3B Question

[kevinG]

Hey, I've been visiting this board on and off for the past season, and for some reason being up late felt a compulsion to post on a subject I find interesting.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me most people think that it would be worth it to try to re-sign Huff. I was never impressed with him at all, and though he had a rough year, I'm prone to being a lot more pro-Ensberg. And though Mo often looked lost at the plate, and frustratingly changed batting stances what seemed like daily, I think his numbers justify him being the Astros' long-term 3b.

(I don't really know how to code stats, but I'll do my best):

Ensberg 2006
EQA: .291              
OBP: .396              
SLG: .463              
FRAR: 22                
WARP-3: 6.2            

Astros-Huff 2006
EQA: .274
OBP: .341
SLG: .478
FRAR: 1
WARP-3: 1.6

By most standards of offensive measurement, even in Ensberg's horrendous year, he performed better than Huff. I also think Huff would be overvalued by the market in any attempt to sign him to a free agent contract. I don't know what Ensberg's contract status is, but I'd be willing to bet that he's vastly undervalued by the market at the moment due to the perception he had an awful year (so if he is signed for next year, maybe lock him up for another 2 or 3).

Don't get me wrong, Ensberg can't be seen as a consistent run-producing big bat in the middle of the lineup. But his patience at the plate and great OBP, combined with the power that he does have, would make him an ideal 2-hole hitter. I still see a big need for protection after Berkman, but I think Ensberg should get the preference over Huff by the organization.

[Ankh]

oy.

The way I see it, when Statue is up at the plate, he's frustrating to watch. He takes good pitches, and swings at bad ones to overcompensate. I don't see how his OBP holds up next year if he's consistently in front of Berkman, and pitchers throw him more strikes. That's the thing - on the whole, his BB rate baffles me.

Whereas Huff has good at-bats.

But I do find Ensberg to be the better defensive player.

[JimR]

Huff is coming back.
Ensberg is moving on.


imo, of course, and i'm glad.

[Astroholic]

Did you see any games?  After the first month, Morgan could not/would not take the damn bat off of his shoulder.  This (IMHO) also cost us the WS last year (at least a few games).  Huff knocked the hell out of the ball.  Many of his outs were of the line drive variety.  I would take Huff over "the statue" any day.

[VirtualBob]

Quote:
Huff is coming back.
Ensberg is moving on.


imo, of course, and i'm glad.

Gotta disagree with the sentiment here ... Mo will probably always be frustrating.  remember when Wade Boggs was under so much pressure for taking walks?  That said, he's got a good batting eye and good power.  He's also well above average in the field.  Even after the head-case discount, I see him as a solid contributor and I hope it is as a long-time Astro 3B.

[toddthebod]

I am also not sold on Huff.  I think that he had some tough luck this season and his batting average was deceptively low.  Still, IMO, I think that the Astros may got him a couple of years too late.  And the fact that his falloff seems to coincides with the greater scrutiny of steroids scares me a little.  I think that he'll be back next year so I hope I'm wrong on all counts.  

As for Ensberg, I have seen enough of Ensberg to last a lifetime.  In addition to his inability to swing at good pitches, I think that he has a terrible arm at third.  Let him be someone else's problem.  Personally, I keep thinking that if the Yankees get rid of A-Rod (whether or not to the Astros) that Ensberg would be a good fit for them.

[Froback]

I think the infatuation of Huff has more to do with the fact that he is NOT Ensberg more than how good he looked or anything like that.  I think also a small part of it is, Huff is a Texan.

All that being said, I like Ensberg more than Huff because he always works to count.  I think he is annoying in how many pitches he takes too, but in the end this is actually an asset to the rest of the line-up.  But it is very frustrating to watch.

I also think that if Burke isn't batting #2, Ensberg should in this line-up (as it stands today).

But I know I am in a minority of those who post regularly around here.

I was not all that impressed with Huff after he came over from TB this year... Other than lower K numbers I didn't see a big difference from him to Preston Wilson as far as production.  And Wilson was let go.

[pravata]

Quote:
I think the infatuation of Huff has more to do with the fact that he is NOT Ensberg more than how good he looked or anything like that.  I think also a small part of it is, Huff is a Texan.

All that being said, I like Ensberg more than Huff because he always works to count.  I think he is annoying in how many pitches he takes too, but in the end this is actually an asset to the rest of the line-up.  But it is very frustrating to watch.

I also think that if Burke isn't batting #2, Ensberg should in this line-up (as it stands today).

But I know I am in a minority of those who post regularly around here.

I was not all that impressed with Huff after he came over from TB this year... Other than lower K numbers I didn't see a big difference from him to Preston Wilson as far as production.  And Wilson was let go.

If they get another hitter who will swing the bat with runners on, Ensberg is an asset.  They shouldn't count on Ensberg to drive in runs, as they did in 06.  Of course Ensberg has been injured 3 years in a row and that has affected his output.

[Froback]

Quote:
If they get another hitter who will swing the bat with runners on, Ensberg is an asset.  They shouldn't count on Ensberg to drive in runs, as they did in 06.  Of course Ensberg has been injured 3 years in a row and that has affected his output.

Which is why I think he should be the #2 hitter.  Even if your #2 hits 35 HRs, is that really bad?

I agree the team needs 1 or 2 more RBI type guys.  But I doubt they get more than 1 unless they trade for a 2nd one.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
If they get another hitter who will swing the bat with runners on, Ensberg is an asset.  They shouldn't count on Ensberg to drive in runs, as they did in 06.  Of course Ensberg has been injured 3 years in a row and that has affected his output.

Which is why I think he should be the #2 hitter.  Even if your #2 hits 35 HRs, is that really bad?

I agree the team needs 1 or 2 more RBI type guys.  But I doubt they get more than 1 unless they trade for a 2nd one.

Their RBI guys might be, Berkman, Lee, and hope for Scott. Biggio or Burke in the 6th spot seems problematic.

[Astroholic]

Guess I would not have a problem with Morgan in the two spot, but please leave him there and get a good RBI man to hit cleanup.

[Astroholic]

Actually I thought about it and I do have a problem with Morgan in the two spot for this team.  The stros already have a weak hitting CF (probably not going anywhere), a weak hitting Shortstop (not going anywhere), a weak hitting catcher (I like Ausmus but this is a position I would try to improve offensively), a average hitting 2 bagger duo, and a second yr Rt/Lf (Scott) which might not be as good as last yr.  Really like to see your 3 bagger produce (RBI/Power) and not look for a walk.  (Would you take Rolen if him and the commander can't make up?)

[Trey]

Quote:
(Would you take Rolen if him and the commander can't make up?)

Dollars to donuts says this feud is about as real as the Oswalt-Purpura/McLane feud from earlier this year.

[JimR]

Huff is coming back.
Morgan is moving on.

Ensberg has worn out his welcome, i think, and i would have shot him long ago.

[Taras Bulba]

Quote:
I am also not sold on Huff.  I think that he had some tough luck this season and his batting average was deceptively low.  Still, IMO, I think that the Astros may got him a couple of years too late.  And the fact that his falloff seems to coincides with the greater scrutiny of steroids scares me a little.  I think that he'll be back next year so I hope I'm wrong on all counts.  

As for Ensberg, I have seen enough of Ensberg to last a lifetime.  In addition to his inability to swing at good pitches, I think that he has a terrible arm at third.  Let him be someone else's problem.  Personally, I keep thinking that if the Yankees get rid of A-Rod (whether or not to the Astros) that Ensberg would be a good fit for them.

Morgan would be on a window ledge moments after exposure to the NY media glare.  Of course, Garner will be on a window ledge if he learns the Astros are keeping Ensberg.  Either way, somebody jumps.

[BudGirl]

Quote:
Ensberg has worn out his welcome,

Yep, and I don't think the fans have anything to do with his welcome.

[JimR]

personally, i think Mo's primary injury is to his thinking.

[kevinG]

I realize all the flaws that have been exposed this year with Mo, but I'm still not sold on the idea that the stros should let him loose. He's an on-base machine who was fighting through injury this year (whether you believe the fact that his injury was actually physical or the injury was brain-related) and perhaps I'm being optimistic, but an offseason might allow him to fix some of that.

I also think he can be signed for cheap, due to the .235 batting average (a poor and overused metric for measuring offensive ability). And far cheaper than Huff, who was already making nearly double Ensberg's salary this year. I don't think that all those walks would look as bad if there were no one on base in front of him.

[EasTexAstro]

Quote:
He's an on-base machine

People keep saying this, talking about his walks, but as pitchers realize he isn't going to hurt them, his walks will go down. He has to swing the bat and prove he can hit or the pitchers will adjust and come right at him.

[pravata]

Quote:
...I also think he can be signed for cheap, due to the .235 batting average (a poor and overused metric for measuring offensive ability). ...

2 things, Ensberg's contract was $3.8 million last season, so the minimum the Astros can pay him next season is 3.04. And, batting average is an excellent metric to measure what the Astros were paying Ensberg for, which is to hit the damn ball.

[JimR]

in a word, bullshit.

[kevinG]

Sure, Ensberg wasn't the player that the Astros were expecting when they signed him to an extension (that is, the 30+HR 100+ RBI guy), but that doesn't mean he's not a valuable baseball player, someone who wouldn't be expected to drive in runs, but someone who is expected to get on base in front of run producers (which he has done, to the point of being top-20 in MLB).

I suppose I'm just astounded by the willingness to ditch Ensberg considering just how often he walks, a great asset if he would be hitting in the top of the lineup as opposed to the middle. He walked more than Berkman last year, and that was in about 2/3 of the ABs that Berkman had. If Ensberg was starting in the lineup the whole year, he might have lead MLB in walks (he had 101, the leader Abreu had 124).

