Rox take shot on Willie T

[Mr. Happy]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=3059788


I'm happy for him. Some moves work; some don't.

[Savage]

Looks like a good bet to have made right now.  Great catch. 

[HurricaneDavid]

Couldn't be happier for him.  As much as I'm rooting for the DBacks, it's great to see HIM be the difference in the game.  Way to step up, and great work by Hurdle to trust speed now.

[Mr. Happy]

Couldn't be happier for him.  As much as I'm rooting for the DBacks, it's great to see HIM be the difference in the game.  Way to step up, and great work by Hurdle to trust speed now.

Great ink for Willie T. I'm jazzed for him.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071013&content_id=2263992&vkey=ps2007news&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

[austro]

I'm thinking that Willy T bringing in the winning run on a bases-loaded WALK is a sign that this Rockies team is pre-ordained for greatness.

[otterjb]

Now that hindsight is 20/20 it's crystal just how bad that trade really was.

[Mr. Happy]

Now that hindsight is 20/20 it's crystal just how bad that trade really was.

But had Jennings pitched the whole season like he pitched his first three starts, it wouldn't look bad. We'd have won the division. I know, if my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt.

[pravata]

But had Jennings pitched the whole season like he pitched his first three starts, it wouldn't look bad. We'd have won the division. I know, if my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt.

It's a distinction that is difficult to understand for some people.  The trade was a decent one, the overpaying in players was due to market factors.  It was the outcome that was bad.   Naturally no one now recalls the complaints about Taveras while he was an Astro.

[Reuben]

It's a distinction that is difficult to understand for some people.  The trade was a decent one, the overpaying in players was due to market factors.  It was the outcome that was bad.   Naturally no one now recalls the complaints about Taveras while he was an Astro.

True, too bad though that the throw-in was named Miguel and not Ubaldo.

[otterjb]

It's a distinction that is difficult to understand for some people.  The trade was a decent one, the overpaying in players was due to market factors.  It was the outcome that was bad.   Naturally no one now recalls the complaints about Taveras while he was an Astro.

How can a trade whose outcome was bad be considered decent? Using that logic they're be no such thing as a bad trade.

[Bench]

How can a trade whose outcome was bad be considered decent? Using that logic they're be no such thing as a bad trade.

You've got to be kidding.

[pravata]

How can a trade whose outcome was bad be considered decent? Using that logic they're be no such thing as a bad trade.

I'm not qualified to address trades in general, nor all past and future trades.  The intent of this trade was to get a decent pitcher with a history of throwing a lot of innings.  The Astros, due to the preferences of their fans, and owner, are in a win now mode.  Jennings was available and 5 or 6 other teams were bidding for him.  Other comparable, and lesser pitchers, were getting huge free agent contracts.  The Astros gave up players they thought they had replacements for for one they thought they did not. 

The general consensus was that if Jennings pitched as he had in the past, the trade would have been fair, for both sides.  Unfortunately Jennings either injured himself or made a pre-existing condition worse and did not pitch as he had in the past.   Furthermore, Chris Burke did not play, specifically, hit, as he had in the past. 

[Mr. Happy]

I'm not qualified to address trades in general, nor all past and future trades.  The intent of this trade was to get a decent pitcher with a history of throwing a lot of innings.  The Astros, due to the preferences of their fans, and owner, are in a win now mode.  Jennings was available and 5 or 6 other teams were bidding for him.  Other comparable, and lesser pitchers, were getting huge free agent contracts.  The Astros gave up players they thought they had replacements for for one they thought they did not. 

The general consensus was that if Jennings pitched as he had in the past, the trade would have been fair, for both sides.  Unfortunately Jennings either injured himself or made a pre-existing condition worse and did not pitch as he had in the past.   Furthermore, Chris Burke did not play, specifically, hit, as he had in the past. 

Spot on. You can throw the book out on trade evaluations when a player gets hurt.

[otterjb]

You've got to be kidding.

It's more pragmatic to view trades through their results in reality. Woulda, coulda, shoulda gets GM's fired.

[Bench]

It's more pragmatic to view trades through their results in reality. Woulda, coulda, shoulda gets GM's fired.

Again, part of me is convinced you're being sarcastic. Why is it "pragmatic" to view a decision making process by only taking into account things that are beyond the decision maker's control? What type of "reality" presumes that Purpura knew Jennings wouldn't pitch much this season when he made the trade?

[JimR]

Now that hindsight is 20/20 it's crystal just how bad that trade really was.

nope. what was bad is that Jennings got hurt.

