very last comment about the 25th man. I expect Berkman to get the lion share of 1st base duty, but you're going to see more of Munson at first to finish this spring than you probably will anyone else (other than Berkman that is).
I think what I hear you saying is that Garner just got a whole lot more flexibility in his ability to put what he feels is the best team on the field on any given day. I do think the mainstay outfield will be Wilson, Taveraz, and Lane. However, as you point out, the 25th man now becomes very interesting indeed as it's the key to that flexibility.
I think Jeff Bagwell has been the heart and soul of the Houston Astros for a long time. I'm very sad to see him go and wish him the best. On the flip side, I'm pretty excited about this season and looking forward to how it all plays out.
Post by: Reuben on March 27, 2006, 01:04:23 pm
Quote:Quote:
Any chance they'll pick up Carlos Pena? He might be more valuable than Lamb at this point.
I don't see what's so confusing. Look at Lamb's stats and look at Pena's. Pena strikes out a whole lot more, but is 27 years old (Lamb's 31), a much better fielder, and had a terrific last couple months of 2005. If you place a high value on ST stats, then, well, probably neither should make the team.
Post by: astro pete on March 27, 2006, 01:10:38 pm
Quote:Quote:
So, this means the starting outfield will be Wilson, Taveraz, and Lane from left to right? I think that'll be one heck of an outfield.
Maybe not. They could leave Berkman in the outfield and start Eric Munson at first. That would be one heck of a lineup as well. As is, the fight for the #25 man just got a whole lot more innuresting.
That would put Taveras in Round Rock. But from what Garner has been saying, I'd think Munson is most likely to claim the back-up catcher's job. In that scenario, Quintero goes to AAA, Chavez and his son go through the waiver wire unclaimed, and Munson becomes the back-up catcher/back-up corner infielder. That gives Garner the flexibility to load the lineup with left-handed sluggers if he likes (ie-Munson to first, Berkman to left, Wilson to center), while also assuring Taveras lots of playing time in center.
Post by: pravata on March 27, 2006, 01:23:52 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Any chance they'll pick up Carlos Pena? He might be more valuable than Lamb at this point.
I don't see what's so confusing. Look at Lamb's stats and look at Pena's. Pena strikes out a whole lot more, but is 27 years old (Lamb's 31), a much better fielder, and had a terrific last couple months of 2005. If you place a high value on ST stats, then, well, probably neither should make the team.
Forget it, Pena's agent is Scott Boras.
Post by: Reuben on March 27, 2006, 01:27:33 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
Any chance they'll pick up Carlos Pena? He might be more valuable than Lamb at this point.
I don't see what's so confusing. Look at Lamb's stats and look at Pena's. Pena strikes out a whole lot more, but is 27 years old (Lamb's 31), a much better fielder, and had a terrific last couple months of 2005. If you place a high value on ST stats, then, well, probably neither should make the team.
Forget it, Pena's agent is Scott Boras.
Is there a post-Beltran Boras boycott?
Post by: pravata on March 27, 2006, 01:31:32 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
Any chance they'll pick up Carlos Pena? He might be more valuable than Lamb at this point.
I don't see what's so confusing. Look at Lamb's stats and look at Pena's. Pena strikes out a whole lot more, but is 27 years old (Lamb's 31), a much better fielder, and had a terrific last couple months of 2005. If you place a high value on ST stats, then, well, probably neither should make the team.
Forget it, Pena's agent is Scott Boras.
Is there a post-Beltran Boras boycott?
Don't know, but I'd be surprised if Mclane wants to negotiate with him again. Anyway, Boras is likely to ask for something ridiculous.
Post by: Matt on March 27, 2006, 02:00:37 pm
Post by: Reuben on March 27, 2006, 02:16:30 pm
Quote:
Did Taveras add a Z to his name to come off as more hip and extreme? I must have missed that Comical article.
Maybe to also tie in with the "buzzz" theme. Auzmuzzz. Enzzzberg. Quallz. Ozzzwalt. Jazon Lane. Think of the marketing potential! It'd be eXtreme-ly profitable!
Post by: VirtualBob on March 27, 2006, 02:26:01 pm
Quote:Quote:
Did Taveras add a Z to his name to come off as more hip and extreme? I must have missed that Comical article.