It's a valid question whether or not he can keep up the pace when he's not a feared middle-of-the-order hitter and batting as someone who is actually expected to get on base.  But considering he can be had for $3-5 million/yr, when Huff would probably be $6-8/yr, I think it's a good investment, spend the extra cash trying to lure Lee or an equivalent-caliber FA.

[toddthebod]

Just took a look at Ensberg's stats batting in the 2-hole (presumably in front of Berkman).

.364 BA; .483 OBP; .633 SLG.

2 Home Runs in 22 ABs.

Kind of funny that he actually did pretty well batting in front of Berkman, although this experiment admittedly lasted for only 8 games.  Small sample size, but it is interesting.

All that being said, I still don't want to see Ensberg on the Astros next season.

[Astroholic]

How about spend the money to get a 3 baseman (not necessarily Huff) and another RBI guy RF/LF. The stros need more than 1 capable bat and Morgan is just clogging that spot (IMO).  
In a dream world I would
1. Sign Huff
2. Trade Morgan (since he is so valuable you should be able to get a middle reliever in return)
3. Sign Lee
4. Replace Ausmus with a better offensive player (Molina has been mentioned)
5. Sign Woody
5. Hope like Hell that Pettitte and Roger come back

[pravata]

Quote:
Sure, Ensberg wasn't the player that the Astros were expecting when they signed him to an extension (that is, the 30+HR 100+ RBI guy), but that doesn't mean he's not a valuable baseball player, someone who wouldn't be expected to drive in runs, but someone who is expected to get on base in front of run producers (which he has done, to the point of being top-20 in MLB).

I suppose I'm just astounded by the willingness to ditch Ensberg considering just how often he walks, a great asset if he would be hitting in the top of the lineup as opposed to the middle. He walked more than Berkman last year, and that was in about 2/3 of the ABs that Berkman had. If Ensberg was starting in the lineup the whole year, he might have lead MLB in walks (he had 101, the leader Abreu had 124).

It's a valid question whether or not he can keep up the pace when he's not a feared middle-of-the-order hitter and batting as someone who is actually expected to get on base.  But considering he can be had for $3-5 million/yr, when Huff would probably be $6-8/yr, I think it's a good investment, spend the extra cash trying to lure Lee or an equivalent-caliber FA.

When the Astros were putting together their team for 2005, Morgan Ensberg walking a lot was not in the plans.  Ensberg's supposed value to this team was an ability to drive in runs.  In a vacuum, or in a list ranking players by OBP, his OBP might appear to be valuable, however on a team that included Everett, Ausmus, & Taveras, it was not. Phil Garner made public comments about this.  I don't think the team they're going to assemble for 2006 will be able to carry a 3b who's looking to walk alot.

[Astroholic]

That is exactly what I have been "trying" to say.

[jaklewein]

Quote:
How about spend the money to get a 3 baseman (not necessarily Huff) and another RBI guy RF/LF. The stros need more than 1 capable bat and Morgan is just clogging that spot (IMO).  
In a dream world I would
1. Sign Huff
2. Trade Morgan (since he is so valuable you should be able to get a middle reliever in return)
3. Sign Lee
4. Replace Ausmus with a better offensive player (Molina has been mentioned)
5. Sign Woody
5. Hope like Hell that Pettitte and Roger come back

If Pettitte or Clemens express interest in returning for the '07 season, you gotta figure Ausmus will be resigned.  Assuming this happens...who becomes the other catcher?  Gimenez or Q?

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:
How about spend the money to get a 3 baseman (not necessarily Huff) and another RBI guy RF/LF. The stros need more than 1 capable bat and Morgan is just clogging that spot (IMO).  
In a dream world I would
1. Sign Huff
2. Trade Morgan (since he is so valuable you should be able to get a middle reliever in return)
3. Sign Lee
4. Replace Ausmus with a better offensive player (Molina has been mentioned)
5. Sign Woody
5. Hope like Hell that Pettitte and Roger come back

If Pettitte or Clemens express interest in returning for the '07 season, you gotta figure Ausmus will be resigned.  Assuming this happens...who becomes the other catcher?  Gimenez or Q?

I thought Ausmus was already signed for next season. Didn't he get a two year deal a year ago?

[tophfar]

Quote:

Quote:
(Would you take Rolen if him and the commander can't make up?)

Dollars to donuts says this feud is about as real as the Oswalt-Purpura/McLane feud from earlier this year.

i don't know about that, when Meyers (I think it was) was interviewing Rolen just after the game had ended, he tried to bring it up twice.  alluded to it the first time and Rolen ignored it, but then when he was asked directly about their relationship Rolen just turned and walked off mid question.

Meyers even had the gall to reach out and grab him to try and bring him back to get him to answer the question.  

I thought it was pretty shitty trying to ambush Rolen like that at that moment.  But I suppose working for Fox does that to you.

[Lefty]

Quote:
I thought Ausmus was already signed for next season. Didn't he get a two year deal a year ago?

Yep.

And to the clark:  the Astros did not "give Ensberg an extension".  He was (and is) arbitration elibible and signed a 1-yr deal in 2/06.

[pravata]

Quote:
That is exactly what I have been "trying" to say.

Another example is Preston Wilson.  Compare his expected role on the Astros to how the Cardinals used him.

[stubbyc]

Quote:
Huff is coming back.
Ensberg is moving on.


imo, of course, and i'm glad.

Why? What the hell did Huff do that proved he was better than Ensberg? Was it his .181 mark on the year with RISP? Must be his .229 mark with RISP mark over the last 4 years. Or was it the terrible defense?

[Trey]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
(Would you take Rolen if him and the commander can't make up?)

Dollars to donuts says this feud is about as real as the Oswalt-Purpura/McLane feud from earlier this year.

i don't know about that, when Meyers (I think it was) was interviewing Rolen just after the game had ended, he tried to bring it up twice.  alluded to it the first time and Rolen ignored it, but then when he was asked directly about their relationship Rolen just turned and walked off mid question.

Meyers even had the gall to reach out and grab him to try and bring him back to get him to answer the question.  

I thought it was pretty shitty trying to ambush Rolen like that at that moment.  But I suppose working for Fox does that to you.

Oh, I don't doubt that Rolen is upset, just like I don't doubt that Roy was upset when had half the information.  Add into that that I'm sure Rolen was running on a lot of emotion with it being the playoffw and the year and series he's had.  I just think once all is said and done, that Rolen (who I don't think is an idiot) will realize that Tony LaRussa was doing what he felt like he needed to do to win.

My take from the postgame interview was more that Rolen didn't want to talk about it, that it was (and should be, IMO) an internal issue.

[stubbyc]

Quote:

Quote:
Sure, Ensberg wasn't the player that the Astros were expecting when they signed him to an extension (that is, the 30+HR 100+ RBI guy), but that doesn't mean he's not a valuable baseball player, someone who wouldn't be expected to drive in runs, but someone who is expected to get on base in front of run producers (which he has done, to the point of being top-20 in MLB).

I suppose I'm just astounded by the willingness to ditch Ensberg considering just how often he walks, a great asset if he would be hitting in the top of the lineup as opposed to the middle. He walked more than Berkman last year, and that was in about 2/3 of the ABs that Berkman had. If Ensberg was starting in the lineup the whole year, he might have lead MLB in walks (he had 101, the leader Abreu had 124).

It's a valid question whether or not he can keep up the pace when he's not a feared middle-of-the-order hitter and batting as someone who is actually expected to get on base.  But considering he can be had for $3-5 million/yr, when Huff would probably be $6-8/yr, I think it's a good investment, spend the extra cash trying to lure Lee or an equivalent-caliber FA.

When the Astros were putting together their team for 2005, Morgan Ensberg walking a lot was not in the plans.  Ensberg's supposed value to this team was an ability to drive in runs.  In a vacuum, or in a list ranking players by OBP, his OBP might appear to be valuable, however on a team that included Everett, Ausmus, & Taveras, it was not. Phil Garner made public comments about this.  I don't think the team they're going to assemble for 2006 will be able to carry a 3b who's looking to walk alot.

So why not just stick him in the 2 hole? Ensberg still hit 23 homers in '06, he still got on base at a .396 clip, and he still played steady defense at 3b. He's not going to get more than about 4.5 mil in arbitration so what's the rush to get rid of him?

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Sure, Ensberg wasn't the player that the Astros were expecting when they signed him to an extension (that is, the 30+HR 100+ RBI guy), but that doesn't mean he's not a valuable baseball player, someone who wouldn't be expected to drive in runs, but someone who is expected to get on base in front of run producers (which he has done, to the point of being top-20 in MLB).

I suppose I'm just astounded by the willingness to ditch Ensberg considering just how often he walks, a great asset if he would be hitting in the top of the lineup as opposed to the middle. He walked more than Berkman last year, and that was in about 2/3 of the ABs that Berkman had. If Ensberg was starting in the lineup the whole year, he might have lead MLB in walks (he had 101, the leader Abreu had 124).

It's a valid question whether or not he can keep up the pace when he's not a feared middle-of-the-order hitter and batting as someone who is actually expected to get on base.  But considering he can be had for $3-5 million/yr, when Huff would probably be $6-8/yr, I think it's a good investment, spend the extra cash trying to lure Lee or an equivalent-caliber FA.

When the Astros were putting together their team for 2005, Morgan Ensberg walking a lot was not in the plans.  Ensberg's supposed value to this team was an ability to drive in runs.  In a vacuum, or in a list ranking players by OBP, his OBP might appear to be valuable, however on a team that included Everett, Ausmus, & Taveras, it was not. Phil Garner made public comments about this.  I don't think the team they're going to assemble for 2006 will be able to carry a 3b who's looking to walk alot.

