Bourn the next to go?!?

[OregonStrosFan]

The kid has his suitors. If he goes, where will he go, and how long will it take the teams fans to learn how to correctly spell his last name...

Michael Bourn Rumors: Friday (via MLBTR):

"The Nationals, Braves, Indians and Reds are among the clubs with varying levels of interest in Bourn," report Ken Rosenthal and Jon Paul Morosi of FOX Sports.  The Indians are the new suitor here.

[Rebel Jew]

The kid has his suitors. If he goes, where will he go, and how long will it take the teams fans to learn how to correctly spell his last name...

Michael Bourn Rumors: Friday (via MLBTR):

"The Nationals, Braves, Indians and Reds are among the clubs with varying levels of interest in Bourn," report Ken Rosenthal and Jon Paul Morosi of FOX Sports.  The Indians are the new suitor here.

I don't know about anybody else, but I hate that we've been awful long enough now that we're already trading young players we already traded for just a couple of years ago.

[Bonomaniac]

what's your asking price on Bourn?

[Reuben]

I don't know about anybody else, but I hate that we've been awful long enough now that we're already trading young players we already traded for just a couple of years ago.

Not that I want to see him go, but Bourn actually will be a FA after next season- a year earlier than Pence. For that, you can thank the Phillies, who, thinking he wasn't starter material, kept him in the majors for all of 2007 as a backup OF.

[Arky Vaughan]

There's not much reason to keeping anyone around who'll be a free agent before 2014.

[Jose Cruz III]

There's not much reason to keeping anyone around who'll be a free agent before 2014.

And has Boras as an agent.

[hostros7]

There's not much reason to keeping anyone around who'll be a free agent before 2014.

Yeah no reason to keep around the best defensive Cf i've seen in a while who steals 60 plus bases and hits .280 plus.  Those guys are easy to replace.

[juliogotay]

Yeah no reason to keep around the best defensive Cf i've seen in a while who steals 60 plus bases and hits .280 plus.  Those guys are easy to replace.

He won't be here after 2012 so you need to decide (the organization does) if they want the draft picks that may be ready to play in 2015, and cost big signing bonuses, or prospects from other organizations that may be in Houston by 2012-13. I'd go with the latter if there is fair value offered.

[Randy Watson]

I like Bourn a lot.  But he turns 29 before the start of next season.  So I'd like young prospects better.

[Reuben]

I like Bourn a lot.  But he turns 29 before the start of next season.  So I'd like young prospects better.

But does anyone really think they'll get better prospects, right now, than what they got for Pence? Don't most here believe that Bourn is actually a better player than Pence? Personally, I just don't see any team right now giving up their two best prospects for "slap-hitter" Michael Bourn.

[HudsonHawk]

I like Bourn a lot.  But he turns 29 before the start of next season.  So I'd like young prospects better.

Right, because the goal is to have birds in the bush, rather than in hand. 

[HudsonHawk]

Yeah no reason to keep around the best defensive Cf i've seen in a while who steals 60 plus bases and hits .280 plus.  Those guys are easy to replace.

Yeah, maybe they can flip Bourn for a 20-something, base-stealing, lead off hitting, gold glove centerfielder.  You know...just the kind of player they really need.

[Jacksonian]

Right, because the goal is to have birds in the bush, rather than in hand. 

I also don't think a trade will yield anything worthwhile other than a reduced payroll for 2012.  However I still believe Bourn will not be an Astro after 2012.  I think it would be in the Astros best interest to hold onto him through his arb years, then when he can be a free agent try to sign him (futile) and offer him arb.  That will secure at least a supplemental first round pick when he signs elsewhere.  It's more likely, IMO, that the supplemental first round pick in 2013 will be more talented than any one player they would get in return for him.

[Reuben]

I also don't think a trade will yield anything worthwhile other than a reduced payroll for 2012.  However I still believe Bourn will not be an Astro after 2012.  I think it would be in the Astros best interest to hold onto him through his arb years, then when he can be a free agent try to sign him (futile) and offer him arb.  That will secure at least a supplemental first round pick when he signs elsewhere.  It's more likely, IMO, that the supplemental first round pick in 2013 will be more talented than any one player they would get in return for him.

He also might be the only thing resembling a leader left on the team, and from comments he makes to the beat reporters, he seems to be a class act. Not a bad veteran player to hold onto at the start of your transition. Won't be that expensive next year either- what does he make this year, $4.5 mil?

Also, while they may want to give Bourgeois an extended shot, his speed doesn't seem to translate nearly as well as Bourn's into great CF defense, in the limited time I've seen him there at least.

[Reuben]

AstrosCounty had this quote from Olney:

The Astros might hold on to Bourn. Team official: "You still have to try to win games."

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Right, because the goal is to have birds in the bush, rather than in hand. 

A bird in the bush is worth two hands.

[BizidyDizidy]

Since analogies are more informative the further you contort them -

Would you rather have a bird in the hand or two in the bush if you knew dinner isn't for two years?

[BizidyDizidy]

*wasn't

[Noe]

This Spinger kid.... not signed yet?  Hmmmmm.....

[OregonStrosFan]

From Crasnick (via Twitter):

#Astros efforts to move Michael Bourn are picking up steam, source says. Appears more likely he'll move by deadline.

[Lurch]

Buster Olney
From an NL evaluator: Atlanta working hard on working out a deal for Michael Bourn. His trade value never higher than right now;FA in '12.

[Ron Brand]

It's going to temper some of my blind Atlanta Brave hatred if Bourn is patrolling CF for them.

[Ron Brand]

Couple of tweets in the last few minutes say it'll be Bourn to the Nats for Storen. No other word about that one though, kinda out of the blue.

[hostros7]

Not enough, if true, imo.  Ugh

[BizidyDizidy]

Well that makes absolutely no sense

[Ron Brand]

Well that makes absolutely no sense

I don't get it either. Could be anyone's bullshit, there are no other corroborations.

[Fynn]

Couple of tweets in the last few minutes say it'll be Bourn to the Nats for Storen. No other word about that one though, kinda out of the blue.

IF true this might be part of a three way trade....that is the only way this would make sense.

[BizidyDizidy]

Another espndiot has been reporting that storen for span is a done deal, so who the hell knows

[BizidyDizidy]

Found it - jim bowden

[roadrunner]

Yeah no thanks if true.  I'd want the same price that was given for Pence (multiple legit prospects).

[Reuben]

Yeah no thanks if true.  I'd want the same price that was given for Pence (multiple legit prospects).

Bowden saying late last night "Braves refuse to put both Delgado and Vizcaino in Bourn deal...but phone lines burning in the Peachtree State"

[Reuben]

Well...shit. Braves about to get Bourn, says Rosenthal:

Source: #Braves on verge of acquiring #Astros' Bourn for four minor leaguers.

&

#Braves' deal for #Astros' Bourn is done. Announcement at 10 a.m. ET.

If he's going, I hope they really raped and pillaged the ATL system... damn. Bourn is a true Astro to me.

[believin]

Bourn is a true Astro to me.

And to me.  He'll be missed, if he really is gone. 

[fore]

 Bourn to Braves for OF Jordan Schafer, LHP Brett Oberholtzer, RHP Paul Clemens and RHP Juan Abreu

[Reuben]

Stark via MLBTR: None of the three pitchers are top 50 prospects, but they did rank ninth, 26th, and 27th respectively for the Braves on Baseball America's preseason rankings.

Fuck. That's my initial impression.

[hostros7]

So....none of the braves good pitching prospects? I hate to see bourn go

[roadrunner]

Dammit

[Reuben]

Oh... and Wade kicks in cash, of course. Because you know, Michael Bourn is so overpaid.

[hostros7]

Fuck this.  So, we got a really shitty version of bourn as the centerpiece of the trade.  Great.

[roadrunner]

Ober is the gem and he projects as a middle of the rotation starter.

Initial impression is that this is a shitty deal.

[jaklewein]

Stark via MLBTR: None of the three pitchers are top 50 prospects, but they did rank ninth, 26th, and 27th respectively for the Braves on Baseball America's preseason rankings.

Fuck. That's my initial impression.

Don't discount Schafer.  He's not Bourn's equal of course, but he's pretty fast in his own right and is a damn good defensive CF.  I'm happy the got him.  Just like to took Bourn a few years to get it at the plate Schafer could pan out there as well.  He's actually got a lot of upside at the plate and has some pop.  I think you guys will like what you see when he gets on the field.

[jbm]

None of us know if this is a good trade or not. Prospect rankings are not an acceptable surrogate of value. Pence was never valued highly, nor Altuve, nor Martinez. Just saying.

[subnuclear]

Good luck to Bourn, anyway. It was fun while it lasted.

[subnuclear]

Don't discount Schafer.  He's not Bourn's equal of course, but he's pretty fast in his own right and is a damn good defensive CF.  I'm happy the got him.  Just like to took Bourn a few years to get it at the plate Schafer could pan out there as well.  He's actually got a lot of upside at the plate and has some pop.  I think you guys will like what you see when he gets on the field.

Do you know much about the pitchers?

[Reuben]

Don't discount Schafer.  He's not Bourn's equal of course, but he's pretty fast in his own right and is a damn good defensive CF.  I'm happy the got him.  Just like to took Bourn a few years to get it at the plate Schafer could pan out there as well.  He's actually got a lot of upside at the plate and has some pop.  I think you guys will like what you see when he gets on the field.

His recent minor league stats do not exactly inspire confidence. Also, wasn't he popped for PEDs a few years back?

[Reuben]

I really hope this was not due to pressure from Crane to reduce payroll. It seems like Wade may not be finding suitors for Wandy and Myers, meaning Pence and Bourn are the only ways he could cut significant salary. Obviously we don't know for sure, the Clemens kid could turn out to be better than Roger, but right now it smells like a "take whatever you can get for him" kind of deal.

[roadrunner]

If you think this has been a bad year, imagine what next year is going to be like.  This team will lose at least 110 in 2012.  We are going to experience two #1 overall picks in a row, so at least that will help restock the farm.

I can't wait to see which Astro defaults into the All-Star Game next year.

[94CougarGrad]

Sigh. Sigh, sigh, sigh.

[believin]

Sigh. Sigh, sigh, sigh.

My sentiments exactly.

[roadrunner]

I'm guessing Bogusevic will be called up?

[Bench]

If you think this has been a bad year, imagine what next year is going to be like.  This team will lose at least 110 in 2012.  We are going to experience two #1 overall picks in a row, so at least that will help restock the farm.

I can't wait to see which Astro defaults into the All-Star Game next year.

The '62 Mets are nervous about next year's team.

[Bench]

Don't discount Schafer.  He's not Bourn's equal of course, but he's pretty fast in his own right and is a damn good defensive CF.  I'm happy the got him.  Just like to took Bourn a few years to get it at the plate Schafer could pan out there as well.  He's actually got a lot of upside at the plate and has some pop.  I think you guys will like what you see when he gets on the field.

How long until he comes of the DL?

[HudsonHawk]

Well, you guys got what you wanted...a handful of minor league "prospects".

[hostros7]

You know how you franchise is a joke?  You trade the best CF in baseball for a bunch of guys that will, at best, be mediocre in the future.  Horrible management. 

[OregonStrosFan]

"prospects"

Quotation marks aptly placed (and presumably intended as such).

Still trying to process the kids coming back on this one, but on first blush all I've got is 'huh'?

[roadrunner]

I just don't understand the pressure to trade him if you don't have the return you want. 

Can't wait for Ed Wade to leave town. 

[jbm]

You know how you franchise is a joke?  You trade the best CF in baseball for a bunch of guys that will, at best, be mediocre in the future.  Horrible management. 

Come on.  They might be, they might not. Have you seen any of these guys play?

[Twoniner]

  Well this ought to stop the media bitching about the Hunter Pence deal.   

  wow

[Twoniner]

Come on.  They might be, they might not. Have you seen any of these guys play?

