the rest of the off season

[JimR]

this is a blatant effort to divert the discussion away from the pedantic gnashing of teeth over the Lee deal. Drayton cannot catch a break. he did what the damn Tribune-dictated market required him to do to get the guy the baseball folks wanted so now there is a line of folks waiting to say "i told you so" in 4 years. the second-guessing about "why not trade" is particularly amusing. they tried for both Wells and Crawford and were rejected. hoo boy. reminds me of the BP wailing over the Bagwell contract year after year.

ok, so what now? a main purpose of the signing, imo, is to entice the Drama Queen and his Young Apprentice to rejoin the squad. is there money for them? is there money for Huff? are trades in the offing?

what is next?

[Greg D]

Quote:
a main purpose of the signing, imo, is to entice the Drama Queen and his Young Apprentice to rejoin the squad. is there money for them?

Yes.

Quote:
is there money for Huff?

No.

Quote:
are trades in the offing?

Maybe.

Quote:
what is next?

Another lefty for the bullpen.

[JimR]

which lefty?

i cannot believe that Garner will stomach another year of Ensberg. that is the one i am watching most closely.

[BizidyDizidy]

Quote:
this is a blatant effort to divert the discussion away from the pedantic gnashing of teeth over the Lee deal. Drayton cannot catch a break. he did what the damn Tribune-dictated market required him to do to get the guy the baseball folks wanted so now there is a line of folks waiting to say "i told you so" in 4 years. the second-guessing about "why not trade" is particularly amusing. they tried for both Wells and Crawford and were rejected. hoo boy. reminds me of the BP wailing over the Bagwell contract year after year.

ok, so what now? a main purpose of the signing, imo, is to entice the Drama Queen and his Young Apprentice to rejoin the squad. is there money for them? is there money for Huff? are trades in the offing?

what is next?

If you're right that signing Lee is part of the ploy to get AP/RC to sign there is almost certainly money for them (pretty shitty plan otherwise). I think it's fair to guess that her royal highness's salary will continue to be a "special" budget item. More interesting, however, is what Pettitte will demand in the current inflated market.

None of the premier pitchers have signed yet, but based on the market landscape in general Andy could probably command at least something like 4/60. I can't see the Astros doing that on top of everything else so a hometown discount might be a necessity to fit him in. I think something like 3/40 would be excellent but it's almost certainly below his market value.

Huff is extremely interesting if only because signing him would not only shore up 3B, but also because it opens up some interesting trade possibilities for Morgan. In that sense, if Purp thinks there is a deal out there for a 2 or 3 starter, Huff could almost be a back-up plan to Pettitte. All of this is contingent on not knowing what the market is for Morgan, but it is an interesting possibility.

I'd be very interested to hear what other people think make sense trade-wise not involving Morgan - The only other piece that comes to mind and the major league level is Taveras, and if you deal him I don't know who you put in center. I guess Burke is a possibility also, but I don't want to doom us to a full year of Biggio.

When you start looking at the minor league level it's really the pitching that seems like it could make sense for a trade, and unless you think you can parlay young pitching into a stud (Willis?), I say let the youngsters develop - if you can hit on one of them, that's still a pretty good result.

So what's the net-net of all this long-windedness? I think the most likely (and boring) scenario is that the Astros sign AP and probably have Roger for a similar half-season deal. In the first half of the year that leaves you two slots to give the youth movement a try, and then when Roger comes back you get to keep the high-performer. If Andy doesn't sign, that's when things get interesting and probably forces Purp to make some kind of deal in the trade market - if he can't, I'm afraid (much like Alkie) that this is a team doomed for mediocrity.

[JimR]

do not forget Brooks Conrad. he can play.

my initial post should have said "is there enough money for them?"

[BizidyDizidy]

I'm definitely less in tune with the minor league position players - do you think Brooks is ready to step in a starter at the major league level for half the year?

[JimR]

who knows, but i think he can play.

[BizidyDizidy]

Potentially having Burke, Ensberg, and Taveras (maybe) available for trades (along with minor league talent) gives a lot more opportunities for picking up a pitcher. Who is attractive besides Dontrelle?

[Bob Sakamano]

My main question... what is Tim looking at to pair with Brad at the catching position? Given Brad's age and declining production, it seems unlikely he'll play 4 out of 5 days again next year. More like 3, and perhaps even 2 if the other catcher's bat was suitable. But is it a certainty that Gimenez/Quintero will be the other guy in that scenario, or is Purp looking at the trade/FA market (Molina/Zaun/Estrada) to see if anyone falls through the cracks for cheap? (And even if they do, do the Stros have the money?)

[Greg D]

Quote:
which lefty?

Purp made a nice under-the-radar signing last year with Miller. Maybe he can pull another lefty rabbitt out of his hat.

Alan Embree is perhaps the best available on the free agent market right now.