So why not just stick him in the 2 hole? Ensberg still hit 23 homers in '06, he still got on base at a .396 clip, and he still played steady defense at 3b. He's not going to get more than about 4.5 mil in arbitration so what's the rush to get rid of him?

Great, who hits 6th?

[austro]

Quote:

Quote:
When the Astros were putting together their team for 2005, Morgan Ensberg walking a lot was not in the plans.  Ensberg's supposed value to this team was an ability to drive in runs.  In a vacuum, or in a list ranking players by OBP, his OBP might appear to be valuable, however on a team that included Everett, Ausmus, & Taveras, it was not. Phil Garner made public comments about this.  I don't think the team they're going to assemble for 2006 will be able to carry a 3b who's looking to walk alot.

So why not just stick him in the 2 hole? Ensberg still hit 23 homers in '06, he still got on base at a .396 clip, and he still played steady defense at 3b. He's not going to get more than about 4.5 mil in arbitration so what's the rush to get rid of him?

Because the Astros will probably still be carrying Everett, Ausmus & Taveras.  They can't really afford a guy who is all OBP and no RBI.  If Everett hit like Tejada, or if Ausmus hit like Piazza, or if Taveras hit like Wells, then you could probably afford to put the '06 version of Ensberg in the 2 hole and fare pretty well.  But those guys don't hit like that, so you need something like the '05 version of Ensberg to pick up the slack.  And it sounds like the Astros don't expect the '07 version of Ensberg to resemble the '05 version.

[mihoba]

Quote:
So why not just stick him in the 2 hole? Ensberg still hit 23 homers in '06, he still got on base at a .396 clip, and he still played steady defense at 3b. He's not going to get more than about 4.5 mil in arbitration so what's the rush to get rid of him?

Seriously, have you watched a single fucking game this season?

Garner lost all confidence in Mo, is that enough?

[BudGirl]

Quote:

Quote:
So why not just stick him in the 2 hole? Ensberg still hit 23 homers in '06, he still got on base at a .396 clip, and he still played steady defense at 3b. He's not going to get more than about 4.5 mil in arbitration so what's the rush to get rid of him?

Seriously, have you watched a single fucking game this season?

Garner lost all confidence in Mo, is that enough?

Hell, even I know Garner lost all confidence in Mo.  Lane got the chance before Mo did.

I don't understand the attachment for Mo many seem to have.

[stubbyc]

Quote:
Great, who hits 6th?

Biggio or Burke. Hell, Burke hit 3rd for about a month this season. I'd be more concerned about the guy hitting in front of Berkman than the guy hitting 6th. It's not like Biggio's an ideal #2 guy either.

This is going to be a problem as long as Taveras, Everett, and Ausmus are all in the lineup. If you could get a power hitting CF you could stick Burke/Biggio back in the leadoff slot and have a solid 1-6. The Astros worked Pence some in CF this year even though they had Anderson and he's playing some CF in the AFL. I don't know how seriously he's looked at there though.

I understand the frustrations with Ensberg from May on, but this offense isn't going to be a whole lot better by just replacing Ensberg with Huff.

[mihoba]

Quote:
I don't understand the attachment for Mo many seem to have.

They translate OBP as "good"

[stubbyc]

Quote:

Quote:
So why not just stick him in the 2 hole? Ensberg still hit 23 homers in '06, he still got on base at a .396 clip, and he still played steady defense at 3b. He's not going to get more than about 4.5 mil in arbitration so what's the rush to get rid of him?

Seriously, have you watched a single fucking game this season?

Garner lost all confidence in Mo, is that enough?

So why did Ensberg still play over Huff nearly half the time at the end of the season?

[stubbyc]

Quote:

Quote:
I don't understand the attachment for Mo many seem to have.

They translate OBP as "good"

Not at all. However, it's better than the translation of "walks fucking kill the offense".

[mihoba]

Quote:

So why did Ensberg still play over Huff nearly half the time at the end of the season?

He didn't, even as the Astros faced a bunch of lefty starters late in the year.

Huff (RF) and Ensberg were both in the lineup many times late in the year, also.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
So why not just stick him in the 2 hole? Ensberg still hit 23 homers in '06, he still got on base at a .396 clip, and he still played steady defense at 3b. He's not going to get more than about 4.5 mil in arbitration so what's the rush to get rid of him?

Seriously, have you watched a single fucking game this season?

Garner lost all confidence in Mo, is that enough?

So why did Ensberg still play over Huff nearly half the time at the end of the season?

Matchups, defense, and have you not noticed that Garner doesn't have a "dog house"?

[mihoba]

Quote:
Not at all. However, it's better than the translation of "walks fucking kill the offense".

Not swinging the bat in an RBI slot with AE, Ausmus, and the P hitting behind you kills the offense. A walk in those situations really helps the team, eh?

[JimR]

how many of those 23 after 6/1?

he'll take his taking somewhere else.

[stubbyc]

Quote:

Quote:

So why did Ensberg still play over Huff nearly half the time at the end of the season?

He didn't, even as the Astros faced a bunch of lefty starters late in the year.

Huff (RF) and Ensberg were both in the lineup many times late in the year, also.

Ensberg played against every single left hander we faced down the stretch. He even started against Marquis a right hander in the last couple weeks of the season.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I don't understand the attachment for Mo many seem to have.

They translate OBP as "good"

Not at all. However, it's better than the translation of "walks fucking kill the offense".

Who's arguing that?  The point is that the Astros put together a team that expected Ensberg to hit the ball.  Another team could be arranged so that Ensberg's walks would help. Hopefully Ensberg is on that team.

[JimR]

so fucking what?

he also did not do shit the last 4 months of the season. we'll watch him get 100 walks somewhere else.

[stubbyc]

Quote:
how many of those 23 after 6/1?

he'll take his taking somewhere else.

I understand that Ensberg tanked after May. I'm not saying his all walks offense after May was in any way productive. I don't see how you can just ignore all production before that though. His homers and production early in the season was a major reason why we started 19-9 though. Without his production in '05 we come nowhere close to the playoffs.

[mihoba]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

So why did Ensberg still play over Huff nearly half the time at the end of the season?

He didn't, even as the Astros faced a bunch of lefty starters late in the year.

Huff (RF) and Ensberg were both in the lineup many times late in the year, also.

Ensberg played against every single left hander we faced down the stretch. He even started against Marquis a right hander in the last couple weeks of the season.

And did you watch any of those games? I watched every one.
Ensberg sucked hard in most of them. Couldn't make solid contact.

[stubbyc]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
So why not just stick him in the 2 hole? Ensberg still hit 23 homers in '06, he still got on base at a .396 clip, and he still played steady defense at 3b. He's not going to get more than about 4.5 mil in arbitration so what's the rush to get rid of him?

Seriously, have you watched a single fucking game this season?

Garner lost all confidence in Mo, is that enough?

So why did Ensberg still play over Huff nearly half the time at the end of the season?

Matchups, defense, and have you not noticed that Garner doesn't have a "dog house"?

Yup. Which basically means Garner hadn't lost all confidence in Ensberg. His use of Huff and his use of Lamb even with the massive struggles of Lane and the struggles of Ensberg suggests that he doesn't view Huff as much more than a platoon player.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
how many of those 23 after 6/1?

he'll take his taking somewhere else.

I understand that Ensberg tanked after May. I'm not saying his all walks offense after May was in any way productive. I don't see how you can just ignore all production before that though. His homers and production early in the season was a major reason why we started 19-9 though. Without his production in '05 we come nowhere close to the playoffs.

Ensberg hit .329 in April and had 19 RBI, that was the Ensberg the Astros needed.  As you point out, it showed in the win column.  April, May and Sept (12 hits 11 bbs) were the only months he had more hits than walks.

[stubbyc]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

So why did Ensberg still play over Huff nearly half the time at the end of the season?

He didn't, even as the Astros faced a bunch of lefty starters late in the year.

Huff (RF) and Ensberg were both in the lineup many times late in the year, also.

Ensberg played against every single left hander we faced down the stretch. He even started against Marquis a right hander in the last couple weeks of the season.

And did you watch any of those games? I watched every one.
Ensberg sucked hard in most of them. Couldn't make solid contact.

He looked like he had regressed to his '04 version at the plate during the 2nd half of the season, but the power did seem to come back in September.

I won't be heartbroken if Ensberg moves on after the season. I just don't think replacing Ensberg with Huff does a whole lot for the offense.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
So why not just stick him in the 2 hole? Ensberg still hit 23 homers in '06, he still got on base at a .396 clip, and he still played steady defense at 3b. He's not going to get more than about 4.5 mil in arbitration so what's the rush to get rid of him?

Seriously, have you watched a single fucking game this season?

Garner lost all confidence in Mo, is that enough?

So why did Ensberg still play over Huff nearly half the time at the end of the season?

Matchups, defense, and have you not noticed that Garner doesn't have a "dog house"?

Yup. Which basically means Garner hadn't lost all confidence in Ensberg. His use of Huff and his use of Lamb even with the massive struggles of Lane and the struggles of Ensberg suggests that he doesn't view Huff as much more than a platoon player.

Who said he had?  In addition, this is a simplistic argument.  Ensberg is a better defensive 3b than Huff.  Huff also played RF.  Exactly what percentage of games did Huff sit out with the Astros?  The Astros obviously considered Huff an everyday player.

[mihoba]

Quote:
I just don't think replacing Ensberg with Huff does a whole lot for the offense.

I disagree. Huff IMO will be an RBI machine with a full time job.

[stubbyc]

Quote:
Who said he had?

Quote:
Garner lost all confidence in Mo, is that enough?

Quote:
Hell, even I know Garner lost all confidence in Mo.