The idea is to try and grab market value for your players.   If these low rated prospects pan out, then kudos on great scouting.  But good front offices include these guys along with higher rated prospects who there is a more general consensus on.

[Reuben]

Come on.  They might be, they might not. Have you seen any of these guys play?

Even if one of these guys surprises and turns out to be an ace 3-4 years from now, that doesn't mean it was a great trade. A great trade is when you get a "sure-thing" highly-regarded kind of guy, AND a throw-in, upside type who actually pans out (ie. Nathan and Liriano for Pryzasshole, to cite a lopsided example). All this looks like is quantity over quality, and let's cross our fingers that one of these under-the-radar guys surprises us and pans out.

Bottom line, why did they NEED to trade Michael Bourn for this?

[HudsonHawk]

You know how you franchise is a joke?  You trade the best CF in baseball for a bunch of guys that will, at best, be mediocre in the future.  Horrible management. 

No, no, no...the important thing is they got rid of him *now*, before he becomes a free agent....year after next.  Mission accomplished.

[Ron Brand]

Bottom line, why did they NEED to trade Michael Bourn for this?

That's the question right there.

[hostros7]

Come on.  They might be, they might not. Have you seen any of these guys play?

I know it's uncouth to overreact and project that a bunch of minor league guys will or won't be relevant in the future.  I don't know shit about any of them.  I do know that Bourn was a unique talent that I'll miss having the opportunity to watch play every day.

I don't put a lot of stock in BA or any other ratings.  But, the fact is that most of these guys are really on the radar.  for anyone.  Hopefully it works out or the team, but I didn't think Bourn was someone that there was any urgency at all to move

[HudsonHawk]

I know it's uncouth to overreact and project that a bunch of minor league guys will or won't be relevant in the future.  I don't know shit about any of them.  I do know that Bourn was a unique talent that I'll miss having the opportunity to watch play every day.

I don't care if they all turn out to be All-Stars...for me, this is the worst trade the Astros have made since they swapped Kenny Lofton for Ed Taubensee.

[jaklewein]

Do you know much about the pitchers?

No, but I'll ask around.

[jbm]

Hey, I'm in agreement about the need to trade Bourn. I don't see a need, nor for Wandy or Pence for that matter. My beef is that people are decrying the return witout any firsthand knowledge of the players. Part of my response is due to the fact that beyond the very top guys, prospect rankings are meaningless.

[Mr. Happy]

This. Sucks. Ed Wade is morphing into Spec Richardson.

[Twoniner]

Hey, I'm in agreement about the need to trade Bourn. I don't see a need, nor for Wandy or Pence for that matter. My beef is that people are decrying the return witout any firsthand knowledge of the players. Part of my response is due to the fact that beyond the very top guys, prospect rankings are meaningless.

They aren't meaningless, because it is somewhat related to the value GM's and teams place on their prospects.  Not exactly of course, but in the ballpark.   

[Phil_in_CS]

This. Sucks. Ed Wade is morphing into Spec Richardson.

If "everyone knows" Wade is required by ownership to move Bourn, getting any good from a deal will be very difficult.

Assuming the goal isn't a long term losing / low payroll team, its pretty obvious they are not only writing off 2011 and 2012, but likely 2013 as well and hoping to be getting somewhere in 2014.

[Arky Vaughan]

Yeah no reason to keep around the best defensive Cf i've seen in a while who steals 60 plus bases and hits .280 plus.  Those guys are easy to replace.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the team you are currently watching. The more valuable Bourn is, all the more reason to get what they can for him.

[Arky Vaughan]

Yeah, maybe they can flip Bourn for a 20-something, base-stealing, lead off hitting, gold glove centerfielder.  You know...just the kind of player they really need.

Yes, they should keep Bourn so they can lose only 90 games per season rather than 95 games per season through 2013.

It has nothing to do with the Bourn's value right now. It has to do with how far away the team is right now. At least Crane seems to understand this.

[Outlawscotty]

All the more reason to hope that Lee doesn't make it through waivers.

[jaklewein]

His recent minor league stats do not exactly inspire confidence. Also, wasn't he popped for PEDs a few years back?

He did get hit with a 50 game PED suspension a few years back.  Can't remember for sure but think it was steriods.  

As far as the minor league numbers...so what?  He's been banged up but was having what I thought was a pretty good year for ATL considering he's basically a rookie, and oh yeah, he's was asked to bat leadoff for a team in playoff contention and produce.  That's pressure.  Bourn batted .229 with a .288 OBP in his first full year in HOU.  

I'm actually happy they got him and was hoping for him in a Bourn deal all along.  All I can tell you is enjoy the defense in CF while you wait on his hopeful maturation at the plate.  

[Outlawscotty]

All the more reason to hope that Lee doesn't make it through waivers.

[roadrunner]

Even if Bourn's value is at its peak, I don't see why you take what the market is offering if you think it is not a fair deal.  Wait until the offseason.  If you still don't get the right return, just let him play out and get the draft compensation when he walks. 

It feels like Wade is just dealing to try and save his job.

[Jacksonian]

I haven't been as high on Schafer as others.  In 2007 he had an outstanding year in A-ball.  In 2008 he was suspended for 50 games for HGH.  2009 he made the Braves then flopped at the plate before injuring his wrist and needing surgery.  2010 was not a good developmental year for him.  And then this year, as a 24 (will be 25 in September) year old, he is mediocre at best in the minors and majors offensively before breaking his hand the other day.

I think Juan Abreu will do a nice job in the Astros bullpen.  Wouldn't be surprised if he succeeded as well as Melancon or Carpenter.  AAA 26 year old.

The only thing I've heard about Clemens is his range is AAAA to 5-starter.  AA 23 year old.

Oberholtzer is the most intriguing to me.  Big lefty with good stuff.  Could be a #3 type.  AA Just turned 22.

IMO, without hindsight, this is a loss for the Astros.  Way too many big question marks for a guy without any.

[HudsonHawk]

Yes, they should keep Bourn so they can lose only 90 games per season rather than 95 games per season through 2013.

It has nothing to do with the Bourn's value right now. It has to do with how far away the team is right now. At least Crane seems to understand this.

First, yes, I'd rather they win 72 games than 67 games.  The more games they win, the better.  It's a shame neither you nor Crane seem to understand that.

Secondly, your logic here is fucked up beyond all recognition.  There is no rule that says the Astros have two choices...keep Bourn and lose 90 or dump him and lose 95.  Those are not the only two options.

[jbm]

First, yes, I'd rather they win 72 games than 67 games.  The more games they win, the better.  It's a shame neither you nor Crane seem to understand that.

Secondly, your logic here is fucked up beyond all recognition.  There is no rule that says the Astros have two choices...keep Bourn and lose 90 or dump him and lose 95.  Those are not the only two options.

I'm always for a good deal (and few people have an informed opinion of whether these were good deals), but I couldn't agree more with this sentiment.

[HudsonHawk]

I'm always for a good deal (and few people have an informed opinion of whether these were good deals), but I couldn't agree more with this sentiment.

I understand that the Astros are not good right now.  But it's not because they have Michael Bourn on their team.  He is not what's holding them back.  He's the centerpiece of the kind of team they *want* to have.  They need more players like him, not fewer. 

[Navin R Johnson]

First, yes, I'd rather they win 72 games than 67 games.  The more games they win, the better.  It's a shame neither you nor Crane seem to understand that.

Secondly, your logic here is fucked up beyond all recognition.  There is no rule that says the Astros have two choices...keep Bourn and lose 90 or dump him and lose 95.  Those are not the only two options.

The real "two choices" are lose ~100 games with a CF that costs 7 million or lose ~100 games with a CF that costs 500K.

[HudsonHawk]

The real "two choices" are lose ~100 games with a CF that cost 7 million or lose ~100 games with a CF that cost 500K.

Complete bullshit.

[Navin R Johnson]

Why is that?  Do you not think that is the way they are looking at it?

[Jacksonian]

Why is that?  Do you not think that is the way they are looking at it?

The only thing they're looking at is $.

[Rebel Jew]

IMO, without hindsight, this is a loss for the Astros.  Way too many big question marks for a guy without any.

It's very deflating in particular when you think back a couple of years how the Astros tried so hard with their drafting and development strategies to bring some speed into the organization. They finally get the speedy, well-rounded outfielder they were seeking and now it's like that's a distant memory. Just think of all the fringe prospects they could have traded Lidge for?

[jbm]

The real "two choices" are lose ~100 games with a CF that costs 7 million or lose ~100 games with a CF that costs 500K.

Not that I agree with your two scenarios, what about keeping him and extending his contract?

[HudsonHawk]

Why is that? 

Because they have the option of keeping Bourn and still getting better.  Throwing in the towel and saying "we're gonna suck no matter what" is the way losers think.

Do you not think that is the way they are looking at it?

If they are, they'll never finish with fewer than 100 losses ever again.

[jbm]

The only thing they're looking at is $.

Seems to be the case. Crane has a sales job ahead of him. It's a fine line between getting younger, cheaper and more promising and just getting cheaper.

[Jacksonian]

Seems to be the case. Crane has a sales job ahead of him. It's a fine line between getting younger, cheaper and more promising and just getting cheaper.

My read is that this fire sale is about the team sale.

[Navin R Johnson]

Because they have the option of keeping Bourn and still getting better.  Throwing in the towel and saying "we're gonna suck no matter what" is the way losers think.

I am not disagreeing with your sentiment.  But Bourn or no Bourn, this team is likely to lose 95+ games next year, do you not think that is true?

[das]

The real "two choices" are lose ~100 games with a CF that costs 7 million or lose ~100 games with a CF that costs 500K.

Not entirely. Remember, this is an entertainment business. Micheal Bourn is very entertaining and produces AIS, 100 losses or not. How many times have we heard this year, "at least we get to watch Bourn" or "he's the only reason I watch anymore"?  100 losses and some speedy guy with a sketchy past (possibly) learning to hit MLB pitching does not guarantee AIS. The next year will tell us if the loss in AIS is covered by the delta in the two CF's salaries. One thing is for sure, one of the very few interesting things about this team is no longer here.

[At Ease]

Because they have the option of keeping Bourn and still getting better. 

How many seasons from now do you think they would reach the point where having Bourn or not would be the difference between seriously contending for the NL Central?

[HudsonHawk]

I am not disagreeing with your sentiment.  But Bourn or no Bourn, this team is likely to lose 95+ games next year, do you not think that is true?

If they do, it won't because of Bourn.  With a decent bullpen, this team is knocking on .500.  Throw in another starting pitcher and they're in the race.  I dont' think they're nearly as far away as I guess you do.

[HudsonHawk]

How many seasons from now do you think they would reach the point where having Bourn or not would be the difference between seriously contending for the NL Central?

I'm not sure what you're getting at.  Bourn is not the problem.

[Andyzipp]

If they do, it won't because of Bourn.  With a decent bullpen, this team is knocking on .500.  Throw in another starting pitcher and they're in the race.  I dont' think they're nearly as far away as I guess you do.

They are now.

[hostros7]

They are now.

/ end thread

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

If they do, it won't because of Bourn.  With a decent bullpen, this team is knocking on .500.  Throw in another starting pitcher and they're in the race.  I dont' think they're nearly as far away as I guess you do.

+1

[HudsonHawk]

They are now.

Indeed.  I should have said "weren't nearly as far away..."

[At Ease]

I'm not sure what you're getting at.  Bourn is not the problem.

Agree, he's a great player.  But I think the organization should be out to win championships, and if Bourn isn't going to be a piece in that because of all the other personnel deficiencies, I think it makes sense to trade him to address those.

[HudsonHawk]

Agree, he's a great player.  But I think the organization should be out to win championships, and if Bourn isn't going to be a piece in that because of all the other personnel deficiencies, I think it makes sense to trade him to address those.