[jaklewein]

Quote:
this is a blatant effort to divert the discussion away from the pedantic gnashing of teeth over the Lee deal. Drayton cannot catch a break. he did what the damn Tribune-dictated market required him to do to get the guy the baseball folks wanted so now there is a line of folks waiting to say "i told you so" in 4 years. the second-guessing about "why not trade" is particularly amusing. they tried for both Wells and Crawford and were rejected. hoo boy. reminds me of the BP wailing over the Bagwell contract year after year.

ok, so what now? a main purpose of the signing, imo, is to entice the Drama Queen and his Young Apprentice to rejoin the squad. is there money for them? is there money for Huff? are trades in the offing?

what is next?

Yes, I agree that part of the signing was to convince both Rajah and Andy to comeback...therefore I've got to believe there's money available to sign them both.  To that point however, it doesn't sound like Drayton and Pup are going to get fucked around again.  I'm happy to hear reports about a deadline being placed on Andy's decision.  I hope it's true.  The team can't afford to have those two bail on them at the last minute and have no alternatives.  Right now there are still plenty of options out there in regards to rotation help...with Schmidt and/or Suppan being high on my wish list should the Astros be forced to go that route.

Huff?  I've been saying all along that I really wanted Huff on this team.  I have no idea if there's enough money left in the kitty or not...but I'll continue to hope that there is.  I suspect that "a" bottleneck in any deal for Huff would be finding a taker for Ensberg and his salary.  From everything I've read, he fits in...as the Pup said yesterday in regards to Lee and Williams...Huff seems to be an "Astro-type player".  Hopefully both sides can bend a little and get something done.

Trades?  With the exception of Ensberg I don't see much potential.  If the team hits snake eyes on Andy and Rajah then that will be a different story, but until then I just don't see where a trade would make sense.  All of the team's commodities lack replacements.  Who replaces Taveras if he's traded?  What about Burke?  Depending on how Pup looks at some of the youngsters like Sampson and Nieve...there could be room to move a bullpen member, but why do that if you're trying to compete for a title?  I just don't see the reward vs. the risk in such a deal.

[JimR]

what does "declining production" have to do with it?

[Greg]

I can't remember...

Is Backe out for the whole season?

[JimR]

i think so.

[Bob Sakamano]

Not nearly as much as age, but his numbers did take a nosedive between 2005 and 2006, both offensively and defensively. I know he's there to call the game and not to post numbers - but imo it's a slight factor of consideration. That along with his age makes me think the "other" catcher - whoever it may be - plays more than the 1 in 5 games they played a year ago. Do you guys think I'm wrong on that? I very well could be, that's just my guess at how it breaks down.

[JimR]

i dunno. i do know that the org believed that Hector G. took a big step forward last year.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:
I'm definitely less in tune with the minor league position players - do you think Brooks is ready to step in a starter at the major league level for half the year?

He's been eligible for the Rule 5 draft for a number of years and yet the Astros had never added him to the 40-man until this year.  His addition now certainly adds weight to the notion that Burke is a trade possibility.  The Astros had not been sold on Conrad as a regular second baseman. But, that may have changed recently.  At least, now, the Astros appear to see him as a viable utility player.  

Next year's likely second baseman at Round Rock, Johnny Ash, is one to watch as well. He's a lot like Conrad defensively. He's hard-nosed, technically sound, but lacks a bit of speed and range.  Offensively, he's the opposite of Conrad. Conrad doesn't hit for a high average but has a lot of power.  Ash will hit for a high average and little power. Ash is most certainly being looked at as a future utility player though.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:
i dunno. i do know that the org believed that Hector G. took a big step forward last year.

He certainly seemed to.  

There's that Footer article stating the Astros were looking for a good hitting catcher to pair with Ausmus out there.

[pravata]

Quote:
... he did what the damn Tribune-dictated market required him to do to get the guy the baseball folks ...

Here's a good article explaining what is going on here,

the Tribune Company to finally start throwing around cash when it knows somebody else is eventually going to have to foot the bill....

This is the same Tribune Company that has put itself up for sale to the highest bidder. It's the same Tribune Company that owns the Los Angeles Times, and fired publisher Jeff Johnson and managing editor Dean Baquet for refusing to initiate further layoffs in an already bare-bones newsroom. ?
?won't still be in the picture when Soriano, at age 39, is collecting his last $17 mill. It probably won't even be around to pay the last year of Piniella's salary. They're painting the house before selling it.

Or, to put it in a slightly more cynical way, they're putting very expensive lipstick on a pig.  The Link

[matadorph]

Quote:
Drayton cannot catch a break. he did what the damn Tribune-dictated market required him to do to get the guy the baseball folks wanted so now there is a line of folks waiting to say "i told you so" in 4 years. the second-guessing about "why not trade" is particularly amusing. they tried for both Wells and Crawford and were rejected. hoo boy. reminds me of the BP wailing over the Bagwell contract year after year.

I couldn't agree more. The same fans shocked at the numbers are the same people who bitched for two years on the Chron blog about this team's impotent lineup. Now that Uncle Drayton has inked a shocking nine-figure deal with the best-available free agent hitter likely to produce runs for this team, many of those same fans are complaining that he's overburdened his own payroll for the next six years, that he should've looked to trade for guys like Carl Crawford or Vernon Wells--as if those players were available for a pitching prospect and a Taveras or a Burke. If only it were  so easy.