Quote:
Ensberg is a better defensive 3b than Huff.

So this would be a consideration in picking 3b for next year.

From August 1 on (the day Ensberg came back) Huff didn't start 14 games. Huff played full time while Ensberg was on the DL.

Huff then mostly platooned with Lane in RF. Starting Lane who showed no signs of life over Huff against all LHP doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement from Garner of Huff to me.

[EasTexAstro]

Quote:

Quote:
I don't understand the attachment for Mo many seem to have.

They translate OBP as "good"

I miss the solid defender and absolutley fantastic hitter Mo was in 2005. I hated watching him for most of 2006, but I still had a withering hope that he could shake off his struggles and turn it back on. It isn't much of an attachment for me, but I don't think I will turn my back on the Astros if he is their best option to start at 3rd next year.

As for his OBP, it isn't a  bad thing. It is just not what the Astros need from him. If Willy was getting on base at a .400 clip, I think the team would have some great opportunities....if Morgan (or the generic cleanup hitter to be named later) could hit the ball and drive him in.

In the end, I am not stupid enough to argue with either one of you. Ensberg is the wrong fit for this team as he played for most of 2006. There is a Morgan behind those deer eyes, possibly, that could fit the team needs again. I wouldn't mind seeing him (v. 2005) return.

I wouldn't mind seeing Huff return, either, those his defense is rougher. I don't think we have seen the best he can be, yet.

[VirtualBob]

Quote:

Quote:
He's an on-base machine

People keep saying this, talking about his walks, but as pitchers realize he isn't going to hurt them, his walks will go down. He has to swing the bat and prove he can hit or the pitchers will adjust and come right at him.

And throughout his career he has shown that he can mash the ball when they come after him.  Maybe Jim is right that he has worn out his welcome with the stro's, and I admit that to having smiled in agreement with the 'shooting' thing, but I still think Mo will do well for someone somewhere.  Of course, if he leads the world in backwards-K's next year with very few walks, I'll be forced to change my opinion.

[JimR]

he no longer shows that he can drive the ball when they come after him, that was the Good Mo. this Mo does an excellent imitation of Eddie Yost.

[JimR]

hide and watch.

[mihoba]

Quote:
he no longer shows that he can drive the ball when they come after him, that was the Good Mo. this Mo does an excellent imitation of Eddie Yost.

Now that is a blast from the past, the walking machine.

[JimR]

you are the only one who will get the reference unless Wild Dog is lurking.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Who said he had?

Quote:
Garner lost all confidence in Mo, is that enough?

Quote:
Hell, even I know Garner lost all confidence in Mo.

Quote:
Ensberg is a better defensive 3b than Huff.

So this would be a consideration in picking 3b for next year.

From August 1 on (the day Ensberg came back) Huff didn't start 14 games. Huff played full time while Ensberg was on the DL.

Huff then mostly platooned with Lane in RF. Starting Lane who showed no signs of life over Huff against all LHP doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement from Garner of Huff to me.

That Garner started Lane late in the season should give everyone a clue as to how difficult it is to lose Garner's confidence. One factor to consider about Lane, he was the Astros best defender in right field.  Huff was out 14 games, so he played in 80% of the games in which he was an Astro.  He was also having trouble against left handers this season.  However, historically, he hits left handers well.

[VirtualBob]

Quote:
he no longer shows that he can drive the ball when they come after him, that was the Good Mo. this Mo does an excellent imitation of Eddie Yost.

Ironically, I "get" that ... Eddie was the starting 3B in the first MLB game I ever saw.  Also, I hope that you are wrong!

edited to correct brain freeze

[JimR]

an oft-repeated story about Yost was that he practiced taking pitches. i imagine Mo does also.

[schlumburger04]

hey jim r could you use the quote thingy occasionally i got no idea who or what youre talking to half the time

and im still waiting for someone to give a good reason why huff is the solution at 3b. "he can drive the ball" and "give him a whole year" just wont cut it sorry

[pravata]

Quote:
hey jim r could you use the quote thingy occasionally i got no idea who or what youre talking to half the time

and im still waiting for someone to give a good reason why huff is the solution at 3b. "he can drive the ball" and "give him a whole year" just wont cut it sorry

Oh man that's funny.

[JimR]

how many times have you had to repeat 9th grade English, trollie?

[schlumburger04]

Quote:
im still waiting for someone to give a good reason why huff is the solution at 3b. "he can drive the ball" and "give him a whole year" just wont cut it sorry

[DVauthrin]

Quote:

Quote:
im still waiting for someone to give a good reason why huff is the solution at 3b. "he can drive the ball" and "give him a whole year" just wont cut it sorry

Maybe it is just me, but I like my third basemen who is supposed to be a middle of the order hitter to take the approach of driving in runs instead of looking every pitch into the catchers mitt.   Huff looks to drive in runs, Ensberg wants to walk.   Sometimes you need to use the eye test to differentiate between players.  
 
Also, i'm tired of Ensberg's stances, his refusal to tell the team he is hurt, and his inconsistency.   He also isn't cheap, as he made 3.9-4 mil in arby last year and players never get a decrease in salary from the arbitrator.   I'd rather have huff resigned at 5-6 mil than pay ensberg 4 mil.

Furthermore, here are huff's monthly numbers after/during the trade:

July:  .287 BA, .368 OBP, .521 SLG
August: .271 BA, .316 OBP, .518 SLG
September: .256 BA, .366 OBP, .538 SLG

Huff had 16 homers 44 rbi's in those 3 months. The only downside was his .213 avg at home.  Plus he is left handed, which for hitters is a plus as you tend to face more RHP.

Ensberg had 6 homeruns 22 rbi's in 191 ab's from june on.    Ensberg hit .216 in may despite good power numbers.

[schlumburger04]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
im still waiting for someone to give a good reason why huff is the solution at 3b. "he can drive the ball" and "give him a whole year" just wont cut it sorry

Maybe it is just me, but I like my third basemen who is supposed to be a middle of the order hitter to take the approach of driving in runs instead of looking every pitch into the catchers mitt.   Huff looks to drive in runs, Ensberg wants to walk.   Sometimes you need to use the eye test to differentiate between players.  
 
Also, i'm tired of Ensberg's stances, his refusal to tell the team he is hurt, and his inconsistency.   He also isn't cheap, as he made 3.9-4 mil in arby last year and players never get a decrease in salary from the arbitrator.   I'd rather have huff resigned at 5-6 mil than pay ensberg 4 mil.

Furthermore, here are huff's monthly numbers after/during the trade:

July:  .287 BA, .368 OBP, .521 SLG
August: .271 BA, .316 OBP, .518 SLG
September: .256 BA, .366 OBP, .538 SLG

Huff had 16 homers 44 rbi's in those 3 months. The only downside was his .213 avg at home.  Plus he is left handed, which for hitters is a plus as you tend to face more RHP.

Ensberg had 6 homeruns 22 rbi's in 191 ab's from june on.    Ensberg hit .216 in may despite good power numbers.

oh so you like huff because he "he looks to drive in runs." yes thats a much better answer than "he can drive the ball" and "give him a whole year."

someone who hit .181 with RISP doesnt really sound like a guy who looks to drive in runs. ensberg has nearly the same number of hits(and more homers!) with RISP as huff yet with 36 less at bats. so forgive me for thinking your answer of "he looks to drive in runs and ensberg doesnt" is just nonsense.

oh and ensbergs obp is .438 with RISP which is slightly better than huffs .287. but i guess that just means he clogs the bases with his stupid amazing ability to get on base so whatever

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
im still waiting for someone to give a good reason why huff is the solution at 3b. "he can drive the ball" and "give him a whole year" just wont cut it sorry

Maybe it is just me, but I like my third basemen who is supposed to be a middle of the order hitter to take the approach of driving in runs instead of looking every pitch into the catchers mitt.   Huff looks to drive in runs, Ensberg wants to walk.   Sometimes you need to use the eye test to differentiate between players.  
 
Also, i'm tired of Ensberg's stances, his refusal to tell the team he is hurt, and his inconsistency.   He also isn't cheap, as he made 3.9-4 mil in arby last year and players never get a decrease in salary from the arbitrator.   I'd rather have huff resigned at 5-6 mil than pay ensberg 4 mil.

Furthermore, here are huff's monthly numbers after/during the trade:

July:  .287 BA, .368 OBP, .521 SLG
August: .271 BA, .316 OBP, .518 SLG
September: .256 BA, .366 OBP, .538 SLG

Huff had 16 homers 44 rbi's in those 3 months. The only downside was his .213 avg at home.  Plus he is left handed, which for hitters is a plus as you tend to face more RHP.

Ensberg had 6 homeruns 22 rbi's in 191 ab's from june on.    Ensberg hit .216 in may despite good power numbers.

oh so you like huff because he "he looks to drive in runs." yes thats a much better answer than "he can drive the ball" and "give him a whole year."

someone who hit .181 with RISP doesnt really sound like a guy who looks to drive in runs. ensberg has nearly the same number of hits(and more homers!) with RISP as huff yet with 36 less at bats. so forgive me for thinking your answer of "he looks to drive in runs and ensberg doesnt" is just nonsense.

oh and ensbergs obp is .438 with RISP which is slightly better than huffs .287. but i guess that just means he clogs the bases with his stupid amazing ability to get on base so whatever

Here's the thing.  What we "like" and whether you're convinced is completely irrelevant.  Doesn't matter about your puppy love for the combination of the letters OB and P neither.  No one cares. However, it does betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the Astros, as they played in 06 and how they are likely to play in 07.  But, I'll tell you someone's opinion who does matter, Phil Garner

I am concerned," Garner said. "He's just not hitting the ball well consistently. Morgan's a guy that we've seen in the last couple of years who goes to the plate, takes a mighty swing and gets results."