[otterjb]

Again, part of me is convinced you're being sarcastic. Why is it "pragmatic" to view a decision making process by only taking into account things that are beyond the decision maker's control? What type of "reality" presumes that Purpura knew Jennings wouldn't pitch much this season when he made the trade?

My point is that it was a bad trade. Was it a good trade when it was made? Maybe, maybe not, but at this point in time, it has turned out, unequivacably to have been a bad trade, one of the reasons why Purpura is no longer the Astros GM. That's the reality.

[JimR]

My point is that it was a bad trade. Was it a good trade when it was made? Maybe, maybe not, but at this point in time, it has turned out, unequivacably to have been a bad trade, one of the reasons why Purpura is no longer the Astros GM. That's the reality.

no, that's your spin.

my point is that it was not a bad trade. the injury was bad.

[Mr. Happy]

no, that's your spin.

my point is that it was not a bad trade. the injury was bad.

Jim:

You're absolutely correct. Had Jennings won 12-15 games this year, the same so-called experts would have pronounced the trade a success. Injuries happen and can't affect trades fairly.

[SaltyParker]

My point is that it was a bad trade. Was it a good trade when it was made? Maybe, maybe not, but at this point in time, it has turned out, unequivacably to have been a bad trade, one of the reasons why Purpura is no longer the Astros GM. That's the reality.

Absolutely correct, and not a good trade when it was made as we simply gave too much up.

[Mr. Happy]

Absolutely correct, and not a good trade when it was made as we simply gave too much up.

How do you measure what is given up, by the numbers of players involved? Hirsh 5-7 4.81 and ended up on 60 day DL; Buchholz 6-5 4.23. Taveras .320 2 24. Pence/Anderson outproduced Taveras. Hirsh might not have even been in the rotation and Buchholz probably wouldn't have even made the 25 man. What are you thinking about?

[JimR]

Absolutely correct, and not a good trade when it was made as we simply gave too much up.

this is total bullshit.

[pravata]

Absolutely correct, and not a good trade when it was made as we simply gave too much up.

The problem was that other teams were also bidding for Jennings.  We don't know what they were offering, but when you look at what free agent pitchers were getting, it was probably alot.  They wanted Jennings, they offered only enough to get him.  Again, the Astros traded players they thought they had replacements for for a player they thought they had no similar player.

[SaltyParker]

Certainly if you go by numbers, the trade is a disaster. Buchholtz and Hirsh pitched 200 innings between them with a composite record far better then Jennings. I am simply of the opinion that we could have received more then Jennings for these 3 players. Never mind the difference in payroll and that the 07 Astro's needed a true CF'er to play in MMP. I don't see any measure that indicates this was a good trade. I know that there is an opinion out there that this was market value for Jennings but so what. The deal was done too hastily after the Garland deal fell through.
Take a look at Asencio's record. I was stunned when I realized this guy was under contract for $550K. Even if you want to accept the trade for Jennings I think I would just pass on Asencio being thrown in. But in typical Pupura style, the problem was compounded by failing to deal with the fact that Asencio needed to be cut instead of retained on the 40 man roster. Placed in RR, then demoted to CC. Bottom line is that Colorado cleaned up.

[MusicMan]

I am simply of the opinion that we could have received more then Jennings for these 3 players.

This is an excellent point.  For example, look at the pitchers with better track records than Jennings that were traded for less than the Astros sent:

[crickets chirping]

[pravata]

Certainly if you go by numbers, the trade is a disaster. Buchholtz and Hirsh pitched 200 innings between them with a composite record far better then Jennings. I am simply of the opinion that we could have received more then Jennings for these 3 players. Never mind the difference in payroll and that the 07 Astro's needed a true CF'er to play in MMP. I don't see any measure that indicates this was a good trade. I know that there is an opinion out there that this was market value for Jennings but so what. The deal was done too hastily after the Garland deal fell through.
Take a look at Asencio's record. I was stunned when I realized this guy was under contract for $550K. Even if you want to accept the trade for Jennings I think I would just pass on Asencio being thrown in. But in typical Pupura style, the problem was compounded by failing to deal with the fact that Asencio needed to be cut instead of retained on the 40 man roster. Placed in RR, then demoted to CC. Bottom line is that Colorado cleaned up.

200 innings from [two pitchers] is different than 200 from one.  Are you suggesting Buchholz in the Astros rotation?  He didnt make the Rockies rotation.  Your opinion about what the Astros could have received is pure speculation and irrelevatnt.  Jennings was a hot commodity in the off season and we have no idea how close other teams were to making a trade.  Ascencio is a non-issue.  Complete throw in.  Bottom line, the intent of the trade has nothing to do with the outcome. 