Maybe to also tie in with the "buzzz" theme. Auzmuzzz. Enzzzberg. Quallz. Ozzzwalt. Jazon Lane. Think of the marketing potential! It'd be eXtreme-ly profitable!
Ahem .... that would be 'egzzztremely profitable', wouldn't it?
Post by: Nate in IA on March 27, 2006, 02:43:38 pm
Quote:
Did Taveras add a Z to his name to come off as more hip and extreme? I must have missed that Comical article.
No, I just screwed up when I typed it. Mea culpa. It won't happen again.
Post by: No? in Austin on March 27, 2006, 03:05:54 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Any chance they'll pick up Carlos Pena? He might be more valuable than Lamb at this point.
I don't see what's so confusing. Look at Lamb's stats and look at Pena's. Pena strikes out a whole lot more, but is 27 years old (Lamb's 31), a much better fielder, and had a terrific last couple months of 2005. If you place a high value on ST stats, then, well, probably neither should make the team.
I didn't know the Astros were persuing Pena. 'Tis why I'm confused where this semi-random "How About Carlos Pena" thought bubble came from.
Post by: Matt on March 27, 2006, 03:15:39 pm
Quote:
No, I just screwed up when I typed it. Mea culpa. It won't happen again.
haha I know I was just poking fun at all the media types that mispronounce Taveras all the time.
Post by: Reuben on March 27, 2006, 04:32:00 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
Any chance they'll pick up Carlos Pena? He might be more valuable than Lamb at this point.
I don't see what's so confusing. Look at Lamb's stats and look at Pena's. Pena strikes out a whole lot more, but is 27 years old (Lamb's 31), a much better fielder, and had a terrific last couple months of 2005. If you place a high value on ST stats, then, well, probably neither should make the team.
I didn't know the Astros were persuing Pena. 'Tis why I'm confused where this semi-random "How About Carlos Pena" thought bubble came from.
No, sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were- I mentioned it now because he was just released, and has good LH power and good defense, while Bagwell just went on the DL. As Pravata mentioned, he's a Boras guy, but if they could nab him for $1 mil or so, might be worth a shot.
Post by: No? in Austin on March 27, 2006, 04:38:15 pm
Quote:
I mentioned it now because he was just released...
Why was he released? And why is Mike Lamb expendable now because of it?
Post by: Reuben on March 27, 2006, 04:46:17 pm
Quote:Quote:
I mentioned it now because he was just released...
Why was he released? And why is Mike Lamb expendable now because of it?
It appears he was released because a) he's hit .160 this ST, and b) the Tigers didn't want to pay his $2.8 mil salary. They're putting Shelton and Young at 1B/DH. I stated above why he might be better than Lamb; I couldn't see them carrying both, though.
Post by: Reuben on March 27, 2006, 04:49:42 pm
"If he would've hit like he hit the last six weeks of the season, we would've found a spot for him," Tigers president and general manager Dave Dombrowski said
Post by: No? in Austin on March 27, 2006, 04:59:41 pm
Quote:
Pena does not have a quick bat. There were times last season when he could not handle even an average major league fastball thrown over the heart of the plate.
Mike Lamb has a very quick bat and can hit an above average major league fastball. I don't see where Pena's profile makes him a good fit to be a bench guy, especially enough to get rid of a top-notch bench player like Lamb.
Post by: Reuben on March 27, 2006, 06:47:59 pm
Quote:
ESPN Scouting Report on Carlos PenaQuote:
Pena does not have a quick bat. There were times last season when he could not handle even an average major league fastball thrown over the heart of the plate.
Mike Lamb has a very quick bat and can hit an above average major league fastball. I don't see where Pena's profile makes him a good fit to be a bench guy, especially enough to get rid of a top-notch bench player like Lamb.
I agree that if you base a comparison entirely on ESPN's year-old scouting report, and ignore their career stats, Lamb is a much better option.
Post by: No? in Austin on March 27, 2006, 08:05:56 pm
Quote:
I agree that if you base a comparison entirely on ESPN's year-old scouting report, and ignore their career stats, Lamb is a much better option.
Meaning what? That you would dispatch a very good contributor to your bench for the bird in the bush *based* on career stats? Why? Because you're bored? Do you even *watch* the Astros play?