"To me, it looks like he's searching for the ball; he's just not letting it go. He's swinging not to miss it as opposed to swinging to hit it. We've talked about it numerous times, but he's struggling a little bit."

If he doesnt swing the bat, hard, he's useless.  Huff swings the bat. "Mighty swings" "get results". If they think Ensberg will go back to his 05 approach they might keep him.  But, not because of his OBP.

[schlumburger04]

Quote:
If he doesnt swing the bat, hard, he's useless. Huff swings the bat.

yeah but heres the thing alot of yall dont understand, he hardly swung the bat all year but was STILL more productive than huff whether you choose to accept that or not.

yes i know how bad ensberg "looked" this year but to say huff is a better option next year is just nonsense. huff looked like complete trash when he was here yet for some reason no one nit picks on how bad hes been. i guess its because he "swings" when he fails and ensberg just takes a walk when he screws up. god forbid he leave it up to berkman to get the big hit

[Astroholic]

I give up.  You are right.  What was I thinking?

[BudGirl]

Quote:

Quote:
If he doesnt swing the bat, hard, he's useless. Huff swings the bat.

yeah but heres the thing alot of yall dont understand, he hardly swung the bat all year but was STILL more productive than huff whether you choose to accept that or not.

yes i know how bad ensberg "looked" this year but to say huff is a better option next year is just nonsense. huff looked like complete trash when he was here yet for some reason no one nit picks on how bad hes been. i guess its because he "swings" when he fails and ensberg just takes a walk when he screws up. god forbid he leave it up to berkman to get the big hit

We get it.  You love Ensberg.  You hate Huff.  Fine.  

Please note, most of us want a #4 hitter to swing the bat to drive in runs.

And another thing, why would anyone pitch to Berkman, who probably would get the big hit, when they could get Morgan out?

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:
If he doesnt swing the bat, hard, he's useless. Huff swings the bat.

yeah but heres the thing alot of yall dont understand, he hardly swung the bat all year but was STILL more productive than huff whether you choose to accept that or not.

yes i know how bad ensberg "looked" this year but to say huff is a better option next year is just nonsense. huff looked like complete trash when he was here yet for some reason no one nit picks on how bad hes been. i guess its because he "swings" when he fails and ensberg just takes a walk when he screws up. god forbid he leave it up to berkman to get the big hit

You simply have no concept of what the term "productive" means.

Please step out of the vacuum.

[schlumburger04]

Quote:
We get it. You love Ensberg. You hate Huff. Fine.  

no i dont like ensberg and you obviously dont get it

Quote:
im still waiting for someone to give a good reason why huff is the solution at 3b. "he can drive the ball," "give him a whole year" and "he swings the bat" just wont cut it sorry

[stubbyc]

Quote:
Please note, most of us want a #4 hitter to swing the bat to drive in runs.

Ah, so being a free swinger is the only qualification of being a #4 hitter now. Screw Huff then, let's get Tony Batista or even better, Neifi Perez. Let's get someone who swings with his eyes closed and flails away at everything because I just can't fucking stomach a guy who doesn't go out of the strike zone to drive guys in. Well, maybe we actually have a good in house option for that in Charlton Jimerson.

Quote:
And another thing, why would anyone pitch to Berkman, who probably would get the big hit, when they could get Morgan out?

Pitchers didn't do a very good job of getting Morgan Ensberg out in either of the last 2 years.

If the sole move to improve the offense this offseason is replacing Ensberg with Huff then the offense will be absolutely dreadful next year.

[stubbyc]

Quote:
You simply have no concept of what the term "productive" means.

Please step out of the vacuum.

Why don't you explain it to everyone then? Huff by just about any measure was not productive last year. He amassed all of 66 RBIs last year. This is everyone's dream cleanup hitter? Walks are not useless from any spot in the order.

[DVauthrin]

Aubrey Huff had 50 walks and only 64 strikeouts.   That is more than fine OBP wise for a number 5/6 hitter, which is where he would bat in my lineup.  Btw as an Astro he hit .250 with a .341 OBP, which is a fine walk ratio for that average.    I want Lee or Soriano or a trade as my cleanup hitter and i'm sure most people here feel likewise.  

Furthermore, you and schlumberger completely miss the point.    
You can draw walks while going up to the plate looking to drive the ball.   You want to know who does that, Lance Berkman does.    Morgan Ensberg way too often wants to work a walk or wait for the perfect pitch instead of being aggressive.   He also is maddeningly inconsistent.  Look at his career since breaking in with the Astros.  His first year he struggles and sees little PT.  Year 2 he has a great year in a platoon role.   Year 3 he hits like one homerun the entire 1st half of the season and it doesn't come out till the offseason that he was playing hurt.  Last year he is an MVP candidate.  This season he has a great april and then sucks.

I'm sorry but it's not good enough to be MVP caliber half the time and lost in space the other half.   Not for a guy who is counted on to drive in runs.

[DVauthrin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
im still waiting for someone to give a good reason why huff is the solution at 3b. "he can drive the ball" and "give him a whole year" just wont cut it sorry

Maybe it is just me, but I like my third basemen who is supposed to be a middle of the order hitter to take the approach of driving in runs instead of looking every pitch into the catchers mitt.   Huff looks to drive in runs, Ensberg wants to walk.   Sometimes you need to use the eye test to differentiate between players.  
 
Also, i'm tired of Ensberg's stances, his refusal to tell the team he is hurt, and his inconsistency.   He also isn't cheap, as he made 3.9-4 mil in arby last year and players never get a decrease in salary from the arbitrator.   I'd rather have huff resigned at 5-6 mil than pay ensberg 4 mil.

Furthermore, here are huff's monthly numbers after/during the trade:

July:  .287 BA, .368 OBP, .521 SLG
August: .271 BA, .316 OBP, .518 SLG
September: .256 BA, .366 OBP, .538 SLG

Huff had 16 homers 44 rbi's in those 3 months. The only downside was his .213 avg at home.  Plus he is left handed, which for hitters is a plus as you tend to face more RHP.

Ensberg had 6 homeruns 22 rbi's in 191 ab's from june on.    Ensberg hit .216 in may despite good power numbers.

oh so you like huff because he "he looks to drive in runs." yes thats a much better answer than "he can drive the ball" and "give him a whole year."

someone who hit .181 with RISP doesnt really sound like a guy who looks to drive in runs. ensberg has nearly the same number of hits(and more homers!) with RISP as huff yet with 36 less at bats. so forgive me for thinking your answer of "he looks to drive in runs and ensberg doesnt" is just nonsense.

oh and ensbergs obp is .438 with RISP which is slightly better than huffs .287. but i guess that just means he clogs the bases with his stupid amazing ability to get on base so whatever

Batting average with runners in scoring position is not the best way to judge a hitters approach in those situations.    Luck influences that.  This is where you must use the eye test.  You can hit the ball on the screws and get outs and with a limited number of ab's it will skew  the numbers.   Also, consider Huff was playing in the NL for the 1st time and just starting to build a book on the pitchers in the league.  

Furthermore Huff has done fine with RISP the last 3 years before this one.  2005: .285 BA, .375 OBP, .563 SLG 11 HR'S 77 RBI.  2004:  .270 BA, .363 OBP, .472 SLG 7 HR'S 74 RBI's.  2003: .297 BA, .411 OBP, .562 SLG, 8 HR 70 RBI.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Please note, most of us want a #4 hitter to swing the bat to drive in runs.

Ah, so being a free swinger is the only qualification of being a #4 hitter now. Screw Huff then, let's get Tony Batista or even better, Neifi Perez. Let's get someone who swings with his eyes closed and flails away at everything because I just can't fucking stomach a guy who doesn't go out of the strike zone to drive guys in. Well, maybe we actually have a good in house option for that in Charlton Jimerson.

Quote:
And another thing, why would anyone pitch to Berkman, who probably would get the big hit, when they could get Morgan out?

Pitchers didn't do a very good job of getting Morgan Ensberg out in either of the last 2 years.

If the sole move to improve the offense this offseason is replacing Ensberg with Huff then the offense will be absolutely dreadful next year.

Huff had 23 RBI in August, broke? tied? an Astro record for most in a month.  That opened some eyes in the Astros organization.  Ensberg's minute calculations regarding the corners of the plate are useless for the Astros as currently constructed.  

Ensberg doesn't swing at obvious balls and no one is suggesting that he should.  That argument is a strawman.  What he doesnt do is swing at hittable pitches in RBI situations. (And please, lets not cloud the issue with aggregated stats, everyone knows he was great in April and May)  

A walking Ensberg hitting in front of Berkman is not going to bother anyone.  If you want to see a high OBP, and it'll be Berkman's, waste the 3b spot on the 07 Astros with a guy who walks alot.

[stubbyc]

Quote:
Batting average with runners in scoring position is not the best way to judge a hitters approach in those situations.    Luck influences that.  This is where you must use the eye test.  You can hit the ball on the screws and get outs and with a limited number of ab's it will skew  the numbers.   Also, consider Huff was playing in the NL for the 1st time and just starting to build a book on the pitchers in the league.  

Furthermore Huff has done fine with RISP the last 3 years before this one.  2005: .285 BA, .375 OBP, .563 SLG 11 HR'S 77 RBI.  2004:  .270 BA, .363 OBP, .472 SLG 7 HR'S 74 RBI's.  2003: .297 BA, .411 OBP, .562 SLG, 8 HR 70 RBI.

So we shouldn't judge Huff on a limited number of AB's, but everyone's condemning Ensberg because of basically the same limited number of AB's. Gotcha. Ensberg hit into some hard outs too. It happens to everyone.