[SaltyParker]

The problem was that other teams were also bidding for Jennings.  We don't know what they were offering, but when you look at what free agent pitchers were getting, it was probably alot.  They wanted Jennings, they offered only enough to get him.  Again, the Astros traded players they thought they had replacements for for a player they thought they had no similar player.

I understand the logic of the trade, I just felt that T-Purp pulled the trigger without properly vetting possible
results. There was never anything to indicate that Burke would succeed in CF. MMP is a field that places a high value on a quality CF'er. Pettitte and Garland falling through, I believe that TPurp panicked. Payroll considerations alone make the trade look pretty weak for the Astro's.

[Mr. Happy]

Certainly if you go by numbers, the trade is a disaster. Buchholtz and Hirsh pitched 200 innings between them with a composite record far better then Jennings. I am simply of the opinion that we could have received more then Jennings for these 3 players. Never mind the difference in payroll and that the 07 Astro's needed a true CF'er to play in MMP. I don't see any measure that indicates this was a good trade. I know that there is an opinion out there that this was market value for Jennings but so what. The deal was done too hastily after the Garland deal fell through.
Take a look at Asencio's record. I was stunned when I realized this guy was under contract for $550K. Even if you want to accept the trade for Jennings I think I would just pass on Asencio being thrown in. But in typical Pupura style, the problem was compounded by failing to deal with the fact that Asencio needed to be cut instead of retained on the 40 man roster. Placed in RR, then demoted to CC. Bottom line is that Colorado cleaned up.

I am flummoxed as to whether your analysis is a bigger disaster than the trade you claim was a disaster. Total, unadulterated horseshit. Read more post less.

[pravata]

I understand the logic of the trade, I just felt that T-Purp pulled the trigger without properly vetting possible
results. There was never anything to indicate that Burke would succeed in CF. MMP is a field that places a high value on a quality CF'er. Pettitte and Garland falling through, I believe that TPurp panicked. Payroll considerations alone make the trade look pretty weak for the Astro's.

Burke played over a month in centerfield in 06 and was passable.  There was no reason to think he'd be worse.  I've detailed where I thought Purpura panicked (Lidge and Burke/Pence) but I thought the Jennings trade was a clear calculation of replaceable resources for a player the Astros did not have.  As for payroll, they were figuring in the anticipation of signing Jennings to a free agent contract after a successfull season in Houston

[Mr. Happy]

Burke played over a month in centerfield in 06 and was passable.  There was no reason to think he'd be worse.  I've detailed where I thought Purpura panicked (Lidge and Burke/Pence) but I thought the Jennings trade was a clear calculation of replaceable resources for a player the Astros did not have.  As for payroll, they were figuring in the anticipation of signing Jennings to a free agent contract after a successfull season in Houston

Prav:

I think that we've reached the point of no return with this Clarkie. He apparently is a myopic rotogeek who employs 20/20 hindsight without considering the future years of the club, or much of reality for that matter.

[pravata]

Prav:

I think that we've reached the point of no return with this Clarkie. He apparently is a myopic rotogeek who employs 20/20 hindsight without considering the future years of the club, or much of reality for that matter.

Fucking idiot really.  But, it's OWA, not Richard Justice's blog.  Bullshit will not pass.

[SaltyParker]

Fucking idiot really. 

In hindsight I think it was a bad trade. In hindsight you think it was a good trade. Seems like a simple difference of opinion, but if that warrants being called a fucking idiot then so be it.

[pravata]

In hindsight I think it was a bad trade. In hindsight you think it was a good trade. Seems like a simple difference of opinion, but if that warrants being called a fucking idiot then so be it.

You're not getting it.  "In hindsight" I'm not the kind of an asshole to have an opinion.  I understand and appreciate why they made (had to make) the trade in the first place.

[Mr. Happy]

In hindsight I think it was a bad trade. In hindsight you think it was a good trade. Seems like a simple difference of opinion, but if that warrants being called a fucking idiot then so be it.

It's not your opinion that garnered you the fucking idiot monicre, it was your rationale for your opinion, which was devoid of facts and failed to consider significant other factors.

Take my advice: read more; research; post less. I never make a statement on here that isn't backed up now with a website or other stat. The people on this board are fucking brilliant baseball people. I am convinced that a few of them are good enough to be professionals in that field if they so desired. My respect for the acumen of the readers of OWA requires me to edit a lot before I hit post. Now, as some of the old-timers will tell you, I haven't always been that way. Back when I was an active alcoholic and drug addict, I'd sometimes go off of the reservation. Raup was amazing because every time I posted high, he asked me if I'd been drinking. I'd like to think that sobriety has improved me as a human being.