Astros fans should rejoice. This team just got a hitter to protect Berkman without trading anybody away.

Quote:
ok, so what now? a main purpose of the signing, imo, is to entice the Drama Queen and his Young Apprentice to rejoin the squad. is there money for them? is there money for Huff? are trades in the offing?

what is next?

I think signing a bat was definitely a strategic move aimed at luring Pettitte and Clemens back to Minute Maid, so now it's more a question of when rather than if. Since starting pitching is now the highest priority, I'm not optimistic about the team's chances of signing Huff to a new contract. I think he walks and the team looks to platoon Ensberg/Lamb at third. Barring any trades, of course.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Drayton cannot catch a break. he did what the damn Tribune-dictated market required him to do to get the guy the baseball folks wanted...

Out-freaking-standing!  Lee = the perfect fit for cleanup behind Berkman.  Cost = inflated beyond measure due to insanity all around the league, lead by the Tribune.

Two forces working in conjunction, like a perfect storm mix.  Number 1 is without question that was answered positively.  Number 2 was a question answered with some major concern but as always, it is market driven.

What smart men like Drayton McLane know is that the market adjustment will never go downward, so when he's ready to get out, he'll recoup a lot of this money.  What is necessary at this point is getting that elusive championship McLane is now coveting.  He loved the World Series spotlight, he wants back.  Is he doing a Huzienga on the league?  No entirely, but he's doing what the market dictates to get the man that was the perfect fit.

It is what it is in terms of business.  Will it be the perfect fit in terms of baseball?  I think so and so did every baseball man in the organization.  My head, however, will not roll (and neither will anyone in the media or my fellow fans) if this does not pan out.  Baseball men in the organization are not immune though.

[DVauthrin]

Quote:

Quote:
Drayton cannot catch a break. he did what the damn Tribune-dictated market required him to do to get the guy the baseball folks wanted...

Out-freaking-standing!  Lee = the perfect fit for cleanup behind Berkman.  Cost = inflated beyond measure due to insanity all around the league, lead by the Tribune.

Two forces working in conjunction, like a perfect storm mix.  Number 1 is without question that was answered positively.  Number 2 was a question answered with some major concern but as always, it is market driven.

What smart men like Drayton McLane know is that the market adjustment will never go downward, so when he's ready to get out, he'll recoup a lot of this money.  What is necessary at this point is getting that elusive championship McLane is now coveting.  He loved the World Series spotlight, he wants back.  Is he doing a Huzienga on the league?  No entirely, but he's doing what the market dictates to get the man that was the perfect fit.

It is what it is in terms of business.  Will it be the perfect fit in terms of baseball?  I think so and so did every baseball man in the organization.  My head, however, will not roll (and neither will anyone in the media or my fellow fans) if this does not pan out.  Baseball men in the organization are not immune though.

Here are the two things that baffled me about the fan reaction to a signing Lee:

1) They were upset the astros overpaid to get a big bat.   These are the same people that would have called Drayton a penny pincher if he went for another "bargain."

2) They think that trades are easier/better than overpaying Lee.   To get a hitter the caliber of Lee, the farm system would have been decimated, and right now especially pitching wise, the Astros can't afford to do that.

To me I'd rather "overpay" Lee than give up a lot of talent for a guy that either is signed to a big deal like Lee, or will be soon like Vernon Wells.

[Arky Vaughan]

Moves and contracts are all a matter of timing. This is such an elementary feature of the market, it's shocking that so many people still overlook it.

[matadorph]

Not to mention those ticket price increases. Drayton's no trustafarian, he understands business. Wise owners don't ask for more from their fanbase without giving them something in return.

[juliogotay]

Now would be the perfect time to work Gimenez into the mix. As long as Ausmus is signed and can walk he's going to catch 80% of the games. Breaking Gimenez in now will give him a chance to learn from the best and for the club to see if he is ML ready.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Drayton cannot catch a break. he did what the damn Tribune-dictated market required him to do to get the guy the baseball folks wanted...

Out-freaking-standing!  Lee = the perfect fit for cleanup behind Berkman.  Cost = inflated beyond measure due to insanity all around the league, lead by the Tribune.

Two forces working in conjunction, like a perfect storm mix.  Number 1 is without question that was answered positively.  Number 2 was a question answered with some major concern but as always, it is market driven.

What smart men like Drayton McLane know is that the market adjustment will never go downward, so when he's ready to get out, he'll recoup a lot of this money.  What is necessary at this point is getting that elusive championship McLane is now coveting.  He loved the World Series spotlight, he wants back.  Is he doing a Huzienga on the league?  No entirely, but he's doing what the market dictates to get the man that was the perfect fit.

It is what it is in terms of business.  Will it be the perfect fit in terms of baseball?  I think so and so did every baseball man in the organization.  My head, however, will not roll (and neither will anyone in the media or my fellow fans) if this does not pan out.  Baseball men in the organization are not immune though.