I'm not buying the league switch argument. Huff had still faced a lot of the pitchers before and he's got teammates and tape to help make the adjustment. Huff's rate numbers were also padded by the fact that he didn't have to face LHP.

ESPN's 3 year ('03-'05 splits) show Huff as a .247 hitter with RISP (109-441).

[stubbyc]

Quote:
Huff had 23 RBI in August, broke? tied? an Astro record for most in a month.  That opened some eyes in the Astros organization.  Ensberg's minute calculations regarding the corners of the plate are useless for the Astros as currently constructed.  

Ensberg doesn't swing at obvious balls and no one is suggesting that he should.  That argument is a strawman.  What he doesnt do is swing at hittable pitches in RBI situations. (And please, lets not cloud the issue with aggregated stats, everyone knows he was great in April and May)  

A walking Ensberg hitting in front of Berkman is not going to bother anyone.  If you want to see a high OBP, and it'll be Berkman's, waste the 3b spot on the 07 Astros with a guy who walks alot.

I still haven't suggested Ensberg hit cleanup. I suggested he hit 2nd. Pitchers still respected Ensberg's power enough to pitch him carefully. He got a lot of 2-0 and 3-1 breaking balls. His walks weren't simply a result of standing there refusing to swing. He has legitimate on base ability which is a good thing in front of Berkman. I think Ensberg will rebound and be a better all around player than Huff.

Basically, whether it's Ensberg or Huff at 3b in '07 the Astros still need to make some adjustments to the offense if they expect to have a good offense. It would seem like we need a pair of new outfielders this offseason too.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Batting average with runners in scoring position is not the best way to judge a hitters approach in those situations.    Luck influences that.  This is where you must use the eye test.  You can hit the ball on the screws and get outs and with a limited number of ab's it will skew  the numbers.   Also, consider Huff was playing in the NL for the 1st time and just starting to build a book on the pitchers in the league.  

Furthermore Huff has done fine with RISP the last 3 years before this one.  2005: .285 BA, .375 OBP, .563 SLG 11 HR'S 77 RBI.  2004:  .270 BA, .363 OBP, .472 SLG 7 HR'S 74 RBI's.  2003: .297 BA, .411 OBP, .562 SLG, 8 HR 70 RBI.

So we shouldn't judge Huff on a limited number of AB's, but everyone's condemning Ensberg because of basically the same limited number of AB's. Gotcha. Ensberg hit into some hard outs too. It happens to everyone.

I'm not buying the league switch argument. Huff had still faced a lot of the pitchers before and he's got teammates and tape to help make the adjustment. Huff's rate numbers were also padded by the fact that he didn't have to face LHP.

ESPN's 3 year ('03-'05 splits) show Huff as a .247 hitter with RISP (109-441).

If I hadn't watched every single at bat by Ensberg and Huff, you might could get the "hard outs" comment past me.  Ensberg was guideing the ball at the end of the season.  Also, Huff may not be the answer neither.  They might go after Ramirez, who I dislike.  He will also be very expensive.  Or, Rolen has been mentioned.  Good luck with that.  The Astros have a number of issues.  3b is one, Huff is an option that's readily available.  And, while you're checking historical stats, check what Huff has done in the past vs lefthanders.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Huff had 23 RBI in August, broke? tied? an Astro record for most in a month.  That opened some eyes in the Astros organization.  Ensberg's minute calculations regarding the corners of the plate are useless for the Astros as currently constructed.  

Ensberg doesn't swing at obvious balls and no one is suggesting that he should.  That argument is a strawman.  What he doesnt do is swing at hittable pitches in RBI situations. (And please, lets not cloud the issue with aggregated stats, everyone knows he was great in April and May)  

A walking Ensberg hitting in front of Berkman is not going to bother anyone.  If you want to see a high OBP, and it'll be Berkman's, waste the 3b spot on the 07 Astros with a guy who walks alot.

I still haven't suggested Ensberg hit cleanup. I suggested he hit 2nd. Pitchers still respected Ensberg's power enough to pitch him carefully. He got a lot of 2-0 and 3-1 breaking balls. His walks weren't simply a result of standing there refusing to swing. He has legitimate on base ability which is a good thing in front of Berkman. I think Ensberg will rebound and be a better all around player than Huff.

Basically, whether it's Ensberg or Huff at 3b in '07 the Astros still need to make some adjustments to the offense if they expect to have a good offense. It would seem like we need a pair of new outfielders this offseason too.

I would take '05 Ensberg over every other option. I think the Astros would too.  That's the decision they're going to have to make.  But, a high OBP, in itself is not going to be what they're looking for.  Given the makeup of the rest of the lineup, the 3b is going to have to hit 4th, 5th or 6th.

[JimR]

stop it, stubby. the horse is dead, and you lose.

[stubbyc]

Thanks for that Jim. The "I'm right you're wrong" arguments are always so valuable.

[bivins56]

I personally would rather have ensberg back in 07.  Im not going to say because he walks or had a great may.  I just think Huff (who could be much better in 07) is not worth signing for 3 or 4 years.  let ensberg get healthy see if he rebounds if not trade for another 3b next year like we did last year.  Ensberg has less long term risk and greater potential.

[Reuben]

Quote:
I personally would rather have ensberg back in 07.  Im not going to say because he walks or had a great may.  I just think Huff (who could be much better in 07) is not worth signing for 3 or 4 years.  let ensberg get healthy see if he rebounds if not trade for another 3b next year like we did last year.  Ensberg has less long term risk and greater potential.

Not saying that particular argument has no validity, but keep in mind that Ensberg is 31, while Huff is 29.

[Michael N]

Quote:

Quote:
I personally would rather have ensberg back in 07.  Im not going to say because he walks or had a great may.  I just think Huff (who could be much better in 07) is not worth signing for 3 or 4 years.  let ensberg get healthy see if he rebounds if not trade for another 3b next year like we did last year.  Ensberg has less long term risk and greater potential.

Not saying that particular argument has no validity, but keep in mind that Ensberg is 31, while Huff is 29.

And Huff turns 30 in 2 months. He and Ensberg are separated by 16 months in age. 16 months can be a big deal in the minors but not at the major league level.

The argument about money expenditure is sound. Huff is gonna cost in guaranteed money quite a bit more than Ensberg for the short term since Huff will get a 2-4 year deal as a FA while Ensberg is still arb-eligible and seems certain to get another 1-year contract.

[geezerdonk]

Neither option is particularly appealing. Ensberg appears to be an irretrievable head case and has evidently lost Garner. Huff has his own not insignificant set of shortcomings. If he is re-signed, I hope he doesn't see any more time in the outfield. He is awful; less range than Biggio, although that doesn't seem possible. And unless Herman Munster is still in the league, there is no slower baserunner.

[Andyzipp]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I personally would rather have ensberg back in 07.  Im not going to say because he walks or had a great may.  I just think Huff (who could be much better in 07) is not worth signing for 3 or 4 years.  let ensberg get healthy see if he rebounds if not trade for another 3b next year like we did last year.  Ensberg has less long term risk and greater potential.

Not saying that particular argument has no validity, but keep in mind that Ensberg is 31, while Huff is 29.

And Huff turns 30 in 2 months. He and Ensberg are separated by 16 months in age. 16 months can be a big deal in the minors but not at the major league level.

The argument about money expenditure is sound. Huff is gonna cost in guaranteed money quite a bit more than Ensberg for the short term since Huff will get a 2-4 year deal as a FA while Ensberg is still arb-eligible and seems certain to get another 1-year contract.

But with no viable 3rd base prospects in the Astros minor league system for the foreseeable future (unless Koby starts taking Roger's "medicine"), I'm guessing 2-3 years of Huff is better than a 50/50 shot at having a Competent-Mo for 1.

I don't know if the 3b options in 2008 are going to be any better than in 2007. A Huff in the hand...

[pravata]

Quote:
Neither option is particularly appealing. ...

Footer weighs in with some observations regarding Huff or Ensberg

"Not sure which way (the Astros are) leaning on Huff. ...He'll probably cost around $7 million a year, and I'm not convinced the club thinks he's worth it. ...

They'll first have to decide if they have enough faith in Morgan Ensberg...I have my doubts, based on his '06 performance and his decision to not be forthright with his injuries. ..."

How about trading for Adam Dunn? "Dunn ....194 strikeouts...The Astros have enough hitters who whiff on a much-too-regular basis. ...But ....Dunn is a terrific home run hitter. He's hit at least 40 three years in a row. And he walks a lot. He's drawn at least 100 free passes in each of the last three seasons. He's averaging .380 in on-base percentage over that same span of time -- not too shabby." The Link

There's guys who walk alot and then there's guys who walk alot.  Of course, Dunn doesn't play 3d.

[Froback]

I think the Astros don't like either option, but they need a 3B and one of the two wil be the one they choose to go with.

I do not however think that they will address this issue quickly as they have higher priorities to address, and at worst the choice could be made easy if Huff doesn't wait for them.

right now I think addressing the need for a clean-up hitter they can rely on and adding in at least one very good starter is higher on the board and will likely be the first things addressed (or should be).  Not to mention the attempting to re-sign Pettitte.

If a trade is needed for one or both of those higher needs, and Enbserg is part of that deal then it makes it easier to turn to Huff (because Ensberg is no longer an option).

If Ensberg stays, the club has to determine if Huff is enough better to keep both or deal Ensberg for "whatever".  At this point, both players have some major flaws that keep them pretty close in relative value to the team.

[JimR]

the Astros like Huff.

Huff likes the Astros.

[MusicMan]

Quote:
the Astros like Huff.

Huff likes the Astros.

You make it sound like Purp is going to pass Huff a note in study hall.