Right, address your weaknesses.  But Bourn was not a weakness, he was the biggest strength they had.  So in trading him they opened up another huge gaping hole.  The idea of getting better is to close gaps, not open up more of them.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I have no problem with trading Bourn eventually, I just don't get the sense of urgency to do it now. Its the trade deadline, you should be able to make the contenders overpay, or fuck them. They need you more than you need them at this juncture.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Without Pence and Bourn, who's going to do the "play ball" commercial with DoRay? 

[Ron Brand]

Without Pence and Bourn, who's going to do the "play ball" commercial with DoRay? 

Maybe the fact that everyone else in that commercial has been traded means that DoRay will be gone too...

[Ron Brand]

FWIW, Mayo isn't down on the trade. He says that it was done more for quantity because of the weakness of the Astros farm system and that 'they need players.' He believes that all four players will contribute on the major league level in a year.

[Ron Brand]

Luis Durango called up from OKC to take Bourn's place on the roster. Starting OF today will be Martinez - Boojwah - Michaels.

[Jose Cruz III]

All the more reason to hope that Lee doesn't make it through waivers.

If Lee gets claimed Wade will scream louder than he did the day he had the "discussion" with Chacon.

[hostros7]

Phoebe cates on channel 672 is helping to buoy my spirits

[hostros7]

Phoebe cates on channel 672 is helping to buoy my spirits

Made for tv versions are the pits.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Phoebe cates on channel 672 is helping to buoy my spirits

Fuck Kevin Kline.

[roadrunner]

Jim Callis was just on 610.  He's pretty "meh" on the Bourn deal.  He thinks you win in this league with stars and none of the prospects they got in return have star potential.  He echoed the quantity over quality, but said he would have rather received one stud prospect instead of 4 mediocre ones. 

He is pretty high on the Pence deal and thinks Cosart and Singleton could be very good players for years to come. 

[roadrunner]

And Keith Law thinks Ed Wade made a terrible deal.

"It makes me wonder if Houston had a ranking of Atlanta's top 25 prospects but looked at it upside-down."

[VirtualBob]

First, yes, I'd rather they win 72 games than 67 games.  The more games they win, the better.  It's a shame neither you nor Crane seem to understand that.

Secondly, your logic here is fucked up beyond all recognition.  There is no rule that says the Astros have two choices...keep Bourn and lose 90 or dump him and lose 95.  Those are not the only two options.

And for that matter, they are not even related except within the tenuous logic of the original poster.  I;m with you, Hawk ... 72 is better than 71.  Why give anything away?  Pence for some real prospects I can see; Bourn for some coulda-shoulda-woulda?  Not so much.

[VirtualBob]

Agree, he's a great player.  But I think the organization should be out to win championships, and if Bourn isn't going to be a piece in that because of all the other personnel deficiencies, I think it makes sense to trade him to address those.

BS.  This is the same false dichotomy we hear all the time ... Obviously they should try to win chamoionships, but only in the context of trying to win every game they can.  To take the opposite view would simply mean they should throw every game to ensure they get a string of #1 draft choices.  Play to win.  Now.  Every game. All the time.  When you end up with a guy who is rare-to-unique and he helps you win, hang on to him.  Go ahead and trade the replaceable RF who can't hit the cut-off man anyway; next year's version will probably be about as good (if not better).  But there are about to be a lot more triples with new life at MMPUS now.

[Jacksonian]

Passan agrees with Law more than he does with Callis.  Not sure what that means about Passan or Law.

[BizidyDizidy]

Rude surprise coming for young mr schafer

Schafer: "Anytime you get traded, the team obviously wants you. I’m excited to go over there and start fresh and try to start winning."

[Matt]

Rude surprise coming for young mr schafer

Schafer: "Anytime you get traded, the team obviously wants you. I’m excited to go over there and start fresh and try to start winning."

Winning? They did tell him he was going to the Houston Astros right?

[ValpoCory]

I don't care if they all turn out to be All-Stars...for me, this is the worst trade the Astros have made since they swapped Kenny Lofton for Ed Taubensee.

Hey, this shuts up all the Braves fans who were accusing Ed Wade and the Phillies of collusion.

[BizidyDizidy]

Louis Durango up per McTaggart

[Rebel Jew]

BS.  This is the same false dichotomy we hear all the time ... Obviously they should try to win chamoionships, but only in the context of trying to win every game they can.  To take the opposite view would simply mean they should throw every game to ensure they get a string of #1 draft choices.  Play to win.  Now.  Every game. All the time.  When you end up with a guy who is rare-to-unique and he helps you win, hang on to him.  Go ahead and trade the replaceable RF who can't hit the cut-off man anyway; next year's version will probably be about as good (if not better).  But there are about to be a lot more triples with new life at MMPUS now.

I know you're too gutless to read my posts, but playing devil's advocate, what if a team really did throw enough games or trade enough players to ensure #1 draft picks and prospects for a couple of years before deciding to get competitive again? Isn't that better than maintaining the ruse of contention? If the ultimate goal is to win, why mess around when you know you're not going to? I know the team also has a responsibility to at least put a watchable team on the field, but shouldn't it also do all it can to turn things around as quickly as possible?

[Ron Brand]

I know you're too gutless to read my posts, but playing devil's advocate, what if a team really did throw enough games or trade enough players to ensure #1 draft picks and prospects for a couple of years before deciding to get competitive again? Isn't that better than maintaining the ruse of contention? If the ultimate goal is to win, why mess around when you know you're not going to? I know the team also has a responsibility to at least put a watchable team on the field, but shouldn't it also do all it can to turn things around as quickly as possible?

Have you ever played competitive sports above, say, Little League? Do you really think major league players, as a team, would collectively lay down for that?

Apart from that despicable canard, the league would not stand for that sort of bullshit. The hue and cry would be cataclysmic and would affect the whole sport, not just the team in question. Get real.

[austro]

Have you ever played competitive sports above, say, Little League? Do you really think major league players, as a team, would collectively lay down for that?

Apart from that despicable canard, the league would not stand for that sort of bullshit. The hue and cry would be cataclysmic and would affect the whole sport, not just the team in question. Get real.

It also presupposes that #1 picks are guaranteed hits.

[Rebel Jew]

Have you ever played competitive sports above, say, Little League? Do you really think major league players, as a team, would collectively lay down for that?

Apart from that despicable canard, the league would not stand for that sort of bullshit. The hue and cry would be cataclysmic and would affect the whole sport, not just the team in question. Get real.

I'm not really saying the team should throw games, but from a fan's perspective, when the team's bad sometimes you just want them to fast-forward to when they'll be good again. I think there's more merit to the "lose 90 with Bourn or 95 without him" argument than some are allowing.

[Ron Brand]

Everybody wants to win. It's damned hard to do, and there are no sure things along the way. That's why they play the games, and that's why we're fans.

[Rebel Jew]

Everybody wants to win. It's damned hard to do, and there are no sure things along the way. That's why they play the games, and that's why we're fans.

Sure, but if you're just talking about winning then how is having Bourn on a losing team next year then leaving to free agency going to help the team win? You can argue about the quality of the deal they got in return or whether it's worth keeping him for entertainment value, but it's been pretty well proven that the trading-for-prospects approach is the best and maybe quickest method for turning a loser into a winner.

[Ron Brand]

Sure, but if you're just talking about winning then how is having Bourn on a losing team next year then leaving to free agency going to help the team win? You can argue about the quality of the deal they got in return or whether it's worth keeping him for entertainment value, but it's been pretty well proven that the trading-for-prospects approach is the best and maybe quickest method for turning a loser into a winner.

It might be the cheapest, and the method that sustains winning for a longer period of time, but it isn't the quickest way, it's probably the slowest. If you want to buy a championship and you have the will and the cash to do it, you can. There are plenty of examples of that approach as well.

I think what the argument here has been is that some don't think the team is that far away from being in the thick of a race in the NL Central. They may be right; certainly decent relievers would have made a significant difference this season. If you buy into that, then getting rid of Bourn pushes you farther away, because he's a special player and there isn't anyone else in the org even close to him.

If you believe that it needs to be rebuilt and that everyone who can be a free agent before 2014 should be moved to restock and try to get better players in the system, then trading Bourn is probably a painful necessity. I wish I was omnisicient and could pronounce "Yes, this is a winning deal!" etc. and could make them all happen the way I would like them to, but I can't. All I can do is hope for the best and watch my team, and try to see what they're doing and understand that none of it happens in a vacuum.

I'm an Astro fan. I'm a baseball fan. I'm going to watch them both until I die. Maybe I'll get lucky enough to see them be a great franchise again. I hope so.

[EasTexAstro]

Sure, but if you're just talking about winning then how is having Bourn on a losing team next year then leaving to free agency going to help the team win? You can argue about the quality of the deal they got in return or whether it's worth keeping him for entertainment value, but it's been pretty well proven that the trading-for-prospects approach is the best and maybe quickest method for turning a loser into a winner.

Much like the Brewers, Pirates, Expos, Nationals, Royals do it.

Screw losing. If I were part of a team that was in the bottom of the 9th in the last game of the season and losing meant we got the 1st pick next year, winning meant we got the second pick, I would have a hard time trying for the first pick.

You know, if Castro had not gotten hurt, the Astros were still set up to be a losing team, but it would have been more fun for me to watch. Bourn makes this team fun to watch. I'm still pulling for Happ to keep his stuff under control. I want to see Wallace out there every day. Chris Johnson gets to play most of the time even though he can't hit LHP or RHP, but Wallace needs more rest.   



Sorry, got distracted.


Altuve is making things exciting.

Does it a make a difference between 100 losses and 105? Not really, but I would much rather have that 100 loss season...and any time they can beat the Cubs....

[DVauthrin]

Moving Bourn isn't the problem.    The problem is taking back quantity over quality.     The fact that they couldn't get one of the Braves top 4 pitching prospects for a gold glove, 50 SB center fielder is disappointing.    If the Braves wouldn't pony up at least one elite prospect, then move on for now.  

Value wise, this looks like a deal they could have made at the next trade deadline.  

[EasTexAstro]

Moving Bourn isn't the problem.    The problem is taking back quantity over quality.     The fact that they couldn't get one of the Braves top 4 pitching prospects for a gold glove, 50 SB center fielder is disappointing.    If the Braves wouldn't pony up at least one elite prospect, then move on for now.  

Value wise, this looks like a deal they could have made at the next trade deadline.  

I agree.

[Rebel Jew]

Much like the Brewers, Pirates, Expos, Nationals, Royals do it.

Screw losing. If I were part of a team that was in the bottom of the 9th in the last game of the season and losing meant we got the 1st pick next year, winning meant we got the second pick, I would have a hard time trying for the first pick.

You know, if Castro had not gotten hurt, the Astros were still set up to be a losing team, but it would have been more fun for me to watch. Bourn makes this team fun to watch. I'm still pulling for Happ to keep his stuff under control. I want to see Wallace out there every day. Chris Johnson gets to play most of the time even though he can't hit LHP or RHP, but Wallace needs more rest.   



Sorry, got distracted.


Altuve is making things exciting.

Does it a make a difference between 100 losses and 105? Not really, but I would much rather have that 100 loss season...and any time they can beat the Cubs....

But who's going to really remember in 5 years (heck, 5 months) whether they lost 100 or 105? Even the players won't. But everybody will remember if they make the playoffs. Say you're a fan of the Buffalo Bills this year in football. The season starts, and after 6 games you're 1-5. Let the players continue to play hard, but the difference between worst and second worst record in the league is Andrew Luck. Luck could make them a playoff contender for years if he pans out. Would you really give that up for some meaningless week 16 win over the Dolphins or whatever?

[JaneDoe]

MLB General Managers:Ed Wade  =  The Sisters:Andy Dufresne

[EasTexAstro]

But who's going to really remember in 5 years (heck, 5 months) whether they lost 100 or 105? Even the players won't. But everybody will remember if they make the playoffs. Say you're a fan of the Buffalo Bills this year in football. The season starts, and after 6 games you're 1-5. Let the players continue to play hard, but the difference between worst and second worst record in the league is Andrew Luck. Luck could make them a playoff contender for years if he pans out. Would you really give that up for some meaningless week 16 win over the Dolphins or whatever?