Here are the two things that baffled me about the fan reaction to a signing Lee:

1) They were upset the astros overpaid to get a big bat.   These are the same people that would have called Drayton a penny pincher if he went for another "bargain."

2) They think that trades are easier/better than overpaying Lee.   To get a hitter the caliber of Lee, the farm system would have been decimated, and right now especially pitching wise, the Astros can't afford to do that.

To me I'd rather "overpay" Lee than give up a lot of talent for a guy that either is signed to a big deal like Lee, or will be soon like Vernon Wells.

Eggs-zactly!  Fans, in general, are pretty stupid.  Not that it's a bad thing, you basically will find the same league-wide.  The dumbing down of the major league baseball fan is all about attention span.  In the now busy, action packed, play no defense NFL and NBA (sports entertainment 1 and 2), it's all about trills-a-minute.  Baseball is about patience, real time analytics, a chess game of sorts on the  field and most fans are ill equiped to be such.

So offseason moves are often misunderstood by fans.  If fans, in general, hate this move by the Astros, then I feel better.  Not that no reservations should be had about signing Lee, it is warranted if the discussion is about the run away free agent market.  That to me is a discussion that needs to be had.  But as far as Lee as a viable cleanup hitter or another one of his equal can be found easily in a trade is a discussion that cannot be easily had nor should roll off the tongue of the fan.  But it does because "we" fans always know better than baseball men like Smith and Purpura.

I know I do.  And I'm often proven wrong too!

[DVauthrin]

Quote:


ok, so what now? a main purpose of the signing, imo, is to entice the Drama Queen and his Young Apprentice to rejoin the squad. is there money for them? is there money for Huff? are trades in the offing?

what is next?

I think andy/roger will get the money if they decide they want to play.   The team knows how important they are.

I have a hunch Huff resigns in houston.  We haven't heard anything about him connected to any offers in the market, and I think he wants to stay and will budge a little to do so.  

One of ensberg/lidge/burke gets traded for another starting pitcher with the uncertainty of the "duo."  If not and andy still hasn't made up his mind, the Astros will offer guys like wolf, suppan, mulder, lilly, a deal on their terms on see who bites on their offer.

I expect Willy to stay, unless a team overwhelms them or it just makes sense, because of his defense.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Moves and contracts are all a matter of timing. This is such an elementary feature of the market, it's shocking that so many people still overlook it.

BRILLIANT!

[DVauthrin]

Quote:
Moves and contracts are all a matter of timing. This is such an elementary feature of the market, it's shocking that so many people still overlook it.

Absolutely.   Baseball's owners have a lot of money right now and thus the free agent bonanza we have seen.   However, since it became apparent you would have to overpay Lee to get him, my thoughts were I'd rather overpay the guy, than have to trade valuable young prospects that the team has few of, for a guy who more than likely will have a big contract like Lee, or is in line to do so in the near future.  

However, timing also means the kind of team you have.  If you were rebuilding it makes no sense to give out such a contract to Lee, but if you are contending and your team went through heck trying to protect one of the top 5 hitters in baseball last year, it does.

It's not my money anyways, and Drayton can afford it if he chooses to do so.

[Savage]

Quote:

What smart men like Drayton McLane know is that the market adjustment will never go downward, so when he's ready to get out, he'll recoup a lot of this money.  

This is an interesting point.  While Tribune may have  inflated the salary market, their sale is also highlighting the market value of baseball franchises.  Before Tribune announced it was exploring strategic alternatives, wall street research pegged the value of the Cubs around ~$450mm.  Speculation now is $650mm+.  While the Astros aren't the Cubs in terms of idiotic drunken fans who are willing to shell out tons of money no matter how poor the quality of the product on the field, it's possible the higher valuations being thrown about have framed for Drayton a higher exit value and in that context made him more comfortable with Lee's contract.  

And before someone asks, i'm not suggesting that giving soriano a big contract has increased the value of the Cubs, just that the same sale process that is pushing them to make irrational long-term financial decisions is also revealing the current market value of a rather illiquid asset class (baseball franchises).

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:

What smart men like Drayton McLane know is that the market adjustment will never go downward, so when he's ready to get out, he'll recoup a lot of this money.  

This is an interesting point.  While Tribune may have  inflated the salary market, their sale is also highlighting the market value of baseball franchises.  Before Tribune announced it was exploring strategic alternatives, wall street research pegged the value of the Cubs around ~$450mm.  Speculation now is $650mm+.  While the Astros aren't the Cubs in terms of idiotic drunken fans who are willing to shell out tons of money no matter how poor the quality of the product on the field, it's possible the higher valuations being thrown about have framed for Drayton a higher exit value and in that context made him more comfortable with Lee's contract.  

And before someone asks, i'm not suggesting that giving soriano a big contract has increased the value of the Cubs, just that the same sale process that is pushing them to make irrational long-term financial decisions is also revealing the current market value of a rather illiquid asset class (baseball franchises).