[Arky Vaughan]

I think it would be imprudent to rely on Ensberg as a long-term solution at third base.

I'm as big an Ensberg booster as there is, and while a low batting average can sometimes obscure the value of a solid OBP and decent slugging percentage, the fact remains that after ripping the cover off the ball in April (.329/.467/.765), Ensberg batted just .209 and slugged just .377 the rest of the way. Granted, he did have a .374 OBP over that span, but that doesn't make up for the dismal average and power outage. He did enjoy a nice recovery in September (.273/.421/.477), but I'm not inclined to put a lot of stock in that small sample size.

For the season, Huff batted .267/.344/.469, which is virtually spot on what you would expect based on his career numbers (.285/.342/.477). There's a lot to be said for consistency, and Huff has turned in the same performance, give or take 10 percent, for a few years now. He's not going to threaten for MVP honors, but in a good year he's a candidate for a reserve on the all-star team.

They should be striving to sign Huff, but I also think getting rid of Ensberg when his trade value is very low, particularly given the great things he has shown himself capable of in the past, would not be a good use of resources unless the deal were just right.

In other words, I don't understand keeping Huff and keeping Ensberg to be mutually exclusive unless they cost too much combined to keep around. If Ensberg gets his stroke back, they can put Huff in the outfield and enjoy nice production from both. If Ensberg doesn't work out, they can use Huff at third base.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
he no longer shows that he can drive the ball when they come after him, that was the Good Mo. this Mo does an excellent imitation of Eddie Yost.

Hey, what's wrong with Eddie Yost -- The Walking Man?

[Ty in Tampa]

"Aubrey, will you sign with me for less than fair-market value? Check one:"

[ ]Yes

[ ]No

[ ]I'll talk to my agent.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I think it would be imprudent to rely on Ensberg as a long-term solution at third base.

I'm as big an Ensberg booster as there is, and while a low batting average can sometimes obscure the value of a solid OBP and decent slugging percentage, the fact remains that after ripping the cover off the ball in April (.329/.467/.765), Ensberg batted just .209 and slugged just .377 the rest of the way. Granted, he did have a .374 OBP over that span, but that doesn't make up for the dismal average and power outage. He did enjoy a nice recovery in September (.273/.421/.477), but I'm not inclined to put a lot of stock in that small sample size.

For the season, Huff batted .267/.344/.469, which is virtually spot on what you would expect based on his career numbers (.285/.342/.477). There's a lot to be said for consistency, and Huff has turned in the same performance, give or take 10 percent, for a few years now. He's not going to threaten for MVP honors, but in a good year he's a candidate for a reserve on the all-star team.

They should be striving to sign Huff, but I also think getting rid of Ensberg when his trade value is very low, particularly given the great things he has shown himself capable of in the past, would not be a good use of resources unless the deal were just right.

In other words, I don't understand keeping Huff and keeping Ensberg to be mutually exclusive unless they cost too much combined to keep around. If Ensberg gets his stroke back, they can put Huff in the outfield and enjoy nice production from both. If Ensberg doesn't work out, they can use Huff at third base.

The discussion about Ensberg and Huff is disjointed: One side speaks "performance" (ie: stats) the other side speaks "approach" (ie: middle of the lineup run producer who will swing the bat).  It's like watching two people argue in different languages: neither side is making sense to the other and for good reasons.

So that being the case, I agree with everyone and disagree with everyone too!  There... that should confuse the hell out of the lot of you!  (BTW - pravata and Jim provided the language of the Astros more than anyone cares to listen).

[schlumburger04]

jim r provides nothing

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
jim r provides nothing

Hello pot, meet Mr. Kettle! (You have no clue what I meant judging by your reply... absolutely none!)

[JimR]

fuck off, little boy. the tardy bell is ringing.

[schlumburger04]

Quote:
fuck off, little boy. the tardy bell is ringing.

how did you get to 8600 posts by getting pissed off at anyone who disagrees with you?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
fuck off, little boy. the tardy bell is ringing.

how did you get to 8600 posts by getting pissed off at anyone who disagrees with you?

Credebility is the hardest thing to regain if you blow it your first time around.  Read more, post less... but some folks will never learn regardless.

[JimR]

fuck off. you can be banned, you know.

[schlumburger04]

Quote:
fuck off. you can be banned, you know.

you do know though, that youre the only one telling people to fuck off so maybe you should be banned

[JimR]

oh, there will be others to tell you that. keep it up, little boy.

[D.WARD]

U FOO!

[stubbyc]

Quote:
U FOO!

Is this all you ever say?

[D.WARD]

yeah, most of the time.

[Michael N]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I personally would rather have ensberg back in 07.  Im not going to say because he walks or had a great may.  I just think Huff (who could be much better in 07) is not worth signing for 3 or 4 years.  let ensberg get healthy see if he rebounds if not trade for another 3b next year like we did last year.  Ensberg has less long term risk and greater potential.

Not saying that particular argument has no validity, but keep in mind that Ensberg is 31, while Huff is 29.

And Huff turns 30 in 2 months. He and Ensberg are separated by 16 months in age. 16 months can be a big deal in the minors but not at the major league level.

The argument about money expenditure is sound. Huff is gonna cost in guaranteed money quite a bit more than Ensberg for the short term since Huff will get a 2-4 year deal as a FA while Ensberg is still arb-eligible and seems certain to get another 1-year contract.

But with no viable 3rd base prospects in the Astros minor league system for the foreseeable future (unless Koby starts taking Roger's "medicine"), I'm guessing 2-3 years of Huff is better than a 50/50 shot at having a Competent-Mo for 1.

I don't know if the 3b options in 2008 are going to be any better than in 2007. A Huff in the hand...

It all seems to come down to budget priorities. Huff is a pretty good player. He's certainly not going to embarass the franchise if he's out there everyday but he's not going to light the world on fire either. Is that worth $25-30 million over 3 years? Good arguments could be make either way.

If right (in the head?), Ensberg has shown the clear ability to light the world on fire and he's a cheaper alternative for 2007 and probably 2008 if the Astros wish to keep him. But do you take the risk he'll suck eggs for three or four months and be hot for only two? I dunno.

Regarding the kids, Houston may not have a 3B on the immediate horizon but there are quite a few young players out there who could possibly be had. One example off the top of my head would be Ian Stewart of the Rockies. He's blocked by Garrett Atkins and might be available for the right pitching package (which Houston should be able to put together).

At this point the only thing I know for sure Purpura needs to do with his 3Bs this winter is offer salary arbitration to Huff. If he's gonna leave I'd sure like to get draft picks in return...

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:
It all seems to come down to budget priorities. Huff is a pretty good player. He's certainly not going to embarass the franchise if he's out there everyday but he's not going to light the world on fire either. Is that worth $25-30 million over 3 years? Good arguments could be make either way.

While I don't know exactly what "light the world on fire" means, Huff is a consistant run producer.  I'm fairly certain I'm not the only one who thinks the Astros need a few more of these in the lineup.  I also take Jim's word that he's heard there is interest from Astros and Huff in keepin Huff in Houston.  That's not a guarantee of any result, only the expressed interest from both sides.  That alone tells me the Astros are looking beyond Ensberg.

Quote:
If right (in the head?), Ensberg has shown the clear ability to light the world on fire and he's a cheaper alternative for 2007 and probably 2008 if the Astros wish to keep him. But do you take the risk he'll suck eggs for three or four months and be hot for only two? I dunno.

I think Garner has made his choice very clear.  That said, you don't simply dump a player.  What I don't get is the insistance that 2003 & 2005 are Ensberg's defining years instead of 2002, 2004, and 2006.  Regardless, the trend is unavoidable. No team can compile a lineup/roster with the expectation that every other year the player is going to blow goats.  Ensberg seems like a really nice guy but that only goes so far.  

Quote:
Regarding the kids, Houston may not have a 3B on the immediate horizon but there are quite a few young players out there who could possibly be had. One example off the top of my head would be Ian Stewart of the Rockies. He's blocked by Garrett Atkins and might be available for the right pitching package (which Houston should be able to put together).

At this point the only thing I know for sure Purpura needs to do with his 3Bs this winter is offer salary arbitration to Huff. If he's gonna leave I'd sure like to get draft picks in return...

Honestly, I've been thinking Carlos Guillen, only at 3B intead of SS.  The guy is a solid hitter, an ideal #2 hitter.  Everett could produce there, potentially, but I think Guillen would make the offense more effective.  I'd also anticipate him providing solid to good defense at 3B.  My only question is whether he can handle the throws.  

Based on Huff's performance in the field, I think I'd prefer  him at 1B, with Berkman moving to RF.  If they can acquire Lee, put him in LF and I think you have a pretty solid lineup:

Taveras
Guillen
Berkman
Lee
Huff
Biggio/Burke
Everett
Ausmus/Gimenez/Quinterro

I think you can stack that lineup against any NL team and field a good defense at the same time.

And if the new labor agreement goes into place after the WS, no one will receive compensation picks b offering salary arbitration to their FAs.

[Froback]

Quote:
And if the new labor agreement goes into place after the WS, no one will receive compensation picks b offering salary arbitration to their FAs.

On that topic (yes, derailing another thread)
I heard they came to some tentative agreement and are now putting the legalize on it to make it official.   I heard earlier that draft pick compensation MIGHT be part of it, but I have heard nothing about the specifics since the agreement had been reached.

Anyone know if that (pick compensation) is in the new agreement?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
It all seems to come down to budget priorities. Huff is a pretty good player. He's certainly not going to embarass the franchise if he's out there everyday but he's not going to light the world on fire either. Is that worth $25-30 million over 3 years? Good arguments could be make either way.