Sorry, Joey. This has absolutely nothing to do with each other. NFL and MLB are nothing alike. Football players can easily walk into a team and make a difference. Getting the first or second pick in MLB is not the same thing.

Who cares who remembers in 5 yrs/mos. You would want to quit?

[subnuclear]

Moving Bourn isn't the problem.    The problem is taking back quantity over quality.     The fact that they couldn't get one of the Braves top 4 pitching prospects for a gold glove, 50 SB center fielder is disappointing.    If the Braves wouldn't pony up at least one elite prospect, then move on for now.  

Value wise, this looks like a deal they could have made at the next trade deadline.  

I'm not sure quality over quantity is always a good ideal. Castro is a good prospect, but he's been useless because he's been hurt. On the other hand, having a bunch of average bullpen arms this season would have made things much more bearable this season.

I'm pretty sure there is an ownership directives going on here anyway, so who knows if he could have waited.

[Rebel Jew]

Sorry, Joey. This has absolutely nothing to do with each other. NFL and MLB are nothing alike. Football players can easily walk into a team and make a difference. Getting the first or second pick in MLB is not the same thing.

Who cares who remembers in 5 yrs/mos. You would want to quit?

But wouldn't you liken the 1st pick in football to trading for a top prospect in baseball? Trading an Oswalt, Pence, Bourn, or even Keppinger is pretty much the same as throwing a bunch of games. It doesn't mean the players will intentionally lay down and lose, but it's intentionally putting an inferior team on the field. The Astros are taking on a contending team today with two AA guys in the starting lineup, and, though he's kicking ass today, a centerfielder who is, in some ways, a lesser version of the guy you just traded. That's putting the team at a major disadvantage before they even take the field. But isn't it worth it?

[chuck]

I'm pretty sure there is an ownership directives going on here anyway, so who knows if he could have waited.

I'll be fascinated to see how (if) the players in the Bourn deal develop but I don't feel much of a compulsion to debate whether or not it was a good idea to deal Bourn because it's obvious that dealing him was effectively a forgone conclusion.

[chuck]

But isn't it worth it?

I think it's worth it so long as the people executing the trades and making the personnel evaluations are good at what they do.

[DVauthrin]

I'm not sure quality over quantity is always a good ideal. Castro is a good prospect, but he's been useless because he's been hurt. On the other hand, having a bunch of average bullpen arms this season would have made things much more bearable this season.

I'm pretty sure there is an ownership directives going on here anyway, so who knows if he could have waited.

While a few average bullpen arms would make the team more bearable in the short term, it's future stars that put you in position to contend for the long haul.     Examples include Fielder and Braun in Milwaukee, Votto and Bruce in Cincinnati, Howard and Utley in Philly(before all the deals), Lincecum and Cain in San Francisco, etc.

[Lurch]

“@Buster_ESPN: Realignment has been approved; Astros moving to the Pacific Coast League. (just kidding...)”

“@BudNorris20: @Buster_ESPN not all of your jokes are funny Buster.”

[Navin R Johnson]

The Astros are the Phillies AAA team jokes is the new "Houston You Have a PROBLEM!"

[Mr. Happy]

In my opinion, the Pence and Bourn trades are an admission against interest. The Astros are basically saying that, despite Heck, other teams can draft better than can the Astros.

[roadrunner]

Wade is still blaming it on the farm system he inherited.

[Arky Vaughan]

First, yes, I'd rather they win 72 games than 67 games.  The more games they win, the better.  It's a shame neither you nor Crane seem to understand that.

It's not a shame at all that Crane understands that building a winner takes time and patience. I'd rather trade talented players who may not be around when the team returns to contention if they can get good value for the future in exchange.

It sounds like Drayton McLane is the owner you're pining for.

Secondly, your logic here is fucked up beyond all recognition.  There is no rule that says the Astros have two choices...keep Bourn and lose 90 or dump him and lose 95.  Those are not the only two options.

That's not my logic, that's your straw man.

[Arky Vaughan]

I understand that the Astros are not good right now.  But it's not because they have Michael Bourn on their team.  He is not what's holding them back.  He's the centerpiece of the kind of team they *want* to have.  They need more players like him, not fewer.

There's nobody here arguing that Bourn isn't valuable and the kind of player you'd like to have on a team. Bourn was the funnest player on the team to watch this season. And yet they're still likely to lose 100+ games. That isn't Bourn's fault. Indeed, they'll be worse without him, just as they'll be worse without Pence. Some people happen to be more pessimistic than you are about how far away they are and how quickly they can get back to contention. They're not just a couple of players away.

[Mr. Happy]

FWIW, Jim Bowden gave the Astros an F on the Bourn trade and a C- on the Pence trade.

[Arky Vaughan]

If you think this has been a bad year, imagine what next year is going to be like.  This team will lose at least 110 in 2012.  We are going to experience two #1 overall picks in a row, so at least that will help restock the farm.

I can't wait to see which Astro defaults into the All-Star Game next year.

Wallace.

[BudGirl]

I'm sad.

[Arky Vaughan]

If they do, it won't because of Bourn.  With a decent bullpen, this team is knocking on .500.  Throw in another starting pitcher and they're in the race.  I dont' think they're nearly as far away as I guess you do.

You think the bullpen has accounted for about 19 losses this season? Because to be at .500, they'd need to have won 19 more (and lost 19 fewer) games.

The bullpen has a 4.47 ERA while the league average among relievers is 3.58.

But the starting pitching has a 4.61 ERA while the league average among starters is 3.95. They would need to throw in one hell of starter to get back in the race even with a decent bullpen. Maybe call up Bob Gibson and see if he can set his time machine to 1968.

And the team is scoring 3.79 runs per game while the league average is 4.11.

The idea that this team is simply a decent bullpen away from knocking at .500 is irreconcilable with the performance of the starting pitching and the offense, which are both notably below league average.

You call my logic fucked up beyond all recognition, but your argument that they should just get better around Bourn is largely built on a false premise.

[Mr. Happy]

I'm sad.

Me too. But I'm also pissed off and disgusted.

[Arky Vaughan]

Moving Bourn isn't the problem.    The problem is taking back quantity over quality.     The fact that they couldn't get one of the Braves top 4 pitching prospects for a gold glove, 50 SB center fielder is disappointing.    If the Braves wouldn't pony up at least one elite prospect, then move on for now.  

Value wise, this looks like a deal they could have made at the next trade deadline.  

Concur.

[BizidyDizidy]

Trading these guys was the right move - the team was terrible with them, and if Crane isn't going to grow the payroll significantly then winning is years away.

Whether they got anything back worth a damn is another story

[Navin R Johnson]

I am sad to see Bourn go, but I am still hopeful that with new leadership this will get turned around and built in a way to lead to another run like they had in the mid 90's thru the mid 2000s.

[Lurch]

Me too. But I'm also pissed off and disgusted.

I'm surprised

[Arky Vaughan]

I'm surprised

Once Oswalt and Berkman were traded last season, it should have been clear that all bets were off for anyone else who wasn't making something near the very bottom of the salary scale.

[Bench]

Once Oswalt and Berkman were traded last season, it should have been clear that all bets were off for anyone else who wasn't making something near the very bottom of the salary scale.

I don't think the trades are what he's surprised by, nor is he actually surprised by Happy's bitterness. Sarcasm.

[Arky Vaughan]

I don't think the trades are what he's surprised by, nor is he actually surprised by Happy's bitterness. Sarcasm.

Meter broke. Sorry.

[Mr. Happy]

I'm surprised

To me, the Pence trade made sense, although we should have gotten more back. The Astros were fleeced in the Bourn trade. It is the latter move that has me in a funk.

[EasTexAstro]

You think the bullpen has accounted for about 19 losses this season? Because to be at .500, they'd need to have won 19 more (and lost 19 fewer) games.

The bullpen has a 4.47 ERA while the league average among relievers is 3.58.

But the starting pitching has a 4.61 ERA while the league average among starters is 3.95. They would need to throw in one hell of starter to get back in the race even with a decent bullpen. Maybe call up Bob Gibson and see if he can set his time machine to 1968.

And the team is scoring 3.79 runs per game while the league average is 4.11.

The idea that this team is simply a decent bullpen away from knocking at .500 is irreconcilable with the performance of the starting pitching and the offense, which are both notably below league average.

You call my logic fucked up beyond all recognition, but your argument that they should just get better around Bourn is largely built on a false premise.

So, if one starter kept the games closer, and the bullpen kept it within one run, or even tied, would the offense change any at all? Would going for one run to win a game be different than needing 3 runs to win the game? I think it is very valid to argue that this small ball team might have had a better chance with a better bullpen. Would it make a difference of 19 games? I would think it would be at least half of that, if not more.

[jbm]

The whole idea that this year's stats predicts next year's performance is flawed to the core, even assuming no roster changes.

[DVauthrin]

Trading these guys was the right move - the team was terrible with them, and if Crane isn't going to grow the payroll significantly then winning is years away.

Whether they got anything back worth a damn is another story

I don't disagree that eventually they needed to deal Pence and Bourn.    What I would question is the timing of the deals.   
If Crane cleans house once he gets control of the team, why let Wade trade your two best chips to restock the farm system?   

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the Pence deal.   Singleton and Cosart have the ability to be stars if they pan out.    However, the return for Bourn is frustrating as a fan because the organization should not have been under pressure to deal him today.    While I realize ranking prospects is far from an exact science, it's sad to think that the centerpiece of the Braves offer is expected to become a 4th starter at the MLB level.

The Braves had four elite pitching prospects, and a host of good, young position players in the minors to choose from in a deal.    They also had a glaring need for the skills Bourn brings to the table.    If they weren't willing to give up one of Teheran, Minor, Vizcaino or Delgado as a centerpiece in a Bourn offer, then revisit talks in the offseason with them and every other MLB club.    Worst case scenario, you can get an offer like this at the July 2012 trade deadline, or two high draft picks when Bourn rejects arbitration.   

[BizidyDizidy]

Bourn wasn't on track for type A was he?

[OregonStrosFan]

Moving Bourn isn't the problem.    The problem is taking back quantity over quality.     The fact that they couldn't get one of the Braves top 4 pitching prospects for a gold glove, 50 SB center fielder is disappointing.    If the Braves wouldn't pony up at least one elite prospect, then move on for now.   

Value wise, this looks like a deal they could have made at the next trade deadline.   

This.

[OregonStrosFan]

Bourn wasn't on track for type A was he?

No. CF are lumped in with corner OFers and 1B and Elias rankings value HRs and RBIs a lot more than SB or defense. He was on the low end of Type B status.

[jbm]

This.

I assume Wade was told to make whatever moves he could which would decrease salary and bring in prospects?

Everyone assumes:

1. Wade got shit in return; and/or

2. Wade could have got a lot more in December.

Everyone might eventually be proved right on the first one, but I doubt many have enough first hand knowledge to honestly reach these conclusions.

[Mr. Happy]

I assume Wade was told to make whatever moves he could which would decrease salary and bring in prospects?

Everyone assumes:

1. Wade got shit in return; and/or

2. Wade could have got a lot more in December.

Everyone might eventually be proved right on the first one, but I doubt many have enough first hand knowledge to honestly reach these conclusions.

I gladly and readily admit that I don't. I'm guided by what other professionals have said about it, and that hasn't been good on the whole. Bowden gave Wade an F on the Bourn deal and a C- on the Pence move.

[austro]

I gladly and readily admit that I don't. I'm guided by what other professionals have said about it, and that hasn't been good on the whole. Bowden gave Wade an F on the Bourn deal and a C- on the Pence move.

Of course, there's a reason that Bowden is a commentator now and not a GM.

[Mr. Happy]

Of course, there's a reason that Bowden is a commentator now and not a GM.

I hear you, but I'm reading a lot of this from knowledgeable baseball people. Where there's smoke; there's fire.