[Gizzmonic]

Why was the trade a bad one?

Tavares is a legit defensive center fielder, which the Astros badly need at MMPUS.  Tavares also makes a lot less and has a longer term deal.  Burke cannot play CF regularly.  The Astros abandoned their defense first mindset to make this trade, hoping that Burke's hitting would make up for his shoddy CF defense.  From what I saw of Hirsch and Jennings, I thought Hirsch would be nearly as good as Jennings in '07.  I don't think trading for someone who puts up nearly the same numbers, but makes several times as much and has a much shorter term contract is a good deal (but no one would mistake me for a GM).

That is why some of us opposed the trade when it was made.  The Astros rationale: they were hoping, based on Jennings' past, to get plenty of innings and a lower ERA (based on the 2nd half of '06 and his move from Coors to MMPUS).  Perhaps he would have if he stayed healthy.  I don't think so myself, but plenty of people with MLB front office jobs did, which drove up Jennings' price.  Hirsch had no track record and they did not feel comfortable going into '07 without a number 2 starter who could stay in games and eat up innings.

So you see, it is possible to have opposed this trade without the benefit of hindsight.  But those who opposed the trade will never have the full season of a healthy Jennings (or a full season of healthy Hirsch, for that matter) to truly compare performance.  Personally, I think arguing the counterfactual (that Jennings would have been in line with his career numbers had he not gotten hurt) is as much of a cop-out as arguing that the trade is bad simply because he got hurt.  The fact is, we can't know what would have happened.

It's not your opinion that garnered you the fucking idiot monicre, it was your rationale for your opinion, which was devoid of facts and failed to consider significant other factors.

Take my advice: read more; research; post less. I never make a statement on here that isn't backed up now with a website or other stat. The people on this board are fucking brilliant baseball people. I am convinced that a few of them are good enough to be professionals in that field if they so desired. My respect for the acumen of the readers of OWA requires me to edit a lot before I hit post. Now, as some of the old-timers will tell you, I haven't always been that way. Back when I was an active alcoholic and drug addict, I'd sometimes go off of the reservation. Raup was amazing because every time I posted high, he asked me if I'd been drinking. I'd like to think that sobriety has improved me as a human being.

[pravata]

Why was the trade a bad one?

Tavares is a legit defensive center fielder, which the Astros badly need at MMPUS.  Tavares also makes a lot less and has a longer term deal.  Burke cannot play CF regularly.  The Astros abandoned their defense first mindset to make this trade, hoping that Burke's hitting would make up for his shoddy CF defense.  From what I saw of Hirsch and Jennings, I thought Hirsch would be nearly as good as Jennings in '07.  I don't think trading for someone who puts up nearly the same numbers, but makes several times as much and has a much shorter term contract is a good deal (but no one would mistake me for a GM).

That is why some of us opposed the trade when it was made.  The Astros rationale: they were hoping, based on Jennings' past, to get plenty of innings and a lower ERA (based on the 2nd half of '06 and his move from Coors to MMPUS).  Perhaps he would have if he stayed healthy.  I don't think so myself, but plenty of people with MLB front office jobs did, which drove up Jennings' price.  Hirsch had no track record and they did not feel comfortable going into '07 without a number 2 starter who could stay in games and eat up innings.

So you see, it is possible to have opposed this trade without the benefit of hindsight.  But those who opposed the trade will never have the full season of a healthy Jennings (or a full season of healthy Hirsch, for that matter) to truly compare performance.  Personally, I think arguing the counterfactual (that Jennings would have been in line with his career numbers had he not gotten hurt) is as much of a cop-out as arguing that the trade is bad simply because he got hurt.  The fact is, we can't know what would have happened.

The potential full season of performance in 2008 was irrelevant to the trade when it was made.  The Astros were simply counting on Jennings doing what he had done in every season he had pitched.  How is that a "cop out"?  In addition to Hirsh's inconsistency on the field, there were questions about his attitude off the field.   As for Burke, he played ok in center in 06, looked completely different in 07.  And adding offense was the Astros stated number 1 goal at the beginning of 07.  You can say you disagree with the trade, but unless you are of the opinion that everything you disagree with is bad, you can't say that it was a bad trade. 

[JimR]

Why was the trade a bad one?

Tavares is a legit defensive center fielder, which the Astros badly need at MMPUS.  Tavares also makes a lot less and has a longer term deal.  Burke cannot play CF regularly.  The Astros abandoned their defense first mindset to make this trade, hoping that Burke's hitting would make up for his shoddy CF defense.  From what I saw of Hirsch and Jennings, I thought Hirsch would be nearly as good as Jennings in '07.  I don't think trading for someone who puts up nearly the same numbers, but makes several times as much and has a much shorter term contract is a good deal (but no one would mistake me for a GM).