Post by: Arky Vaughan on March 27, 2006, 09:25:45 pm
Quote:Quote:
ESPN Scouting Report on Carlos PenaQuote:
Pena does not have a quick bat. There were times last season when he could not handle even an average major league fastball thrown over the heart of the plate.
Mike Lamb has a very quick bat and can hit an above average major league fastball. I don't see where Pena's profile makes him a good fit to be a bench guy, especially enough to get rid of a top-notch bench player like Lamb.
I agree that if you base a comparison entirely on ESPN's year-old scouting report, and ignore their career stats, Lamb is a much better option.
Since Lamb is signed for $1.3 million, discussing releasing him is probably a waste of time.
Post by: astro pete on March 27, 2006, 09:46:22 pm
Quote:
Since Lamb is signed for $1.3 million, discussing releasing him is probably a waste of time.
Agree, except I would have added the words, "the bargain price of" before "$1.3 million."
Post by: Reuben on March 28, 2006, 03:04:56 am
Quote:Quote:
I agree that if you base a comparison entirely on ESPN's year-old scouting report, and ignore their career stats, Lamb is a much better option.
Meaning what? That you would dispatch a very good contributor to your bench for the bird in the bush *based* on career stats? Why? Because you're bored? Do you even *watch* the Astros play?
Dude, why are you getting so angry about this? It's not a big deal. I simply posed the question: "Any chance they'll pick up Carlos Pena? He might be more valuable than Lamb at this point." Then I answered your subsequent questions. I'm not saying Mike Lamb sucks, I simply wondered aloud about this minor issue, then I presented facts showing why it might be worth considering. Is it really that infuriating to suggest that a guy, only 27, who could turn out to be a very useful full-time player, might at least be worth a thought? Is it worth getting so worked up over that you throw the "Do you even *watch* the Astros play?" at me?
Post by: CJM on March 28, 2006, 03:30:27 am
Quote:Quote:Quote:
I agree that if you base a comparison entirely on ESPN's year-old scouting report, and ignore their career stats, Lamb is a much better option.
Meaning what? That you would dispatch a very good contributor to your bench for the bird in the bush *based* on career stats? Why? Because you're bored? Do you even *watch* the Astros play?
Dude, why are you getting so angry about this? It's not a big deal. I simply posed the question: "Any chance they'll pick up Carlos Pena? He might be more valuable than Lamb at this point." Then I answered your subsequent questions. I'm not saying Mike Lamb sucks, I simply wondered aloud about this minor issue, then I presented facts showing why it might be worth considering. Is it really that infuriating to suggest that a guy, only 27, who could turn out to be a very useful full-time player, might at least be worth a thought? Is it worth getting so worked up over that you throw the "Do you even *watch* the Astros play?" at me?
Your "facts" made no baseball sense.
Post by: Andyzipp on March 28, 2006, 10:21:46 am
Post by: astro pete on March 28, 2006, 10:26:43 am
Quote:
Your "facts" made no baseball sense.
Sure they did. What they didn't do was paint the whole picture. That's where the disagreement began.
Post by: Limey on March 28, 2006, 11:21:40 am
Quote:
Without the vitrol, Pena has not been good in either of his major league stops. Personally, not sure how playing part time is going to make him better.
Easy. You leave him on the bench for those ABs where he'd make outs, and only send him up when he's going to get a hit.
Post by: No? in Austin on March 28, 2006, 12:44:42 pm
Quote:
Dude, why are you getting so angry about this?
I'm not angry, just confused why Carlos Pena for Mike Lamb came up.
Quote:
It's not a big deal.
I agree, so why do you think I'm angry about it?
Quote:
I simply posed the question: "Any chance they'll pick up Carlos Pena? He might be more valuable than Lamb at this point."
And why I asked why he was released if he had value. I wondered if maybe Pena had a flaw in his game that made him expendable. Hitting .190 in spring training is not necessarily a reason a major league talent gets released from a team. Especially if we're talking Jim Leyland as the manager of said team.
Quote:
Then I answered your subsequent questions. I'm not saying Mike Lamb sucks,
Then why get rid of him? See my confusion?
Quote:
I simply wondered aloud about this minor issue, then I presented facts showing why it might be worth considering.
Using stats in a vacuum is not using facts as much as using observation coupled with stats. Someone will take a chance on Pena for sure, but to get *rid* of a player to make room for him, especially a very good contributor to your team is puzzling.