[Noe]

I remember how badly Ed Wade was scorched for trading *for* Michael Bourn.  He gave the Phillies Brad Lidge.  Some media members in Houston called Michael Bourn a "AAAA" player.  One said the Astros should release Bourn when he struggled in his first season.  "A disaster... Ed Wade should be fired" was common to hear.  In fact, in here, many asked what the value of a defensive CF was for the team, who many thought was still a contender.

Wait was the word many others opined.  Wait and see, this kid can play!  "No he can't, he's a bust!" was screamed loudly and often from Houston media covering the Houston Astros.  Today, many of the same are screaming at Ed Wade for trading him *away*.

Funny how all this works.  Oh, and many of the turnstile types continued to say that the Astros should "re-build" and stop trying to fill gaps on a aging and worthless team.  McLane said no, he was going to build a champion and open the wallet large for Berkman, Oswalt, and Lee (his so-called *core* for generations to come).  The he had Ed Wade try to make the farm better, all the while still asking him to build a contender her by buying free agents like Kaz Matsui, Pedro Feliz, and trading for Tejada (kind of the worthless type of prospects that now Ed Wade is supposedly trading for!) "Rebuild! Rebuild!" screamed the unwashed masses, forgetting that a major league team has the primary task to win games, not rebuild.  But scream they did, followed by "restock the farm! restock the farm!".  

The screams of "rebuild" and "restock" seem awful quiet now, where are they?  You got what you wanted, applaud Ed Wade why doncha!

BTW - this George Springer kid... signed yet?

[juliogotay]

So, if one starter kept the games closer, and the bullpen kept it within one run, or even tied, would the offense change any at all? Would going for one run to win a game be different than needing 3 runs to win the game? I think it is very valid to argue that this small ball team might have had a better chance with a better bullpen. Would it make a difference of 19 games? I would think it would be at least half of that, if not more.

I wish I knew where to find these stats but my observation is that the Astro bullpen has been better lately. They've been decent for the last month or so. In fact, of the current seven residents of this pen Carpenter has the highest ERA at 5.40 (very small sample size) followed by A. Rod at 4.93. Three members have ERAs below 3 (Escalona, F. Rod, Lopez), Melancon is 3.10 and Del Rosario 3.47. You would think that this improvement, and I think it's more than a marginal improvement for the last month, would reflect in the W-L record of the team. It has not.

[moriartp]

Everyone assumes:

2. Wade could have got a lot more in December.

I assume nothing of the sort. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell Wade is still around in December.

[Fynn]

I assume Wade was told to make whatever moves he could which would decrease salary and bring in prospects?

Everyone assumes:

1. Wade got shit in return; and/or

2. Wade could have got a lot more in December.

Everyone might eventually be proved right on the first one, but I doubt many have enough first hand knowledge to honestly reach these conclusions.

Since most are either depressed or suicidal when we think about what has happened this weekend, this link is a Braves fan perspective on the trade, and if it makes anyone feel better, this person is more than a little nervous about what they paid for Bourn.

http://tomahawktake.com/2011/07/31/and-the-biggest-risk-of-the-bourn-trade-is/

[Jacksonian]

This makes me continue to not understand the Bourn deal.  The Padres get 2 starting pitchers in AA who are fairly polished and profile about like Jordan Lyles from the Rangers for a fucking setup man.  That's it.  A setup man.  How Bourn nets a so far disappointing center fielder (who by the way is out of options after this season), 2 somewhat to quite unpolished starters, and 1 reliever is beyond me.

[At Ease]

BS.  This is the same false dichotomy we hear all the time ... Obviously they should try to win chamoionships, but only in the context of trying to win every game they can.  To take the opposite view would simply mean they should throw every game to ensure they get a string of #1 draft choices.  Play to win.  Now.  Every game. All the time.  When you end up with a guy who is rare-to-unique and he helps you win, hang on to him.  Go ahead and trade the replaceable RF who can't hit the cut-off man anyway; next year's version will probably be about as good (if not better).  But there are about to be a lot more triples with new life at MMPUS now.

False dichotomy... ?

Throwing every game, doesn't seem particularly conducive toward player development.  Unless you're the Spurs.

"Play to win.  Now.  Every game. All the time."   Great platitudes, kind of disjointed from reality for managers and front office, but pretty cool if you read them in William Wallace's voice.

In 1990 do you trade Larry Andersen?

[VirtualBob]

You think the bullpen has accounted for about 19 losses this season? Because to be at .500, they'd need to have won 19 more (and lost 19 fewer) games.

The bullpen has a 4.47 ERA while the league average among relievers is 3.58.

Did you ever hear of inherited runners stranded/scored?  Bullpen can have a big effect on ...

But the starting pitching has a 4.61 ERA while the league average among starters is 3.95. They would need to throw in one hell of starter to get back in the race even with a decent bullpen.

You call my logic fucked up beyond all recognition,

Pretty much.  Yes.

[SaltyParker]

This makes me continue to not understand the Bourn deal.  The Padres get 2 starting pitchers in AA who are fairly polished and profile about like Jordan Lyles from the Rangers for a fucking setup man.  That's it.  A setup man.  How Bourn nets a so far disappointing center fielder (who by the way is out of options after this season), 2 somewhat to quite unpolished starters, and 1 reliever is beyond me.

When I saw that trade for Adams I thought the same thing.

[HudsonHawk]

It's not a shame at all that Crane understands that building a winner takes time and patience.

It takes more than that.  It takes talent.  

I'd rather trade talented players who may not be around when the team returns to contention if they can get good value for the future in exchange.

I would not.  Secondly, I don't think it's written in stone that the Astros are 8-10 years away from "contention".

It sounds like Drayton McLane is the owner you're pining for.

McLane was a fantastic owner.  I can only hope Crane is as good.

That's not my logic, that's your straw man.

That's exactly what you posted.  If you have a different argument, you should probably put it out there.

[HudsonHawk]

You think the bullpen has accounted for about 19 losses this season? Because to be at .500, they'd need to have won 19 more (and lost 19 fewer) games.

Yes.

But the starting pitching has a 4.61 ERA while the league average among starters is 3.95.

And the team is scoring 3.79 runs per game while the league average is 4.11.

The idea that this team is simply a decent bullpen away from knocking at .500 is irreconcilable with the performance of the starting pitching and the offense, which are both notably below league average.

Have you watched any actual games this year?  Seriously?

You call my logic fucked up beyond all recognition, but your argument that they should just get better around Bourn is largely built on a false premise.

What false premise is that?  That Bourn isn't good?  That he isn't exactly the kind of player you build a young team around?  

[jbm]

This makes me continue to not understand the Bourn deal.  The Padres get 2 starting pitchers in AA who are fairly polished and profile about like Jordan Lyles from the Rangers for a fucking setup man.  That's it.  A setup man.  How Bourn nets a so far disappointing center fielder (who by the way is out of options after this season), 2 somewhat to quite unpolished starters, and 1 reliever is beyond me.

There is a different way to look at this: maybe Daniels got fleeced.

I was surprised at the Ranger's deal, based on its own merits, not in relation to the Bourn deal.  Seemed like a lot for a reliever, but I have no idea how good Wieland or Erlin actually are.  I somehow doubt Daniels felt they profiled like Lyles, at least what I consider Lyles to profile as. 

Secondly, I find it interesting that the national media seems to embrace both of the Rangers' deals.  I have concluded that the since the media is completely incapable of analyzing the particulars of a deal, they instead base it on the reputation of the GM.  Daniels' deals are gold and Wade's are crap. 

[Navin R Johnson]

Yes.

Have you watched any actual games this year?  Seriously?

What false premise is that?  That Bourn isn't good?  That he isn't exactly the kind of player you build a young team around? 

I love Bourn but I don't consider Bourn the type of player to build around.  For starters he is very likely to be here for 1 more season.

The Astros need to find some middle of the order bats and legit 1/1A starters.  They either need to sign Prince Fielder type player or add 1 via the draft or trade.  Probably won't have the money to sign a Prince type guy, so they need to do whatever they can to load up the farm system.   And once they stock the system, it has to stay stocked. 

Until the farm system is loaded up again, this is going to be a team chasing its tail.

Look what the Astros did during their best run in franchise history.  They had Biggio and Bagwell, one via trade 1 home grown.  Then they were able to surround them with players through their farm system.  When guys left they had farm hands to replace them.  Or they had pieces to make trades to add top flight talent.

[Jacksonian]

There is a different way to look at this: maybe Daniels got fleeced.

I was surprised at the Ranger's deal, based on its own merits, not in relation to the Bourn deal.  Seemed like a lot for a reliever, but I have no idea how good Wieland or Erlin actually are.  I somehow doubt Daniels felt they profiled like Lyles, at least what I consider Lyles to profile as. 

Secondly, I find it interesting that the national media seems to embrace both of the Rangers' deals.  I have concluded that the since the media is completely incapable of analyzing the particulars of a deal, they instead base it on the reputation of the GM.  Daniels' deals are gold and Wade's are crap. 

Perhaps he did get fleeced.  And the media do not think Daniels' deals are gold.  They think he's capable of making great deals.  They will remind you of Teixeira on one hand and John Danks and Adrian Gonzalez on the other.

But there is a lot of Wade hate out there.

[Jose Cruz III]

If Wade has done nothing else during his tenure in Houston, he seems to have opened McLane's eyes to the benefits of scouting and development of the farm. He might could have gotten more for the players he traded in the last week but at least there is a slight hope for the future while he is building up the farm. I loved watching Bourn play, and Pence too from a hustle perspective, and will miss watching them, but sometimes you gotta get worse before you can get better. Especially if you don't have the deep pockets of the Yankmees or the Red Sox.

In closing, I would just like to say I don't think Wade has done that terrible of a job.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Secondly, I find it interesting that the national media seems to embrace <fill in the GM's not named Wade> deals.  I have concluded that the since the media is completely incapable of analyzing the particulars of a deal, they instead base it on the reputation of the GM.  <fill in the GM's not named Wade> deals are gold and Wade's are crap. 

FIFY

I'd also like to add that sports writers are nothing more than glorified fans.  They simply have a much larger soapbox from which to rant.  The size of their forum should in no way indicate a more knowledgable viewpoint nor a better grasp of the nuances of sports GM profession.  

As I understand it, Wade was tasked to lower payroll and improve the farm system.  He did both.  There are, without doubt, questions relative to the quality of the prospects acquired (and Schafer).  However, prospects are all about questions, even the sure thing prospects (see Jayson Heywood, Domonic Brown).  There is no denying that nearly ALL the prospects acquired rate higher, relative to their age and minor league level, than any prospects currently in the Houston system.  That's progress, as far as I'm concerned.  

Speaking for myself, I get a sense of closure from this past weekend's moves.  At least no one is trying to sell this team as a "contender".  This team is fully committed to rebuilding.  The King is dead, long live the King...

[Navin R Johnson]

FWIW The 2 pitchers the Astros got for Bourn are now ranked 6th and 10th amongst Astros prospects.

http://houston.astros.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2011/#list=hou

[kevinG]

For fuel for the fire, an ESPN blogger now writes that advanced numbers back up that Bourn is a better player than Pence. http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/14409/bourn-a-more-valuable-player-than-pence

The easy way to compare the value of the two is by looking at the WAR statistic, shorthand for wins above replacement level. This number calculates how many wins a player generates over a theoretical Triple-A player for his position. It factors in hitting, fielding and baserunning.

FanGraphs.com and Baseball-Reference.com calculate WAR in different ways, but both rate Bourn as the more valuable player since 2009:

FanGraphs WAR, 2009-2011
Bourn: 13.3
Pence: 9.9

Baseball-Reference WAR, 2009-2011
Bourn: 11.8
Pence: 6.4

The differences in value primarily come from different methods in evaluating fielding (FanGraphs likes both players' defense better than B-R).

You don't have to agree with or even like the WAR statistic. It's just a tool -- a very good one, in my opinion -- in evaluating player performance. I think the main confusion or disagreement comes in understanding the position importance. Bourn is compared to other center fielders; Pence to other right fielders.