That is why some of us opposed the trade when it was made.  The Astros rationale: they were hoping, based on Jennings' past, to get plenty of innings and a lower ERA (based on the 2nd half of '06 and his move from Coors to MMPUS).  Perhaps he would have if he stayed healthy.  I don't think so myself, but plenty of people with MLB front office jobs did, which drove up Jennings' price.  Hirsch had no track record and they did not feel comfortable going into '07 without a number 2 starter who could stay in games and eat up innings.

So you see, it is possible to have opposed this trade without the benefit of hindsight.  But those who opposed the trade will never have the full season of a healthy Jennings (or a full season of healthy Hirsch, for that matter) to truly compare performance.  Personally, I think arguing the counterfactual (that Jennings would have been in line with his career numbers had he not gotten hurt) is as much of a cop-out as arguing that the trade is bad simply because he got hurt.  The fact is, we can't know what would have happened.

revisionism.

WT fell into disfavor with the Astros for his defense (he was benched for Burke), and Burke's defense in OF was far from "shoddy."

from what i saw of Hirsch (lots of games in RR), i did not mind losing him.

[tophfar]

Why was the trade a bad one?

Tavares is a legit defensive center fielder, which the Astros badly need at MMPUS.  Tavares also makes a lot less and has a longer term deal.  Burke cannot play CF regularly. 

I would also like to throw in, that from what I understood the thinking at the time, was that Burke was never considered as a long term solution in CF.  So the comparisons of Willy to Burke as a career CFer isn't applicable.

He was only to a be a stop gap until they felt that Pence was ready.  In their view, it was Pence that made Willy expendable, and not Burke.  So this analysis of the trade in regards of Willy and Burke is largely irrelevant in the long term outlook.

I could be wrong on what they were thinking, but that was my understanding of what was going on.

[Gizzmonic]

Pravata, just to clarify, I meant an injury-free 2007 from Jennings, not 2008.  And yes, I did not agree with the trade, yet I understand the Astros' rationale, which is clearly explained throughout this thread. 

The potential full season of performance in 2008 was irrelevant to the trade when it was made.  The Astros were simply counting on Jennings doing what he had done in every season he had pitched.  How is that a "cop out"?  In addition to Hirsh's inconsistency on the field, there were questions about his attitude off the field.   As for Burke, he played ok in center in 06, looked completely different in 07.  And adding offense was the Astros stated number 1 goal at the beginning of 07.  You can say you disagree with the trade, but unless you are of the opinion that everything you disagree with is bad, you can't say that it was a bad trade. 

[Gizzmonic]

revisionism.

WT fell into disfavor with the Astros for his defense (he was benched for Burke), and Burke's defense in OF was far from "shoddy."

from what i saw of Hirsch (lots of games in RR), i did not mind losing him.

My attitude is not revisionist.  It hasn't changed since the day they made the trade for Jennings.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the full story from '06 WRT Tavares "being benched for defense"? Tavares took poor routes to the ball in CF, and used his speed to make up for it.  The coaching staff advised him to improve his routes, and he ignored them.  Tavares was benched as a result, and Burke was installed in CF.  The pitchers did not take well to this move, and DQ himself complained about having Burke in CF during his starts.  If this is true, it sounds like Tavares was benched more for his attitude than his defense.

[pravata]

Pravata, just to clarify, I meant an injury-free 2007 from Jennings, not 2008.  And yes, I did not agree with the trade, yet I understand the Astros' rationale, which is clearly explained throughout this thread. 

What is clear is that you think they made a bad trade because they do not share your priorities.

[ckutac]

Now that hindsight is 20/20 it's crystal just how bad that trade really was.

I am not so sure that the trade has proven to be all that bad of a trade.  It is looking more and more to me like we traded away Willy T who is better served as a #4 Ofer, and two back of the rotation at best SP's.  While I am not going to say that it ended up being a good trade as we didn't get anything in return as it turns out, it sure doesn't seem to me like it was near as BAD of a trade as people are wanting to make it out to be.

[Noe]

What the Astros knew that far too many people did not know when they went shopping for a #2 starter was that Andy Pettitte had no intention of coming back to Houston.   Purpura was caught in the position of having to replenish a starting rotation that was going to take a major hit.  Did he overpay for Jennings (and Garland before Jennings)?  I would think TP would tell you under normal circumstances, yes, but under the extenuating circumstances, no.