Quote:
Is it really that infuriating to suggest that a guy, only 27, who could turn out to be a very useful full-time player, might at least be worth a thought?
No, hence why I asked for the clarification. What do you want me to do, fawn all over your suggestion and declare you the smartest poster in the TZ? I can you know, if that is what you want. I merely put forth the scouting report that Pena, who *again* was *released by the Detroit Tigers* has some precievable flaws (a bat that is not quick enough to catch up with a mediocre major league fastball is damning). To go with your facts. I answered as kindly as I could, you came back with your own remarks to totally discount what I said, so I asked what you may mean by those remarks.
Quote:
Is it worth getting so worked up over that you throw the "Do you even *watch* the Astros play?" at me?
It is an honest question, not an indictment.
Post by: No? in Austin on March 28, 2006, 12:48:58 pm
Quote:
Without the vitrol, Pena has not been good in either of his major league stops. Personally, not sure how playing part time is going to make him better.
And to give him that part time job, you get rid of Mike Lamb? Like I said, very confusing train of thought, to me any way.
Post by: CJM on March 28, 2006, 01:05:26 pm
Quote:Quote:
Your "facts" made no baseball sense.
Sure they did. What they didn't do was paint the whole picture. That's where the disagreement began.
The disagreement began because it made no sense (still doesn't).
Where does somebody come up with that kind of shit (Pena in place of Lamb)?
Post by: astro pete on March 28, 2006, 01:26:36 pm
Quote:
The disagreement began because it made no sense (still doesn't).
Where does somebody come up with that kind of shit (Pena in place of Lamb)?
You said his facts were not baseball related, but they were. He came up with "that kind of shit" by looking entirely at statistics. You and I may disagree with his proposal, but it wasn't as though he reached into his ass and threw out some entirely unrelated material to support his assertion.
Post by: Ty in Tampa on March 28, 2006, 02:03:22 pm
Post by: astro pete on March 28, 2006, 02:10:45 pm
Quote:
Arguing about an argument. Well done.
About as impressive as jumping on a guy for throwing out an idea the week before Opening Day, I suppose.
Post by: No? in Austin on March 28, 2006, 02:35:20 pm
Quote:Quote:
Arguing about an argument. Well done.
About as impressive as jumping on a guy for throwing out an idea the week before Opening Day, I suppose.
Jumping on a guy? OMG! Why don't we all just wear skirts and prance around like Kansas City fa... oh nevermind. *sheesh* You and Reuben friends?
Post by: astro pete on March 28, 2006, 02:46:35 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Arguing about an argument. Well done.
About as impressive as jumping on a guy for throwing out an idea the week before Opening Day, I suppose.
Jumping on a guy? OMG! Why don't we all just wear skirts and prance around like Kansas City fa... oh nevermind. *sheesh* You and Reuben friends?
I wasn't talking about you.
Post by: No? in Austin on March 28, 2006, 02:47:32 pm
Quote:
I wasn't talking about you.
Still, are you and Reuben friends?
Post by: astro pete on March 28, 2006, 02:48:22 pm
Quote:Quote:
I wasn't talking about you.
Still, are you and Reuben friends?
Not that I'm aware of.
Post by: No? in Austin on March 28, 2006, 02:56:37 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
I wasn't talking about you.
Still, are you and Reuben friends?
Not that I'm aware of.
Cool. Thanks.
Post by: homer on March 28, 2006, 03:23:07 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
Arguing about an argument. Well done.
About as impressive as jumping on a guy for throwing out an idea the week before Opening Day, I suppose.
Jumping on a guy? OMG! Why don't we all just wear skirts and prance around like Kansas City fa... oh nevermind. *sheesh* You and Reuben friends?
I wasn't talking about you.
Who were you talking about?
Post by: astro pete on March 28, 2006, 03:40:27 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
Arguing about an argument. Well done.
About as impressive as jumping on a guy for throwing out an idea the week before Opening Day, I suppose.
Jumping on a guy? OMG! Why don't we all just wear skirts and prance around like Kansas City fa... oh nevermind. *sheesh* You and Reuben friends?
I wasn't talking about you.
Who were you talking about?
The person with whom I was directly corresponding.