I think he's right, all being equal, if I were picking for a pickup game I'm taking Bourn over Pence. The justification for a lower haul for Bourn even in a consensus that he's a player you'd rather have than Pence, obviously, is that he's under control for fewer years. I'm of wait-and-see on the Bourn deal because I'm in favor of trading a player when their value is at their highest and I'm not a fan of negotiating with Boras, so I assume he's gone after next year.

[pots]

FWIW The 2 pitchers the Astros got for Bourn are now ranked 6th and 10th amongst Astros prospects.

http://houston.astros.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2011/#list=hou

And that doesn't include the guy that chucks it 100 mph

[HudsonHawk]

I love Bourn but I don't consider Bourn the type of player to build around.  For starters he is very likely to be here for 1 more season.

Another false premise.  There is no rule that says Bourn has to leave after next year.  But to the point, if I'm basically starting from scratch, Bourn is exactly the kind of player I want to start with.

Look what the Astros did during their best run in franchise history.  They had Biggio and Bagwell, one via trade 1 home grown.  Then they were able to surround them with players through their farm system.  When guys left they had farm hands to replace them.  Or they had pieces to make trades to add top flight talent.

The Astros had their best seasons when they loaded up on players acquired via trades or FA.  Having a loaded farm system is great, but I think some of you sometimes forget that the farm system is simply a tool, a means to an end, not the end itself.  The farm system in and of itself means exactly squat.  It's about the big club.  Period. 

[MusicMan]

Another false premise.  There is no rule that says Bourn has to leave after next year. 

He hired Boras.  You don't put on a condom unless you're getting ready to fuck.

[HudsonHawk]

He hired Boras.  You don't put on a condom unless you're getting ready to fuck.

Boras's players don't quit do they?  They play somewhere.

[Navin R Johnson]

Of course there is no "rule."  I never claimed there was.  But considering Bourn's agent, I think anyone who is being honest/realistic realizes that the chances of signing Bourn to a contract that won't hamstring the team is unlikely.

[HudsonHawk]

Of course there is no "rule."  I never claimed there was.  But considering Bourn's agent, I think anyone who is being honest/realistic realizes that the chances of signing Bourn to a contract that won't hamstring the team is unlikely.

Another false premise: the Astros can't afford to pay players market value.

[MusicMan]

Boras's players don't quit do they?  They play somewhere.

They go to the highest bidder.  Being the highest bidder on a speedy CF about to head into his decline years is not a wise strategy.

[Navin R Johnson]

The Astros had their best seasons when they loaded up on players acquired via trades or FA.  Having a loaded farm system is great, but I think some of you sometimes forget that the farm system is simply a tool, a means to an end, not the end itself.  The farm system in and of itself means exactly squat.  It's about the big club.  Period.  

And the trades they made were based on having pieces in the farm system to trade.

Who are all the big FA signings?  They pale in comparison in terms of winning games to the guys that came up through the Astros system or were acquired by trading farmhands.

[Navin R Johnson]

Another false premise: the Astros can't afford to pay players market value.

Another strawman.

[subnuclear]

And the trades they made were based on having pieces in the farm system to trade.

Who are all the big FA signings? Lee, Kent. They pale in comparison in terms of winning games to the guys that came up through the Astros system or were acquired by trading farmhands.

Clemens and Pettitte? We don't go to the WS without them.

[MusicMan]

Another false premise: the Astros can't afford to pay players market value.

"Can't" does not equal "shouldn't".

[HudsonHawk]

They go to the highest bidder.  Being the highest bidder on a speedy CF about to head into his decline years is not a wise strategy.

Decline years?  Bourn's about to head into his prime.

[subnuclear]

There is nothing stopping Crane from signing him as a free agent if he's still worth the money then. I'd be happy to see him back.

[Navin R Johnson]

Clemens and Pettitte? We don't go to the WS without them.

And you don't go sign those two without nor would they have signed without, already having Berkman, Biggio, Oswalt, Lidge, Ensberg, Qualls, Wheeler Willie T, Lane...

[HudsonHawk]

Who are all the big FA signings?  They pale in comparison in terms of winning games to the guys that came up through the Astros system or were acquired by trading farmhands.

Clemens, Pettitte and Kent for starters.  Did you forget those guys?

[HudsonHawk]

"Can't" does not equal "shouldn't".

Why shouldn't they? 

[Jacksonian]

Boras's players don't quit do they?  They play somewhere.

It's not just Boras.  It's Boras and Crane's desire for reduced payroll.

Bourn's making 4.5 mil this year.  He should be around 6.5 - 7 next year.  Once he hits free agency for the 12-13 winter, I'd expect a 10mil/yr contract for him.  I just don't see Crane going there right now.

[MusicMan]

Why shouldn't they? 

They COULD pay Carlos Lee $100M over six years.  That didn't make it a good idea.

[Navin R Johnson]

Clemens, Pettitte and Kent for starters.  Did you forget those guys?

Again, none of them sign if the Astros didn't already have a playoff caliber team.  Those 3 and Lee's contribution to the Astros succes over the last decade isn't in the same league as the contribution they got from farm hands and players aquired for farm hands.

Bagwell, Biggio, Berkman, Kile, Oswalt, Reynolds, Caminiti, Wagner, Lidge, Beltran, Randy Johnson, Gonzo, Finely, Ensberg, Willie T, Lane, Alou, Hidalgo, Everett....

[HudsonHawk]

They COULD pay Carlos Lee $100M over six years.  That didn't make it a good idea.

It *was* a good idea.  And do you think Bourn would command $100MM/6 years?  What do you seen in Bourn that makes you think he's the same as Lee?

[HudsonHawk]

Again, none of them sign if the Astros didn't already have a playoff caliber team.  Those 3 and Lee's contribution to the Astros succes over the last decade isn't in the same league as the contribution they got from farm hands and players aquired for farm hands.

Right.  It's more. 

Bagwell, Biggio, Berkman, Kile, Oswalt, Reynolds, Caminiti, Wagner, Lidge, Reynolds, Beltran, Randy Johnson, Gonzo, Finely, Ensberg, Willie T, Lane, Alou, Hidalgo, Everett....

Bagwell, Beltran, Johnson, Finely, Willie T and Alou were not Astros farmhands.

[Bench]

Bagwell, Beltran, Johnson, Finely, Willie T and Alou were not Astros farmhands.

That's not his point.  They are the product of trading for prospects (Bagwell, Finley) or having prospects to trade for stars (Beltran, Johnson). 

[MusicMan]

It *was* a good idea.

I'll just let that stand on its own.

And do you think Bourn would command $100MM/6 years?  What do you seen in Bourn that makes you think he's the same as Lee?

You're being deliberately obtuse.  I should have known better.

[Navin R Johnson]

They were all acquired for farmhands.  Well, I guess Bagwell doesn't really fit into that, but he was acquired for a current Astro.

[HudsonHawk]

That's not his point.  They are the product of trading for prospects (Bagwell, Finley) or having prospects to trade for stars (Beltran, Johnson). 

Well Bagwell and Finley were traded for legitimate big leaguers (I'm not even sure why Finley is on his list considering he never even played in a post season).  Willy T was acquired via the Rule 5 draft.  I think if anything, he demonstrates that you can acquire players any number of ways.  The point is to have talent at the Major League level, not simply "volume" in the minors.

[HudsonHawk]

They were all acquired for farmhands.  Well, I guess Bagwell doesn't really fit into that, but he was acquired for a current Astro.

Bagwell was acquired for Larry Anderson.  Finley was acquired for Glenn Davis.  Willy T was acquired via Rule 5.  Again, if anything you demonstrate that you can acquire players any number of ways.

[HudsonHawk]

You're being deliberately obtuse.  I should have known better.

So you don't want to address the point?

[MusicMan]

So you don't want to address the point?

When you're in prime, misrepresent-everything-everyone-who-opposes-you-says mode?

No thanks.  It's a waste of my time.

[HudsonHawk]

When you're in prime, misrepresent-everything-everyone-who-opposes-you-says mode?

No thanks.  It's a waste of my time.

What have I misrepresented?  Did you not bring up Carlos Lee's contract when discussing the wisdom of signing Michael Bourn? 

[pots]

What have I misrepresented?  Did you not bring up Carlos Lee's contract when discussing the wisdom of signing Michael Bourn? 

Maybe the club is hoping they have a cheaper version of Bourn in Bourgeois.

[Navin R Johnson]

Bagwell was acquired for Larry Anderson.  Finley was acquired for Glenn Davis.  Willy T was acquired via Rule 5.  Again, if anything you demonstrate that you can acquire players any number of ways.

Yes it does, it shows that building through free agency and neglecting the farm system doesn't work.  The last 4 years of Astros baseball are a great illustration of that.

Has there ever been a worse Astro team?  Has there ever been an Astro team more reliant on Free Agents? To start the season  #1 & #5 Starter, #1 Bat, Closer, starting, 2nd base, SS were all free agent signings. 

[roadrunner]

Bagwell was acquired for Larry Anderson.  Finley was acquired for Glenn Davis.  Willy T was acquired via Rule 5.  Again, if anything you demonstrate that you can acquire players any number of ways.

Wasn't Willy T in the Jeromie Robertson deal that brought Luke Scott in, too?

I miss the days of pulling off deals like that.

[HudsonHawk]

Yes it does, it shows that building through free agency and neglecting the farm system doesn't work.  The last 4 years of Astros baseball are a great illustration of that.

The last four years have been a demonstration that you need talent at the big league level.  A strong farm system is great...as long as it relates to the big club.  I appreciate the farm system as much as anyone, but some of you guys act as if it's anything *other* than simply one of the places to get big league talent. 

Has there ever been a worse Astro team?  Has there ever been an Astro team more reliant on Free Agents? To start the season  #1 & #5 Starter, #1 Bat, Closer, starting, 2nd base, SS were all free agent signings. 

Wow...now THAT'S fucked up logic.  You need a serious lesson in causality.

[subnuclear]

One relevant aspect, is that it seems much harder to develop from free agency because of steroid testing. Therefore, getting players when they are young is more important than ever.

I haven't seen an actual analysis showing this, but there does seem to be a shortage of power hitters in the league these days.

[HudsonHawk]

Wasn't Willy T in the Jeromie Robertson deal that brought Luke Scott in, too?

I miss the days of pulling off deals like that.

No, Taveras was sent to Colorado in the Jason Jennings deal.

[roadrunner]

No, Taveras was sent to Colorado in the Jason Jennings deal.

No, let me be more clear.

Wasn't Willy T acquired by trading Jeromie Robertson for Luke Scott/Willy T in 2005?

[austro]

Wasn't Willy T in the Jeromie Robertson deal that brought Luke Scott in, too?

I miss the days of pulling off deals like that.

According to baseball-reference.com, the 'Stros nicked Taveras from Cleveland in the Rule 5 draft. Scott came in the Robertson deal.

[HudsonHawk]

No, let me be more clear.

Wasn't Willy T acquired by trading Jeromie Robertson for Luke Scott/Willy T in 2005?

No, Taveras was acquired through the Rule 5 draft.  Scott was traded for Robertson, straight up.

[MusicMan]

No, Taveras was acquired through the Rule 5 draft.  Scott was traded for Robertson, straight up.

Incorrect.  Taveras was originally acquired through the Rule 5 draft, but the full rights to Taveras (so he could go to the minors) plus Scott were acquired for Robertson.

[HudsonHawk]

Maybe the club is hoping they have a cheaper version of Bourn in Bourgeois.

Sure he'd be cheaper.  Not as good either.  Of course, there are cheaper versions of Bouorgeois too.  At what point are you trying to win?

[moriartp]

Incorrect.  Taveras was originally acquired through the Rule 5 draft, but the full rights to Taveras (so he could go to the minors) plus Scott were acquired for Robertson.

Ding!

[HudsonHawk]

Incorrect.  Taveras was originally acquired through the Rule 5 draft, but the full rights to Taveras (so he could go to the minors) plus Scott were acquired for Robertson.