Given a chance to do it all over again, would he?  Yes, he would.  Because you don't ever worry about injury when dealing with a healthy pitcher who logs 200 IPs easily and when you have a boss who is saying publically that he thinks this is still a world championship contending team (even though he didn't want any part of paying Andy Pettitte for ironically his injury prognosis of not lasting a full season).  Where I don't like the speculation is that many believe that the Astros bought damaged goods and that was bantered around by the media as if it were true.  It was, in fact, speculative and a bit mean-spirited by the media.  It is now sold as fact that the Astros got hosed by their own incompetence to figure out ahead of time that Jennings would get injured and be a lost cause in 2007.

BTW - Willy Tavares is also a player prone to leg injuries.  He's fast, he's good, he's great on defense... and he's also a player who rarely plays a full season due to serious problems in his hip.  How long will he play in the majors?  I dunno, I hope for a very long time.  But if the Astros are guilty of buying damaged goods, then so are the Rockies with Tavares (and the Yankees with Pettitte).  The Rockies (and Yankees) just happen to be luckier that their damaged goods managed to stay off the DL and surgery table while Houston's return did not.

[Burzmali]

Pence and Scott are both better than Willy, no big loss.

[Taras Bulba]

Pence and Scott are both better than Willy, no big loss.

Wisdom is better than rubies.  Butter is good, too.

[JimR]

Pence and Scott are both better than Willy, no big loss.

i don't know if i'd go that far. i hated to lose WT, but if he is with Boras, it was going to happen.

[Matt]

Willy played less then 100 games this season due to injuries.

[rambo2]

The trade left the Astros without a true center fielder and without a decent lead off man.  It was a bad move. 

[austro]

The trade left the Astros without a true center fielder and without a decent lead off man.  It was a bad move. 

So would it have been a better move to leave them with that true center fielder and lead-off man (after seasons in which he had posted .325 and .333 OBPs) and no #2 pitcher?  Because that was the alternative they were looking at.

[rambo2]

So would it have been a better move to leave them with that true center fielder and lead-off man (after seasons in which he had posted .325 and .333 OBPs) and no #2 pitcher?  Because that was the alternative they were looking at.

Absolutely, you need a good center fielder in Minute Maid.  Taveras is also a good base stealer.  By trading him it left the team with no base stealer, no lead off man, and no center fielder.  It weakened  the team.

[BossierNaut]

Wisdom is better than rubies.  Butter is good, too.

Butter is really good on warm bread.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

One thing is clear and indisputable, a traded player's performance, after a trade, is inconsequential to the player's value at the time the trade is made.  It's paradoxical how trades are mostly made based on historical data compiled prior to the trade and then judged later on historical data compiled after the trade.

[Burzmali]

Absolutely, you need a good center fielder in Minute Maid.  Taveras is also a good base stealer.  By trading him it left the team with no base stealer, no lead off man, and no center fielder.  It weakened  the team.

And the added offensive production provided by Pence over what Taveras would have contributed strengthened the team. You single dimensional analysis is lacking.

And you don't "need" a "good" center fielder (whatever that means, define good) anywhere. Would you play Taveras in CF over a hypothetical player that had poor defensive skills but hit a home run every at bat?

[S.P. Rodriguez]

One thing is clear and indisputable, a traded player's performance, after a trade, is inconsequential to the player's value at the time the trade is made.  It's paradoxical how trades are mostly made based on historical data compiled prior to the trade and then judged later on historical data compiled after the trade.

Agreed.  That's not to say some sort of projection for future performance isn't factored into the decision making.  I think that's where most people (i.e. those armchair GMs) encounter "paralysis from analysis".  They can't figure out which factors to prioritize. (Some obvious examples: What are the needs of the team?  Do you focus on immediate impact or future impact?  What is the payroll impact?  Can you make any other moves should you need another piece of the puzzle?  What other assets (redundant or otherwise) do you have to make other moves? Is the team in a win-now state?)   It's no wonder that these same folks then overlook the details (or context) that were factored into a trade decision and take the lazy, non-brain taxing approach of evaluating a trade, or even a non-trade, in hindsight.  In no way does this approach improve on the analysis that went into the actual decision making. 

Anyone looking to bash Purpura should take a break from bashing the guy.  His baseball career has been seriously damaged by what was, in all fairness, a PR move by an owner who doesn't like to take any criticism from fans. 

[otterjb]

Results are what matters, when it's all said and done. Going back in time to try and evaluate a trade is pointless. That's a relativism where everyone gets a ribbon, no matter the color.

[JimR]

Absolutely, you need a good center fielder in Minute Maid.  Taveras is also a good base stealer.  By trading him it left the team with no base stealer, no lead off man, and no center fielder.  It weakened  the team.