I'm not even sure I'd pin the "inflation" on the Tribune. I think Soriano might've signed for something close to what the Cubs paid him had he stayed on the market. Maybe not eight years at $17 million, but maybe six or seven at $15 million or $16 million.

Contracts aren't based on what somebody who entered into a contract six months or a year or two ago signed for and is "worth." They're based on the supply and demand of players currently in the market.

At the outset of the free agent era, the owners could've set it up so that no contract could exceed, say, three years, and then you'd have one third of players or more coming up for renewal every offseason. That would've led to a drastically different market than we see today.

[JimR]

the high offer for Soriano was $105M from the Phillies. they thought they had him. then the Tribune blew the top off.

exactly. words like "worth" and "value" have no place in this discussion.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
the high offer for Soriano was $105M from the Phillies. they thought they had him. then the Tribune blew the top off.

Any word whether it was $105 million for seven years ($15 million per)? I guess the Cubs were willing to go $2 million more per year and throw an additional season on there.

[Savage]

Quote:

exactly. words like "worth" and "value" have no place in this discussion.

I respectfully disagree here.  The Cubs are going to be sold and someone is going to value that franchise in part based on cash flows.  And one day Drayton (or his estate) is going to sell the Astros.  And that buyer is going to value the Astros and part of that valuation is going to be about long-term contracts, cash flows and competition for the asset.  You can bet that when potential buyers (and more importantly their financing sources) look at the Cubs, they're going to look at the Soriano contract as a long-term liability and adjust their valuations accordingly. If I'm asked to provide financing for a purchase of that asset, I would take guaranteed monies like that (or for the Astros the Lee, Oswalt and Berkman contracts) off the top.  Smart businessmen (or women) will keep that in mind when offering contracts.  Though I think the point could be made that there are enough irrational players in the salary market that contracts are skewed, it doesn't mean value is irrelevant to rationale owners.

[johnstros]

Quote:
it's shocking that so many people still overlook it.

you mean the chron and the rest of the people who read it and believe

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:

exactly. words like "worth" and "value" have no place in this discussion.

I respectfully disagree here.  The Cubs are going to be sold and someone is going to value that franchise in part based on cash flows.  And one day Drayton (or his estate) is going to sell the Astros.  And that buyer is going to value the Astros and part of that valuation is going to be about long-term contracts, cash flows and competition for the asset.  You can bet that when potential buyers (and more importantly their financing sources) look at the Cubs, they're going to look at the Soriano contract as a long-term liability and adjust their valuations accordingly. If I'm asked to provide financing for a purchase of that asset, I would take guaranteed monies like that (or for the Astros the Lee, Oswalt and Berkman contracts) off the top.  Smart businessmen (or women) will keep that in mind when offering contracts.  Though I think the point could be made that there are enough irrational players in the salary market that contracts are skewed, it doesn't mean value is irrelevant to rationale owners.

This isn't apposite to what Jim and I are discussing. You're talking about valuation of the franchise for sale, which is different from valuation of players in the market.

The point is that just because player X got a contract for $10 million last year and is better than player Y doesn't mean that player Y might not get a contract for more than $10 million this year. Player X's "value" or "worth" or contract isn't relevant, because Player X isn't in the market setting the market price. The market price can only be set by the supply and demand in the market at the time.

If you need to buy a quantity of fuel right now, the price of the stocks of fuel that you bought or contracted for a year ago, and the forward price of fuel for a year from now, don't make a bit of difference to the spot price you're going to have to pay right now for the fuel you need right now. Last year's $1.50 fuel, and the possibility that fuel may be $2.00 next year, aren't going to change the $2.50 price of fuel right now if you need it right now, even if last year's fuel, right now's fuel and next year's fuel all have the same "value" or "worth."

[Savage]

Quote:

This isn't apposite to what Jim and I are discussing. You're talking about valuation of the franchise for sale, which is different from valuation of players in the market.

The point is that just because player X got a contract for $10 million last year and is better than player Y doesn't mean that player Y might not get a contract for more than $10 million this year. Player X's "value" or "worth" or contract isn't relevant, because Player X isn't in the market setting the market price. The market price can only be set by the supply and demand in the market at the time.

If you need to buy a quantity of fuel right now, the price of the stocks of fuel that you bought or contracted for a year ago, and the forward price of fuel for a year from now, don't make a bit of difference to the spot price you're going to have to pay right now for the fuel you need right now. Last year's $1.50 fuel, and the possibility that fuel may be $2.00 next year, aren't going to change the $2.50 price of fuel right now if you need it right now, even if last year's fuel, right now's fuel and next year's fuel all have the same "value" or "worth."

I agree with this in part.  But what sets fuel at $2.50 now is what people are willing to pay for what is available now and you can't ignore that people's willingness to pay is determined by underlying economic rationale.  The market may have set the price, but Drayton didn't have to buy.  The market sets the value for a porsche and as much as i want one (that cayenne is quite lovely) i don't have to buy it, i can buy an acura or i can keep driving my under-performing hyundai.  So the market set the price for lee, do the astros want to pay it and do they think they get the value for that contract versus their alternatives? i just don't think value is irrelevant to the discussion.  Ability and willingness to pay are both driven by a connection to value, even if it is loosely.