Ah...you are correct.  So I stand corrected...Taveras *was* part of the Robertson/Scott deal.

[pots]

Not as good either. 

Is he not an equivalent defensively?  He's a better basestealer.  If he finds a way to maintain a 340 OBP, you've lost nothing.  

At what point are you trying to win?

Not this year or next.  

[Ron Brand]

Is he not an equivalent defensively?  He's a better basestealer.  If he finds a way to maintain a 340 OBP, you've lost nothing.  


Not this year or next.  

He's inferior defensively, not quite as fast. Not sure how his arm compares.

[HudsonHawk]

Is he not an equivalent defensively?

No.

 He's a better basestealer.  If he finds a way to maintain a 340 OBP, you've lost nothing.

Eh...I'm not so sure.

Not this year or next.  

Then why am I a fan of your team?

BTW, Bourgeois is a full year older than Bourn, so any argument you make about Bourn's declining skills due to age you'd have to make even louder for Bourgeois.

[Navin R Johnson]

The last four years have been a demonstration that you need talent at the big league level.  A strong farm system is great...as long as it relates to the big club.  I appreciate the farm system as much as anyone, but some of you guys act as if it's anything *other* than simply one of the places to get big league talent. 

Wow...now THAT'S fucked up logic.  You need a serious lesson in causality.

Well the reason they had to go sign all those free agents is because there was nobody in the farm system to reload with.  That used to not be the case.  Berkman followed Bagwell, Oswalt followed Kile/Reynolds, Lidge replaced by Wagner, Gonzo followed by Hidlago...

I believe you have to build the farm system up first and that should be the #1 priority.  This especially hold true for a team that can't/wont spend 150 million on salary.  If you don't have a farm that is producing MLB players or prospects that can be traded for MLB players you aren't going to win.

[Jose Cruz III]

No.

Then why am I a fan of your team?

I am beginning to wonder if you are. You either like the Yankees or Red Sox or you have to deal with what has happened.

[HudsonHawk]

I am beginning to wonder if you are. You either like the Yankees or Red Sox or you have to deal with what has happened.

Right, the reason I dedicate my baseball fandom to the Astros is because I like the Yankees and Red Sox.  Brilliant deduction.

[Jose Cruz III]

Right, the reason I dedicate my baseball fandom to the Astros is because I like the Yankees and Red Sox.  Brilliant deduction.

That's not what I said.

[HudsonHawk]

Well the reason they had to go sign all those free agents is because there was nobody in the farm system to reload with.

Oh come on...you're being ridiculous now.

I believe you have to build the farm system up first and that should be the #1 priority. 

Make that your #1 priority and you'll remain a 100-loss team.

[HudsonHawk]

That's not what I said.

You questioned whether or not I was an Astros fan...then mentioned liking the Yankees and Red Sox.  So what exactly did you mean?

[Navin R Johnson]

Oh come on...you're being ridiculous now.

Make that your #1 priority and you'll remain a 100-loss team.

Boy, talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

[HudsonHawk]

Boy, talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

Seriously..the only reason you sign free agents is because they're better than what you already have?  Thank you Captain Obvious...your work here is done.

[pots]

Seriously..the only reason you sign free agents is because they're better than what you already have?  Thank you Captain Obvious...your work here is done.

What if they resign Bourn after he becomes a free agent for 2013?  Then basically you've picked up some prospects and lost only next years service.  (Since this year is already lost due to their current record)

[moriartp]

You questioned whether or not I was an Astros fan...then mentioned liking the Yankees and Red Sox.  So what exactly did you mean?

That fans of the 28 other clubs have to deal with their teams not being able to build through free agency.

[Lurch]

What if they resign Bourn after he becomes a free agent for 2013?  Then basically you've picked up some prospects and lost only next years service.  (Since this year is already lost due to their current record)

They'd lose draft picks, too, right?

[Navin R Johnson]

Seriously..the only reason you sign free agents is because they're better than what you already have?  Thank you Captain Obvious...your work here is done.

Seriously, your endeavor to repeatedly misrepresent what people have posted is impressive.  Than you Strawman....your work here is done.

[moriartp]

They'd lose draft picks, too, right?

Bourn won't ever be a Type A under the current ranking system.

[Jose Cruz III]

You questioned whether or not I was an Astros fan...then mentioned liking the Yankees and Red Sox.  So what exactly did you mean?

What I meant was that most all of the teams have to keep the farm stocked because they cannot maintain 180-200 million dollar payrolls. The Astros being one of them. So if you are not a fan of the Yankees or Red Sox then you have to deal with the fact that if the stud on your team is about to get too costly then you get what you can get for him.

The problem here is that although the Astros couldn't maintain that kind of payroll they seemingly ignored the farm until it was depleted. And I for one give Wade props for bringing some focus of the front office back to the farm.

[Russe]

Bourn won't ever be a Type A under the current ranking system.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time Bourn will be a free agent, they'll have new CBA in place, correct? I've read that compensation picks may go the way of the dodo, especially if it's tied into a deal to get a hard-slotting system for the draft.

[HudsonHawk]

What if they resign Bourn after he becomes a free agent for 2013?  Then basically you've picked up some prospects and lost only next years service.  (Since this year is already lost due to their current record)

That's certainly possible, though it's much easier to sign your own free agents.

[HudsonHawk]

Seriously, your endeavor to repeatedly misrepresent what people have posted is impressive.  Than you Strawman....your work here is done.

In other words, you have no argument left.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Oh come on...you're being ridiculous now.

Make that your #1 priority and you'll remain a 100-loss team.

I cannot tell if you are arguing for the sake of arguing.  I'm fairly certain you know that you build a MLB team using a combination of prospect draft/development, Rule 5, waiver claims, trade, and FA signings.  The mixture of players and how they are sourced is irrelevant, as long as you succeed in building a solid core.  There are never ending arguments on how you most effectively build the core of a team.  The Yankees buy their core players, at least in recent years.  The Twins are mostly draft/development focused.  The rest fall in between, often varying their team building approach depending on their window of opportunity given the age of their core players.

So what am I missing that has you so pissed off?  That they traded Bourn and Pence for prospects?  I didn't like seeing them go, but I am of the opinion that both of those players would be too expensive or past their prime by the time the Astros will be competitive.  I guess the models we have to compare to are Pittsburgh, as one extreme, and maybe Florida (I don't know any other example of more effective rebuilding - minus recent years)?

[Rebel Jew]

Let's not overstate Bourn's value guys. He's a good player, fun to watch, sad to see him go, but this is not some franchise cornerstone we just let go. His value will best come to a contending team where he can get on base and make opposing pitchers nervous, and shore up an above-average pitching staff with his stellar defense. You can't "build a team around" Bourn without either bringing in middle of the order sluggers who can drive him in, or deciding to go all out and build a team out of defense and speed. He's certainly an upgrade on Bourgeoius, but the fact that the gap isn't that huge shows how relatively fungible his skillset is.

[Arky Vaughan]

What false premise is that?  That Bourn isn't good?  That he isn't exactly the kind of player you build a young team around?

The premise that the Astros are, or were, a better bullpen and one good starter away from contention.

I already pointed out that nobody here is arguing that Bourn isn't good. That's another strawman.

[Arky Vaughan]

Did you ever hear of inherited runners stranded/scored?  Bullpen can have a big effect on ...

The inherited runners scored do affect the starters' ERA. How much better do you think the Astros starters would look with a better bullpen? Got any numbers to show the effect?

[HudsonHawk]

So what am I missing that has you so pissed off?  That they traded Bourn and Pence for prospects? 

Nothing has pissed me off.  I'm glad they traded Pence, bummed they traded Bourn.  I'm simply discussing the Bourn trade.  I don't like it.

[HudsonHawk]

The premise that the Astros are, or were, a better bullpen and one good starter away from contention.

That's the truth.

I already pointed out that nobody here is arguing that Bourn isn't good. That's another strawman.

Are you arguing that Bourn is not the kind of guy you build a young team around?

[HudsonHawk]

The inherited runners scored do affect the starters' ERA. How much better do you think the Astros starters would look with a better bullpen? Got any numbers to show the effect?

Is the effect not real if I don't have the numbers?

[Jose Cruz III]

That's the truth.

An argument could be made that the offense is as bad or worse than the pitching staff. This team was/is bad. The veterans weren't very good and the farm was horrible. Steps have been taken in the last 2-3 years to correct the farm. I for one am glad to see it.

Although I will miss Bourn.

[HudsonHawk]

An argument could be made that the offense is as bad or worse than the pitching staff. This team was/is bad. The veterans weren't very good and the farm was horrible. Steps have been taken in the last 2-3 years to correct the farm. I for one am glad to see it.

Although I will miss Bourn.

This team, with Bourn and Pence, scored enough runs to win 80 or so games.

[MusicMan]

This team, with Bourn and Pence, scored enough runs to win 80 or so games.

This team, with Bourn and Pence, scored 35 fewer runs than the NL average.  That's not going to win you 80 games unless your pitching staff is Philly or SF-level good.

[Andyzipp]

This team, with Bourn and Pence, scored 35 fewer runs than the NL average.  That's not going to win you 80 games unless your pitching staff is Philly or SF-level good.

I think that's what strikes me as the worst thing about the 2011 edition of the Astros.  They are a team that doesn't do anything particularly well.  Some teams that don't hit, play good defense.  Some teams just hit.  Some teams pitch really well.

The Astros, as constructed this season, don't do anything well, certainly not well enough to make up for deficiencies elsewhere.  They're a team without an identity.

[Arky Vaughan]

Is the effect not real if I don't have the numbers?

Nice try at another strawman, but no. Are you concerned that having evidence might undermine the argument?

Astros relievers have allowed 48 inherited runners to score this season. If you assume all 48 of those were charged to the starters as earned runs, which is a big if, and you subtract 48 earned runs from the starters, then the starters' ERA goes from 4.56 to 4.10, which would leapfrog the starters from 15th to 14th in the league in ERA.

So there's Bob's big effect.

Bottom line is that this team is not just a better bullpen away from knocking at .500. The starters are still toward the bottom of the league even if they had a perfect bullpen in terms of stranding inherited runners.

[Lurch]

I think that's what strikes me as the worst thing about the 2011 edition of the Astros.  They are a team that doesn't do anything particularly well.  Some teams that don't hit, play good defense.  Some teams just hit.  Some teams pitch really well.

The Astros, as constructed this season, don't do anything well, certainly not well enough to make up for deficiencies elsewhere.  They're a team without an identity.

Stolen base percentage!  What?  Oh.

[Arky Vaughan]

I think that's what strikes me as the worst thing about the 2011 edition of the Astros.  They are a team that doesn't do anything particularly well.  Some teams that don't hit, play good defense.  Some teams just hit.  Some teams pitch really well.

The Astros, as constructed this season, don't do anything well, certainly not well enough to make up for deficiencies elsewhere.  They're a team without an identity.

You're wrong. Without the poor bullpen, they're knocking at .500, which means they're about average in terms of starting pitching and offense. Notwithstanding that both rank in the bottom half of the league.

[jbm]

I think that's what strikes me as the worst thing about the 2011 edition of the Astros.  They are a team that doesn't do anything particularly well.  Some teams that don't hit, play good defense.  Some teams just hit.  Some teams pitch really well.

The Astros, as constructed this season, don't do anything well, certainly not well enough to make up for deficiencies elsewhere.  They're a team without an identity.

yet, they are usually in the game around the sixth inning, before the inevitable occurs.  That inevitable is their identity.

[Andyzipp]

You're wrong. Without the poor bullpen, they're knocking at .500, which means they're about average in terms of starting pitching and offense. Notwithstanding that both rank in the bottom half of the league.

I think the bullpen is what is causing them to be on the verge of "historically bad" versus just as bad as they've been the last couple of seasons.

[MusicMan]

I think the bullpen is what is causing them to be on the verge of "historically bad" versus just as bad as they've been the last couple of seasons.