Taveras' skills as a "good CF" AND as a lead off man were very much in question in 2006. as you conveniently ignore in your relentless second-guessing, he was benched in favor of Burke during that season.

[pravata]

...Anyone looking to bash Purpura should take a break from bashing the guy.  His baseball career has been seriously damaged by what was, in all fairness, a PR move by an owner who doesn't like to take any criticism from fans. 

Excellent.

[rambo2]

Taveras' skills as a "good CF" AND as a lead off man were very much in question in 2006. as you conveniently ignore in your relentless second-guessing, he was benched in favor of Burke during that season.

Taveras was showing pretty good improvement in the outfield in 2006.

[TheWizard]

Taveras was showing pretty good improvement in the outfield in 2006.

And Jennings showed he was a pretty good pitcher in 2006.

[NeilT]

We've had what, 8 center fielders since moving into MMPUS?  Berkman, Taveras, the Central Gardner, Biggio, Burke, Lane, Pence!!!.  I would rate Taveras comparable to the Central Gardner, Lane comparable to Pence!!!, Burke behind Biggio, Berkman ahead of Lane.  Who am I missing?

So is Berkman the second tier of center fielders in he MMPUS?  Were there so many runs lost to Berkman, relative to He Whose Name Will Not Be Mentioned?  Was Biggio so bad?  He was horrible in left field, but in center he seemed . . . ok.

[austro]

Was Biggio so bad?  He was horrible in left field, but in center he seemed . . . ok.

He didn't make errors, but there were a lot of balls that he didn't get to that a more competent CF would have gotten to. That's what used to drive me nuts.

[94CougarGrad]

  It is now sold as fact that the Astros got hosed by their own incompetence to figure out ahead of time that Jennings would get injured and be a lost cause in 2007.

Damn those reporters, spinning things so. For Pete's sake, the battery on the crystal ball was dead on the day the Astros consulted it about the Jennings trade.

It's incompetent to be unable to predict injuries?

The trade itself wasn't bad. It was bad that Jennings got injured and, apparently, that our "incompetent" management didn't foresee the injury.

"Wait, Purp, we can't do this deal... Jennings is gonna go on the DL in August and require season-ending surgery."
"How do you know?"
"What do you think I am, incompetent? I know these things."

[JimR]

My attitude is not revisionist.  It hasn't changed since the day they made the trade for Jennings.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the full story from '06 WRT Tavares "being benched for defense"? Tavares took poor routes to the ball in CF, and used his speed to make up for it.  The coaching staff advised him to improve his routes, and he ignored them.  Tavares was benched as a result, and Burke was installed in CF.  The pitchers did not take well to this move, and DQ himself complained about having Burke in CF during his starts.  If this is true, it sounds like Tavares was benched more for his attitude than his defense.

quote from a pretty inside source: "Taveras is killing them in CF." he was benched shortly thereafter.

[NeilT]

quote from a pretty inside source: "Taveras is killing them in CF." he was benched shortly thereafter.

But after the benching didn't he come back and play well in center?  I'm not arguing for the sake of the Jennings trade--I'm not smart enought to know that wasn't a reasonable trade at the time.  I'm just trying to get Taveras's play in center fixed in my head. 

I was sorry to lose Taveras, but Burke's play had been very good in left, and the need for pitching seemed like the greater need.

[MusicMan]

I was sorry to lose Taveras, but Burke's play had been very good in left, and the need for pitching seemed like the greater need.

Wait, wait, wait... you have to give up something to get something?

[otterjb]

Damn those reporters, spinning things so. For Pete's sake, the battery on the crystal ball was dead on the day the Astros consulted it about the Jennings trade.

It's incompetent to be unable to predict injuries?

The trade itself wasn't bad. It was bad that Jennings got injured and, apparently, that our "incompetent" management didn't foresee the injury.

"Wait, Purp, we can't do this deal... Jennings is gonna go on the DL in August and require season-ending surgery."
"How do you know?"
"What do you think I am, incompetent? I know these things."

Jennings was awful when he was healthy, one of the worst pitchers in all of baseball last year.

[JimR]

But after the benching didn't he come back and play well in center?  I'm not arguing for the sake of the Jennings trade--I'm not smart enought to know that wasn't a reasonable trade at the time.  I'm just trying to get Taveras's play in center fixed in my head. 

I was sorry to lose Taveras, but Burke's play had been very good in left, and the need for pitching seemed like the greater need.

C-A-R-L-O-S L-E-E

hitting was the biggest need.

[JimR]

Jennings was awful when he was healthy, one of the worst pitchers in all of baseball last year.

he was never healthy.