[The Third Man]

For all of you up in arms about the Astros overpaying for Carlos Lee, check out the Giants offer. Reportedly, they offered Lee $112 million over six years!

The Link

[Alkie]

Yep.

Texas State Income Tax - 0.00%
California State Income Tax - 9.30%

[Savage]

Quote:
Yep.

Texas State Income Tax - 0.00%
California State Income Tax - 9.30%

*sigh* I need to move back to Texas.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I agree with this in part.  But what sets fuel at $2.50 now is what people are willing to pay for what is available now and you can't ignore that people's willingness to pay is determined by underlying economic rationale.  The market may have set the price, but Drayton didn't have to buy.  The market sets the value for a porsche and as much as i want one (that cayenne is quite lovely) i don't have to buy it, i can buy an acura or i can keep driving my under-performing hyundai.  So the market set the price for lee, do the astros want to pay it and do they think they get the value for that contract versus their alternatives? i just don't think value is irrelevant to the discussion.  Ability and willingness to pay are both driven by a connection to value, even if it is loosely.

True enough, but what are the various alternatives?

1) Sign a grade A player;
2) Sign something less than a grade A player;
3) Trade for a grade A player;
4) Trade for something less than a grade A player; or
5) Make due with what you've got.

In none of those eventualities does the value of contracts signed a few months or a year ago dictate what the price is today. Simply put, Lance Berkman's contract isn't relevant to what Carlos Lee signed for, because signing another Lance Berkman for that price isn't an available alternative for signing Carlos Lee right now.

[Bench]

According to the New York papers (sic), Pettitte is even more likely to give up his quaint jaunt in the lesser parts of the country in order to return to his glorious New York past. Apparently, the Woody Williams signing is evidence that "the Astros are moving ahead with winter plans that don't include Pettitte."

 Astros signing may steer Andy

[Limey]

Quote:
I agree with this in part.  But what sets fuel at $2.50 now is what people are willing to pay for what is available now and you can't ignore that people's willingness to pay is determined by underlying economic rationale.

Fuel is a bad example here, as its demand is driven heavily by there being no immediate alternative (other than car-pooling).  A better example of might be something like a high-def DVD player.  Most people already have a DVD player, but there are two new formats that play in high def: HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.  Blu-Ray claims to be better and has certain exclusive content, but HD-DVD players are significantly cheaper while offering very similar picture quality.  Guess which ones are selling better?  (See Max, Beta).

[Savage]

Quote:

True enough, but what are the various alternatives?

1) Sign a grade A player;
2) Sign something less than a grade A player;
3) Trade for a grade A player;
4) Trade for something less than a grade A player; or
5) Make due with what you've got.

In none of those eventualities does the value of contracts signed a few months or a year ago dictate what the price is today. Simply put, Lance Berkman's contract isn't relevant to what Carlos Lee signed for, because signing another Lance Berkman for that price isn't an available alternative for signing Carlos Lee right now.

I think we agree.  I've never said that the Astros shouldn't have signed Lee at the price they did or that they should have looked at Berkman or Oswalt's contracts as a benchmark.  I think that the alternatives to paying market price for a proven hitter weren't great.  I just also think that Drayton has shown an unusual willingness to get himself tied up in a rich, long-term contract for a free agent and I wonder if some of that willingness has to do with (1) recongizing that another strong bat was critical to getting to the postseason again (with those post season revenues!) and (2) a possible reappraisal of the value of his underlying asset (the Astros).  If he thinks he's going to get a bigger return on the Astros, maybe he's more willing to run the club at a higher budget than he has in the past.  As others have pointed out, this move only makes sense if he's also willing to spend on some more arms, so it appears that the budget is less constrained than in the past. My ultimate point being that value isn't irrelevant and is important for appraising signing Lee versus the other alternatives, but I think we agree that value shouldn't be measured by past contracts.

[Alkie]

Quote:
According to the New York papers (sic), Pettitte is even more likely to give up his quaint jaunt in the lesser parts of the country in order to return to his glorious New York past.

 Toooooooooooooooooooooooooold  yooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooou.

[UpTooLate]

Quote:
According to the New York papers (sic), Pettitte is even more likely to give up his quaint jaunt in the lesser parts of the country in order to return to his glorious New York past. Apparently, the Woody Williams signing is evidence that "the Astros are moving ahead with winter plans that don't include Pettitte."

 Astros signing may steer Andy

 "We will listen to anyone who calls," Hendricks wrote in an E-mail at the time.

That one sentence tells me that it is probable that at least one of the two DQ's returns next season.  Most likely as Astros.

[CarolinaStro]

Quote:

Quote:
According to the New York papers (sic), Pettitte is even more likely to give up his quaint jaunt in the lesser parts of the country in order to return to his glorious New York past.

 Toooooooooooooooooooooooooold  yooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooou.