That and the atrocious defense.

[Arky Vaughan]

This team, with Bourn and Pence, scored enough runs to win 80 or so games.

There are 16 teams at or above .500 right now. All of them except the Pirates and Giants have outscored the Astros. And those two teams have allowed 129 and 160 fewer runs than the Astros, respectively. The idea that this is a .500 team even with average pitching is crazy.

[Arky Vaughan]

I think the bullpen is what is causing them to be on the verge of "historically bad" versus just as bad as they've been the last couple of seasons.

Concur, although I think the poor bullpen has been masking the fact that the offense and starting pitching ain't so great either.

[jbm]

The idea that one can adequately describe a team by simple stats is crazier.  This team is historically bad, but player by player (prior to last week), they were by no means historically bad.  I realize that this is subjective, but really, for a team to have a historically bad lineup, they usually will have many awful position players, at least two or three total chump starters and a bad pen.  This team didn't begin to resemble that.  They just knew how to lose.  Stats don't begin to explain that phenomenon.

[jaklewein]

There's been a lot written here about the entertainment factor, and that we lost alot of that when we traded Bourn.  I'm not going to disagree but I'm way more excited to watch the team now then at any time in the last month minimum.  It's been obvious for awhile now that this team was going nowhere.  Winning is instant entertainment but when it's not a part of the ingrediants I can think of nothing worse than watching the same ball players being trotted out there night after night, hanging "L" after "L" in the win/loss column, and all the while knowing there's no real end to it.

I'm more fired up now than ever to watch the games.  Hell, I'll even be recording them when I can't watch them live, which I haven't done all season.  Why?  Because I want to see what this Martinez kid is all about.  Same with Altuve and Paredes.  And Schafer?  Heck yeah!  This kid is not just a damn throw in.  He can run and play an excellent CF and he's still only had a hand full of AB's in the big leagues.  I'm not sure Bourn brought much more with him when he came over from PHI.

Anyhow, I'm ready to root these kids on and see what happens next.

[MusicMan]

Concur, although I think the poor bullpen has been masking the fact that the offense and starting pitching ain't so great either.

There is no masking the fact that (a) JA Happ continues to pitch every fifth game, and (b) Jason Bourgeois can hit 3rd in this lineup.

[Reuben]

There is no masking the fact that (a) JA Happ continues to pitch every fifth game, and (b) Jason Bourgeois can hit 3rd in this lineup.

The fact that Carlos Corporan is an offensive and defensive improvement over their previous #1A catcher is pretty telling as well. By the way, anybody heard any recent news on Castro possibly going on rehab some time this month?

[Bench]

I'm more fired up now than ever to watch the games.  

I hope you have a solid safe-word.

[HudsonHawk]

There are 16 teams at or above .500 right now. All of them except the Pirates and Giants have outscored the Astros. And those two teams have allowed 129 and 160 fewer runs than the Astros, respectively. The idea that this is a .500 team even with average pitching is crazy.

Well, I said they'd be sniffing .500, and I still believe they would.  Secondly, of course those teams have allowed fewer runs.  That's my point.

[HudsonHawk]

Nice try at another strawman, but no. Are you concerned that having evidence might undermine the argument?

No, I'm asking if not having the evidence voids the argument in your mind.

[HudsonHawk]

Bottom line is that this team is not just a better bullpen away from knocking at .500. The starters are still toward the bottom of the league even if they had a perfect bullpen in terms of stranding inherited runners.

Legitimate question:  do you think the quality of the bullpen has any effect on the starting pitchers?

[HudsonHawk]

You're wrong. Without the poor bullpen, they're knocking at .500, which means they're about average in terms of starting pitching and offense. Notwithstanding that both rank in the bottom half of the league.

I won't remind you that last year 80 wins put you in the bottom half of the league.

[JackAstro]

I think that's what strikes me as the worst thing about the 2011 edition of the Astros.  They are a team that doesn't do anything particularly well.  Some teams that don't hit, play good defense.  Some teams just hit.  Some teams pitch really well.

The Astros, as constructed this season, don't do anything well, certainly not well enough to make up for deficiencies elsewhere.  They're a team without an identity.

You've just described pretty much every fantasy team I've ever managed – a bunch of guys who individually do some good things, but are collectively below average across the board. It pleases me to know that my godawful fantasy skills may have some application in reality. Anyone have Crane's contact info?

[Arky Vaughan]

The idea that one can adequately describe a team by simple stats is crazier.  This team is historically bad, but player by player (prior to last week), they were by no means historically bad.  I realize that this is subjective, but really, for a team to have a historically bad lineup, they usually will have many awful position players, at least two or three total chump starters and a bad pen.  This team didn't begin to resemble that.  They just knew how to lose.  Stats don't begin to explain that phenomenon.

So, they're 12th in the league in runs scored, 15th in the league in starters' ERA and 16th in the league in relievers' ERA, but that doesn't begin to explain why they've got the worst record in baseball because they subjectively don't look that way play by player?

How could anybody argue with that?

[Arky Vaughan]

I won't remind you that last year 80 wins put you in the bottom half of the league.

Actually, 80 wins was the eighth-highest total in the league last year. Last time I checked, eight is in the top half when the total number of teams is 16.

In any event, the Astros were not just a better bullpen away from knocking at .500.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

There's been a lot written here about the entertainment factor, and that we lost alot of that when we traded Bourn.  I'm not going to disagree but I'm way more excited to watch the team now then at any time in the last month minimum.  It's been obvious for awhile now that this team was going nowhere.  Winning is instant entertainment but when it's not a part of the ingrediants I can think of nothing worse than watching the same ball players being trotted out there night after night, hanging "L" after "L" in the win/loss column, and all the while knowing there's no real end to it.

I'm more fired up now than ever to watch the games.  Hell, I'll even be recording them when I can't watch them live, which I haven't done all season.  Why?  Because I want to see what this Martinez kid is all about.  Same with Altuve and Paredes.  And Schafer?  Heck yeah!  This kid is not just a damn throw in.  He can run and play an excellent CF and he's still only had a hand full of AB's in the big leagues.  I'm not sure Bourn brought much more with him when he came over from PHI.

Anyhow, I'm ready to root these kids on and see what happens next.

This.

Maybe it's a dash of willful self-deception, but I've defending rooting for this team for the past two years, despite the mediocrity and blunders.  That they've descended from mediocre to dissipated should be reason for despair, but not abandonment.

[Arky Vaughan]

No, I'm asking if not having the evidence voids the argument in your mind.

Not at all. Without putting forth a single number, it's obvious that every bullpen allows some runners inherited from the starters to score, and this means the starters' ERA is affected by the bullpen.

But the magnitude of that effect is quantifiable, which I happen to believe is more informative than guessing based on whatever Bob pulls out of his ass.

[Arky Vaughan]

Legitimate question:  do you think the quality of the bullpen has any effect on the starting pitchers?

Yes, in two ways. First, there is the direct effect of the starters being charged with runs that the bullpen allowed to score. Second, the starters might be left in to pitch in situations where they might otherwise be removed were the bullpen better.

Question back at you: do you think the Astros starting pitching would be league-average but for the awful bullpen?

I would like for it to be the case that the offense and starting pitching are actually pretty good but have been held back by the terrible relief pitching. But I tend to agree with Andy that the Astros have not been impressive in any of these errors.


Probably the best thing about this team was the center-field defense, and that just changed.

[jbm]

So, they're 12th in the league in runs scored, 15th in the league in starters' ERA and 16th in the league in relievers' ERA, but that doesn't begin to explain why they've got the worst record in baseball because they subjectively don't look that way play by player?

How could anybody argue with that?

It's just the same with your view: bad teams will have bad stats.  That observation imparts no understanding as to why they are bad.  Stats describe, they don't explain, and they certainly don't predict, which underlies your entire argument.  

[Arky Vaughan]

It's just the same with your view: bad teams will have bad stats.  That observation imparts no understanding as to why they are bad.  Stats describe, they don't explain, and they certainly don't predict, which underlies your entire argument.

You keep making reference to predictions. Who is trying to predict anything?

I am discussing what has happened, not what will happen. What has happened is that the bullpen has been awful, and the starting pitching and line-up haven't been so good either. I'm also not talking about why. Whatever the reason is, the bottom line is they haven't performed well in any of these areas.

[HudsonHawk]

Actually, 80 wins was the eighth-highest total in the league last year. Last time I checked, eight is in the top half when the total number of teams is 16.

9 teams had 80 or more wins last year.  Last time I checked, 9th out of 16 puts you in the bottom half.

In any event, the Astros were not just a better bullpen away from knocking at .500.

I disagree.

[HudsonHawk]

Question back at you: do you think the Astros starting pitching would be league-average but for the awful bullpen?

I think they could be pretty close.  I also think you discount the mental aspect of pitching.

So the followup...do you also think that the offense is affected by effectiveness of the bullpen...in other words, does having a lead late in the game, or being down by say only 1 run as opposed to being down by 5 runs, effect the offense?

[HudsonHawk]

You keep making reference to predictions. Who is trying to predict anything?

I am discussing what has happened, not what will happen. What has happened is that the bullpen has been awful, and the starting pitching and line-up haven't been so good either. I'm also not talking about why. Whatever the reason is, the bottom line is they haven't performed well in any of these areas.

But the argument is *precisely* why.  This isn't about describing the team's poor record, but understanding *why* it's been bad and what can/should be done to improve it.

[jbm]

You keep making reference to predictions. Who is trying to predict anything?

I am discussing what has happened, not what will happen. What has happened is that the bullpen has been awful, and the starting pitching and line-up haven't been so good either. I'm also not talking about why. Whatever the reason is, the bottom line is they haven't performed well in any of these areas.

I believe a bulk of this discussion was about how far this club was from respectability, and how it related to Bourn.  You imply they are far away, because they give up runs, don't score runs, bad ERAs, etc.  Therefore, you are claiming that they are far away because they have poor stats this year.  

If you are merely stating that they are bad this year, but that is not an indication of where they will be next year, then I apologize and I assume you can understand an argument that they should have kept Bourn in order to have a better team in the future.

[Lurch]

Gone.
No that’s too high.
Too high?!
You know, the trajectory.
Who gives a shit, its gone.

[MusicMan]

Gone.
No that’s too high.
Too high?!
You know, the trajectory.
Who gives a shit, its gone.

They're still shitty.

[Jose Cruz III]

That and the atrocious defense.

And the terrible baserunning. I have seen 2 games in the last month where the game was close in the late innings and we ran ourselves out of the game. Although one was a hit and run that was swung on and missed while Carlos Lee was running. That strike em out throw em out ended a one run game. Futile execution in all phases of the game. It all works together. I know that I am far from an expert. But maybe the starting pitching and relief pitching would have better stats if the Astros played better defense. Either way the whole team was bad and it was time to clean house and start over. I just hope Mr. Crane lets Mr. wade finish the job.

[MRaup]

This thread is full of Cubesque fucking whining and backbiting. Man up, you bunch of pantywaists.

[Noe]

They go to the highest bidder.  Being the highest bidder on a speedy CF about to head into his decline years is not a wise strategy.

"Really?" - Gary Mathews Jr.

[Noe]

I think the bullpen is what is causing them to be on the verge of "historically bad" versus just as bad as they've been the last couple of seasons.

*Ding, ding, ding*  Oh for the days of a GM who would send the entire bullpen down and call up six other guys from the minors.  What?  Huh?  Oh...

[Noe]

That and the atrocious defense.

And no middle of the lineup offense....

[BatGirl]

IRregardless
we need to amend the 2011 slogan to read:
"the year of the CUT, man."

[BizidyDizidy]

BA's update of Astro's top 10 prospects -

http://footer.mlblogs.com/2011/08/01/baseball-america-updates-astros-top-10-prospects-list/

No one who was with the team at the start of 10; of the recent acquisitions, Singleton (1), Cosart (2), Oberholtzer (5) and Clemens (6) make the list.