Post by: CJM on March 28, 2006, 03:56:34 pm
Quote:Quote:
The disagreement began because it made no sense (still doesn't).
Where does somebody come up with that kind of shit (Pena in place of Lamb)?
You said his facts were not baseball related, but they were. He came up with "that kind of shit" by looking entirely at statistics. You and I may disagree with his proposal, but it wasn't as though he reached into his ass and threw out some entirely unrelated material to support his assertion.
I said his facts made no baseball sense. Didn't say anything about them not being baseball related.
Post by: CJM on March 28, 2006, 04:05:45 pm
Quote:Quote:
Arguing about an argument. Well done.
About as impressive as jumping on a guy for throwing out an idea the week before Opening Day, I suppose.
You don't see the difference between jumping on a guy and calling out a stupid idea?
Post by: astro pete on March 28, 2006, 04:06:00 pm
Quote:
I said his facts made no baseball sense. Didn't say anything about them not being baseball related.
You mean his "facts"??
Post by: Reuben on March 28, 2006, 10:41:45 pm
Quote:Quote:
Is it worth getting so worked up over that you throw the "Do you even *watch* the Astros play?" at me?
It is an honest question, not an indictment.
It's sometimes tough to tell from text what someone's tone is. It seemed like you were upset and "Do you even *watch* the Astros play?" in that context seemed a tad disrespectful or accusatory.
I certainly don't expect anybody to "fawn over" my comments or questions, just disagree respectfully or sarcastically. I apologize if any of my responses to you seemed disrespectful.
Anyway, others have pointed out why it wasn't the greatest suggestion, aside from the "who's better" argument: Pena has Boras for an agent, and Lamb is owed $1.3 mil- in January perhaps a trade would've been a realistic option, but probably not now. Any upgrade Pena might present over Lamb would probably not be worth the trouble at this point.
By the way, I watch the Astros play whenever I can. Around here, their televised playoff games far outnumber their televised regular-season games, though. I freely admit that most others on here are far more familiar with the guys on the team than I am for this reason (and others).
Post by: No? in Austin on March 29, 2006, 11:17:57 am
Quote:
It's sometimes tough to tell from text what someone's tone is. It seemed like you were upset and "Do you even *watch* the Astros play?" in that context seemed a tad disrespectful or accusatory.
If you and I were at a ballgame and I asked that of you, we both would be probably laughing at the time.
Quote:
I certainly don't expect anybody to "fawn over" my comments or questions, just disagree respectfully or sarcastically. I apologize if any of my responses to you seemed disrespectful.
Not necessarily disrespectful, but I did feel you brushed aside the scouting report just a tad too quickly.
Quote:
Anyway, others have pointed out why it wasn't the greatest suggestion, aside from the "who's better" argument: Pena has Boras for an agent, and Lamb is owed $1.3 mil- in January perhaps a trade would've been a realistic option, but probably not now. Any upgrade Pena might present over Lamb would probably not be worth the trouble at this point.
I don't understand fully what you're saying here, but Pena has some problems that are baseball related if the word out on him is a lack of a quick bat. Losing bat speed is not a good thing. His options diminish exponentially because of it. So it seems that Pena could land a major league gig with a team that has nothing to lose in giving him a chance. As far as the Astros are concerned, they would probably be best to offer Pena (if they're inclined to do so) a minor league, make good gig like the one Kevin Orie and Eric Munson (and JR House) signed. I most certainly would not agree with giving Pena a major league gig right now and getting rid of Mike Lamb (which is ultimately what you asked my opinion about)
Quote:
By the way, I watch the Astros play whenever I can. Around here, their televised playoff games far outnumber their televised regular-season games, though. I freely admit that most others on here are far more familiar with the guys on the team than I am for this reason (and others).
Cool.
Post by: JimR on March 29, 2006, 11:31:17 am
thin skins have no place here.
Post by: S.P. Rodriguez on March 29, 2006, 11:42:18 am
Quote:
WFW
thin skins have no place here.
It sounds like you could use a hug!
Post by: homer on March 29, 2006, 11:45:03 am
Quote:Quote:
WFW
thin skins have no place here.
It sounds like you could use a hug!
Peter Gibbons: When you come in on Monday and you're not feeling real well, does anyone ever say to you, "Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays?"
Lawrence: Shit, no man. I believe you'd get your ass kicked saying something like that, man.