Will you consider a discount on the $4,995 wish fee if I supplied the beer?

No worries, Andy will be Stro in 07.  It has been written so shall it be done.

[toddthebod]

Jim.  If I were the Astros, I would concentrate on trying to accomplish these three trades:

(1) getting Jason Jennings from the Rockies (with Burke being the primary player going back in return)

(2) getting Olsen or Johnson from the Marlins (with Willy T. being the primary player going back in return)

(3) getting Baldelli from the Rays (with some of the Astros own young pitching talent going back in return).

Astros position players:

Lee (lf)
Baldelli (cf)
Scott (rf)
Ausmus (c)
Berkman (1b)
Biggio (2b)
Everett (ss)
Lamb (3b)

Astros starting rotation:

Oswalt
Jennings
Williams
Johnson or Olsen
Hirsch

[Chad Qualls Himself]

1. I think some of us here in Astroland over rate the worth of Chris Burke. He has not proved very much so far, while Jason Jennings put up a 3.78 in Coors. He's proven to be the type of pitcher the Rockies need, and I think they'll want a proven player as the main part of a trade for him.

2. Olsen and Johnson have had pretty damn good years, are young, and are cheap. I don't think Willy and some prospects are going to get one of them.

3. I think Ballideli would be a good improvement over Willy T, and I think a deal for him is the best chance of the ones you've mentioned.

[CarolinaStro]

Quote:
3. I think Ballideli would be a good improvement over Willy T, and I think a deal for him is the best chance of the ones you've mentioned.

I think with the Carlos and Luke show in the corners we better have freakin Willy in CF.  Try trading someone else.

[Michael N]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Drayton cannot catch a break. he did what the damn Tribune-dictated market required him to do to get the guy the baseball folks wanted...

Out-freaking-standing!  Lee = the perfect fit for cleanup behind Berkman.  Cost = inflated beyond measure due to insanity all around the league, lead by the Tribune.

Two forces working in conjunction, like a perfect storm mix.  Number 1 is without question that was answered positively.  Number 2 was a question answered with some major concern but as always, it is market driven.

What smart men like Drayton McLane know is that the market adjustment will never go downward, so when he's ready to get out, he'll recoup a lot of this money.  What is necessary at this point is getting that elusive championship McLane is now coveting.  He loved the World Series spotlight, he wants back.  Is he doing a Huzienga on the league?  No entirely, but he's doing what the market dictates to get the man that was the perfect fit.

It is what it is in terms of business.  Will it be the perfect fit in terms of baseball?  I think so and so did every baseball man in the organization.  My head, however, will not roll (and neither will anyone in the media or my fellow fans) if this does not pan out.  Baseball men in the organization are not immune though.

Here are the two things that baffled me about the fan reaction to a signing Lee:

1) They were upset the astros overpaid to get a big bat.   These are the same people that would have called Drayton a penny pincher if he went for another "bargain."

2) They think that trades are easier/better than overpaying Lee.   To get a hitter the caliber of Lee, the farm system would have been decimated, and right now especially pitching wise, the Astros can't afford to do that.

To me I'd rather "overpay" Lee than give up a lot of talent for a guy that either is signed to a big deal like Lee, or will be soon like Vernon Wells.

Speaking for myself only in response to your baffledness:

1. Bullshit.
2. Trades are easy. Bullshit, part deux.

I hate to seem like I'm picking on you specifically but the generalizations toward those who may disagree with the Lee signing in this thread prompted the response.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Drayton cannot catch a break. he did what the damn Tribune-dictated market required him to do to get the guy the baseball folks wanted...

Out-freaking-standing!  Lee = the perfect fit for cleanup behind Berkman.  Cost = inflated beyond measure due to insanity all around the league, lead by the Tribune.

Two forces working in conjunction, like a perfect storm mix.  Number 1 is without question that was answered positively.  Number 2 was a question answered with some major concern but as always, it is market driven.

What smart men like Drayton McLane know is that the market adjustment will never go downward, so when he's ready to get out, he'll recoup a lot of this money.  What is necessary at this point is getting that elusive championship McLane is now coveting.  He loved the World Series spotlight, he wants back.  Is he doing a Huzienga on the league?  No entirely, but he's doing what the market dictates to get the man that was the perfect fit.

It is what it is in terms of business.  Will it be the perfect fit in terms of baseball?  I think so and so did every baseball man in the organization.  My head, however, will not roll (and neither will anyone in the media or my fellow fans) if this does not pan out.  Baseball men in the organization are not immune though.

Here are the two things that baffled me about the fan reaction to a signing Lee:

1) They were upset the astros overpaid to get a big bat.   These are the same people that would have called Drayton a penny pincher if he went for another "bargain."

2) They think that trades are easier/better than overpaying Lee.   To get a hitter the caliber of Lee, the farm system would have been decimated, and right now especially pitching wise, the Astros can't afford to do that.

To me I'd rather "overpay" Lee than give up a lot of talent for a guy that either is signed to a big deal like Lee, or will be soon like Vernon Wells.