If right (in the head?), Ensberg has shown the clear ability to light the world on fire and he's a cheaper alternative for 2007 and probably 2008 if the Astros wish to keep him. But do you take the risk he'll suck eggs for three or four months and be hot for only two? I dunno.

Regarding the kids, Houston may not have a 3B on the immediate horizon but there are quite a few young players out there who could possibly be had. One example off the top of my head would be Ian Stewart of the Rockies. He's blocked by Garrett Atkins and might be available for the right pitching package (which Houston should be able to put together).

At this point the only thing I know for sure Purpura needs to do with his 3Bs this winter is offer salary arbitration to Huff. If he's gonna leave I'd sure like to get draft picks in return...

Good to hear from you, Miguel. If Huff is going to cost between $8 million and $10 million per year, that strikes me as too much. I'd do three years at $20 million in a heartbeat, though.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
you do know though, that youre the only one telling people to fuck off so maybe you should be banned

Have you posted here under another name before? I'd be careful of drawing Spack's ire.

[Trey]

Quote:

Quote:
And if the new labor agreement goes into place after the WS, no one will receive compensation picks b offering salary arbitration to their FAs.

On that topic (yes, derailing another thread)
I heard they came to some tentative agreement and are now putting the legalize on it to make it official.   I heard earlier that draft pick compensation MIGHT be part of it, but I have heard nothing about the specifics since the agreement had been reached.

Anyone know if that (pick compensation) is in the new agreement?

This is an extension, right?  I would imagine that the new rules wouldn't go into effect until next year at the earliest.

But I don't actually know anything.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:
you do know though, that youre the only one telling people to fuck off so maybe you should be banned

Have you posted here under another name before? I'd be careful of drawing Spack's ire.

Save your keystrokes.  The kid isn't reading posts with the intent of understanding the content.  He's looking for affirmation that his fantasy baseball strategy is superior and actually works in the real world.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
The discussion about Ensberg and Huff is disjointed: One side speaks "performance" (ie: stats) the other side speaks "approach" (ie: middle of the lineup run producer who will swing the bat).  It's like watching two people argue in different languages: neither side is making sense to the other and for good reasons.

So that being the case, I agree with everyone and disagree with everyone too!  There... that should confuse the hell out of the lot of you!  (BTW - pravata and Jim provided the language of the Astros more than anyone cares to listen).

I agree with you to an extent, Noe, except that I wonder if Ensberg is even capable at this point of performing at the major-league level using a middle-of-the-order approach.

Ensberg's batting average on balls in play in April was .424. The rest of the season, it was .280. (The NL average was .329.) In other words, when he got wood on the ball, he was very poor at getting hits. As was mentioned above, he was not driving the ball well at all.

That's either because his approach wasn't right, so he wasn't driving the ball well, or because he simply wasn't able to do it. Kind of a chicken-and-egg argument there.

Ensberg's main problem wasn't drawing walks. It was not hitting the ball well.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Save your keystrokes.  The kid isn't reading posts with the intent of understanding the content.  He's looking for affirmation that his fantasy baseball strategy is superior and actually works in the real world.

What he's posting or not posting isn't as much the issue as whether he's using multiple handles, which is a no-no.

[Lefty]

Quote:
What he's posting or not posting isn't as much the issue as whether he's using multiple handles, which is a no-no.

Posting style reminds me of "Adama"...as does the preoccupation with Jim.

[bivins56]

I totally agree with you.  Depending on what other moves we make depends which is a better fit.

[bivins56]

I think Garner has made his choice very clear.  That said, you don't simply dump a player.  What I don't get is the insistance that 2003 & 2005 are Ensberg's defining years instead of 2002, 2004, and 2006.  Regardless, the trend is unavoidable. No team can compile a lineup/roster with the expectation that every other year the player is going to blow goats.  Ensberg seems like a really nice guy but that only goes so far.  


It sounds like he has a great year on odd number years!!!! lets trade him after 2007.  I cant bear 2008.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
And if the new labor agreement goes into place after the WS, no one will receive compensation picks b offering salary arbitration to their FAs.

On that topic (yes, derailing another thread)
I heard they came to some tentative agreement and are now putting the legalize on it to make it official.   I heard earlier that draft pick compensation MIGHT be part of it, but I have heard nothing about the specifics since the agreement had been reached.

Anyone know if that (pick compensation) is in the new agreement?

Will be announced tonight The Link  "The new agreement will make a subtle change in compensation to teams that lose free agents, according to The New York Times, which reported teams would receive draft picks for departing high-end free agents, but not others."

[schlumburger04]

Quote:

Quote:
you do know though, that youre the only one telling people to fuck off so maybe you should be banned

Have you posted here under another name before? I'd be careful of drawing Spack's ire.

no, and what the hell is spack

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

no, and what the hell is spack

Someone who'll eat your fucking spleen.  Now my advice to you is to read more before you post.

[BudGirl]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
you do know though, that youre the only one telling people to fuck off so maybe you should be banned

Have you posted here under another name before? I'd be careful of drawing Spack's ire.

no, and what the hell is spack

Funny, I thought you knew everything.

[juliogotay]

Alyson Footer sounds off on this topic in today's Mailbag on astros.com. She thinks Huff will probably command around $7 million a year but has no feel for whether Houston will go after him. She also lets us know her thoughts on Adam Dunn and keeping Everett. Good reading.

[pravata]

Quote:
Alyson Footer sounds off on this topic in today's Mailbag on astros.com. She thinks Huff will probably command around $7 million a year but has no feel for whether Houston will go after him. She also lets us know her thoughts on Adam Dunn and keeping Everett. Good reading.

see #89097 - 10/23/06 02:08 PM

[Michael N]

Major Tom,

Perhaps I can clarify "light the world on fire" as it relates to Huff and Ensberg. In short it means be among the very elite, offensively in this case, at your position. Huff is now 4 seasons removed from being that kind of producer hence my belief that he'll remain a good, not great, hitter for the next few seasons.

I don't know why anyone would look at a single year, good or bad, and "define" a player from it. If one looks at the totality of the careers of Huff and Ensberg, though, it seems fairly clear Huff is more consistent while Ensberg is more likely to be either an elite player or a source of beeg tine frustration. The question becomes does the team invest in Huff for, probably, 3 years at around $8-$10 million a year (he made $7 million last year) or perhaps $4 million on Ensberg for one year? I don't pretend to know the answer to that question and suspect the answer is likely to be dependent on other priorities (Pettitte, another proven bat, additional pitching) and how they are addressed.

Lastly, I will live a lot longer if I never see Aubrey Huff or Lance Berkman regularly man RF ever again and if Carlos Lee joins them in LF, Willy T better have his track shoes on.

[Michael N]

Quote:

Quote:
It all seems to come down to budget priorities. Huff is a pretty good player. He's certainly not going to embarass the franchise if he's out there everyday but he's not going to light the world on fire either. Is that worth $25-30 million over 3 years? Good arguments could be make either way.

If right (in the head?), Ensberg has shown the clear ability to light the world on fire and he's a cheaper alternative for 2007 and probably 2008 if the Astros wish to keep him. But do you take the risk he'll suck eggs for three or four months and be hot for only two? I dunno.

Regarding the kids, Houston may not have a 3B on the immediate horizon but there are quite a few young players out there who could possibly be had. One example off the top of my head would be Ian Stewart of the Rockies. He's blocked by Garrett Atkins and might be available for the right pitching package (which Houston should be able to put together).

At this point the only thing I know for sure Purpura needs to do with his 3Bs this winter is offer salary arbitration to Huff. If he's gonna leave I'd sure like to get draft picks in return...

Good to hear from you, Miguel. If Huff is going to cost between $8 million and $10 million per year, that strikes me as too much. I'd do three years at $20 million in a heartbeat, though.

Nice to be heard, Ark.

It's entirely possible Huff could be had for money in the range you suggest but we don't usually see guys in his position take less money than what they're currently making.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:
Major Tom,

Perhaps I can clarify "light the world on fire" as it relates to Huff and Ensberg. In short it means be among the very elite, offensively in this case, at your position. Huff is now 4 seasons removed from being that kind of producer hence my belief that he'll remain a good, not great, hitter for the next few seasons.

I don't know why anyone would look at a single year, good or bad, and "define" a player from it. If one looks at the totality of the careers of Huff and Ensberg, though, it seems fairly clear Huff is more consistent while Ensberg is more likely to be either an elite player or a source of beeg tine frustration. The question becomes does the team invest in Huff for, probably, 3 years at around $8-$10 million a year (he made $7 million last year) or perhaps $4 million on Ensberg for one year? I don't pretend to know the answer to that question and suspect the answer is likely to be dependent on other priorities (Pettitte, another proven bat, additional pitching) and how they are addressed.

Lastly, I will live a lot longer if I never see Aubrey Huff or Lance Berkman regularly man RF ever again and if Carlos Lee joins them in LF, Willy T better have his track shoes on.

Thanks for clarifying the "light the world on fire".  I'll keep this boring, I agree with everything you posted.  Yeah, I know, lame, but true.  Anyway, I'm hoping Huff signs for 3 and 24mil.  Until FA starts up, we won't have an idea of where the league will set the market for his production.  And I just realized I failed to recall Adrian Beltre's 5 yr 50mil deal.  Oh well, I'm glad I don't have to make the decision or pick up the tab.  

As for the outfield defense, I give Berkman more credit than Huff in RF.  I just don't see a better option in RF besides Berkman, unless Lane can turn things around.  The Astros seem to value offense over defense from their LF.  Seriously, did you see Scott's range in LF?  I figure what we saw when Scott was in LF and Huff in RF is about what we should expect next year.  My suggestion, take some tums and a sedative before each game.