[NeilT]

C-A-R-L-O-S L-E-E

hitting was the biggest need.

I only meant the greater need relative to keeping Taveras in center. 

[otterjb]

he was never healthy.

If that's true, then it makes it even worse. 3 players for 1 injured one.

[MusicMan]

If that's true, then it makes it even worse. 3 players for 1 injured one.

Deceased equine abuse.

The Rockies did not know he was injured.
The Astros did not know he was injured.
Jennings did not know he was injured.

Move on.

[JimR]

If that's true, then it makes it even worse. 3 players for 1 injured one.

right. they knew he was injured but made the trade anyway.

if only you were in charge....

[pravata]

right. they knew he was injured but made the trade anyway.

It's because they hate winning.

[Astroholic]

It's because they hate winning.

No It all Timmy's fault.

[Burzmali]

Jennings was awful when he was healthy, one of the worst pitchers in all of baseball last year.

He was something like the tenth best pitcher in baseball in 2006.

[BUWebguy]

No It all Timmy's fault.

He just didn't want to be a champion.

[otterjb]

What is there to suggest that he made 19 starts while injured? His performance?

[JimR]

What is there to suggest that he made 19 starts while injured? His performance?

just keep on bitching. i don't want to disrupt you with facts while you're on a roll.

[otterjb]

just keep on bitching. i don't want to disrupt you with facts while you're on a roll.

What are the facts then? Just keep on bitching about my bitching.

[pravata]

What are the facts then? Just keep on bitching about my bitching.

The facts are he had a sore elbow in ST, likely, he said, from getting too excited and throwing too much in the offseason. From there it progressed and added a sore shoulder, likely caused by compensating for the elbow.  An MRI in early July showed no elbow damage, they treated him for tendinitis.  An MRI in late August showed a torn ligament in his elbow.  All of this is detailed, with links, in several posts in the News You Can Use section.

[otterjb]

The facts are he had a sore elbow in ST, likely, he said, from getting too excited and throwing too much in the offseason. From there it progressed and added a sore shoulder, likely caused by compensating for the elbow.  An MRI in early July showed no elbow damage, they treated him for tendinitis.  An MRI in late August showed a torn ligament in his elbow.  All of this is detailed, with links, in several posts in the News You Can Use section.

Never knew about the quote from Jennings about the offseason. Thanks, I'll shut up now.

[pravata]

Never knew about the quote from Jennings about the offseason. Thanks, I'll shut up now.

Any time.  Good reply.

[94CougarGrad]

It's because they hate winning.

I thought it was because they had to get rid of Taveras since the Astros are a racist organization.

[pravata]

I thought it was because they had to get rid of Taveras since the Astros are a racist organization.

That is a given.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  Also, at night, Drayton Mclane slithers under your door and robs your piggybank.

[94CougarGrad]

That is a given.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  Also, at night, Drayton Mclane slithers under your door and robs your piggybank.

That's my kids' piggybank, the bastard!

[Astroholic]

That is a given.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  Also, at night, Drayton Mclane slithers under your door and robs your piggybank.

Robs my ass everytime I go to the beer stand.

[pravata]

Robs my ass everytime I go to the beer stand.

There's one way to stop that. 

[Jacksonian]

That is a given.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  Also, at night, Drayton Mclane slithers under your door and robs your piggybank.

On the contrary, McLane stands before your piggybank guarding it from Scott Boras.  Of course you have to give Drayton the money you intend to put in the piggybank.

[Noe]

There's one way to stop that. 

Right!  Sneak your own beer into the stadium.  Hopefully the lady singing the star spangled banner doesn't hit high notes like an opera diva.

[Ty in Tampa]

There's one way to stop that. 

This is why I NEVER complain about beer prices. I don't not buy it, I just don't complain.

[Astroholic]

This is why I NEVER complain about beer prices. I don't not buy it, I just don't complain.

I complain and I buy it!  Nobody ever said I was perfect.

[MusicMan]

Right!  Sneak your own beer into the stadium.  Hopefully the lady singing the star spangled banner doesn't hit high notes like an opera diva.

The "first time to the opera, boys?" line is pretty good.

[VirtualBob]

Rubs my ass everytime I go to the beer stand.

fify

[Limey]

The "first time to the opera, boys?" line is pretty good.

"Yah!  He can barely schtand!"

[94CougarGrad]

fify

Slithers under people's doors... rubs others' asses... those are a couple of ways to have the heart-on of a champion, I guess.

[das]

Robs my ass everytime I go to the beer stand.

There's one way to stop that. 

Stick a handshake buzzer up his rear?