Speaking for myself only in response to your baffledness:

1. Bullshit.
2. Trades are easy. Bullshit, part deux.

I hate to seem like I'm picking on you specifically but the generalizations toward those who may disagree with the Lee signing in this thread prompted the response.

When Purpura returned from the GM meeting, very much aware of the fans impatience that he do anything, just do it NOW, (and commenting that the general public will understand his job about the same time he figures out heart surgery) he said that he was surprised that the deals he thought were available to the Astros, did not match up.  If he's saying that in public so that reporters can hear, imagine what he's saying to other people in private.   Consider another of his public comments, that he didn't want to do anything that affected the future of the organization followed shortly thereafter by the Lee and Williams signings.

[strosrays]

Quote:

Quote:
3. I think Ballideli would be a good improvement over Willy T, and I think a deal for him is the best chance of the ones you've mentioned.

I think with the Carlos and Luke show in the corners we better have freakin Willy in CF.  Try trading someone else.

If you mean defensively, Baldelli is not a downgrade from Taveras at all.  And it seems clear he is a far better offensive player, now and potentially going forward.

The main complication would be that Baldelli isn't ideally a #1 or #2 hitter (Willy is by default), but something could be worked out.

Whether acquiring Baldelli is a reasonable possibility, I do not know.

[Michael N]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Drayton cannot catch a break. he did what the damn Tribune-dictated market required him to do to get the guy the baseball folks wanted...

Out-freaking-standing!  Lee = the perfect fit for cleanup behind Berkman.  Cost = inflated beyond measure due to insanity all around the league, lead by the Tribune.

Two forces working in conjunction, like a perfect storm mix.  Number 1 is without question that was answered positively.  Number 2 was a question answered with some major concern but as always, it is market driven.

What smart men like Drayton McLane know is that the market adjustment will never go downward, so when he's ready to get out, he'll recoup a lot of this money.  What is necessary at this point is getting that elusive championship McLane is now coveting.  He loved the World Series spotlight, he wants back.  Is he doing a Huzienga on the league?  No entirely, but he's doing what the market dictates to get the man that was the perfect fit.

It is what it is in terms of business.  Will it be the perfect fit in terms of baseball?  I think so and so did every baseball man in the organization.  My head, however, will not roll (and neither will anyone in the media or my fellow fans) if this does not pan out.  Baseball men in the organization are not immune though.

Here are the two things that baffled me about the fan reaction to a signing Lee:

1) They were upset the astros overpaid to get a big bat.   These are the same people that would have called Drayton a penny pincher if he went for another "bargain."

2) They think that trades are easier/better than overpaying Lee.   To get a hitter the caliber of Lee, the farm system would have been decimated, and right now especially pitching wise, the Astros can't afford to do that.

To me I'd rather "overpay" Lee than give up a lot of talent for a guy that either is signed to a big deal like Lee, or will be soon like Vernon Wells.

Speaking for myself only in response to your baffledness:

1. Bullshit.
2. Trades are easy. Bullshit, part deux.

I hate to seem like I'm picking on you specifically but the generalizations toward those who may disagree with the Lee signing in this thread prompted the response.

When Purpura returned from the GM meeting, very much aware of the fans impatience that he do anything, just do it NOW, (and commenting that the general public will understand his job about the same time he figures out heart surgery) he said that he was surprised that the deals he thought were available to the Astros, did not match up.  If he's saying that in public so that reporters can hear, imagine what he's saying to other people in private.   Consider another of his public comments, that he didn't want to do anything that affected the future of the organization followed shortly thereafter by the Lee and Williams signings.

You and I both know that impatience on the part of the Astro fandom likely has little or no impact on the decision-making process of Purpura and McLane. And it would seem rather odd for Tim to say anything other than positives when it comes to what they might do or actually do in the off-season.

My reaction earlier was in response to the generalizations toward those who aren't thrilled to pieces about the Lee signing. I do not recall EVER calling Drayton a penny-pincher nor recall saying trades were easy to accomplish.

[Mike]

Ash is good..though I'm interested to see how Beau Torbert he sames to play wih a lot of heart, has good speed, nice leaderships skills and it should be interesting to see how he does in Corpus Christi

[Greg D]

Quote:
Ash is good..though I'm interested to see how Beau Torbert he sames to play wih a lot of heart, has good speed, nice leaderships skills and it should be interesting to see how he does in Corpus Christi

Torbert looks like a 'tweener. He hasn't shown enough pop to play the corner OF spots and doesn't profile particularly well up the middle either. And the organization didn't even think enough of the guy to invite him (along with the other top prospects) to the mini-camp prior to last year's spring training. Turning 24 towards the start of next year, he'd have to have a monster year at the plate for CC to work up any enthusiasm for the guy.

[pravata]

Quote:
Here are the two things that baffled me about the fan reaction to a signing Lee:

1) They were upset the astros overpaid to get a big bat.   These are the same people that would have called Drayton a penny pincher if he went for another "bargain."

2) They think that trades are easier/better than overpaying Lee.   To get a hitter the caliber of Lee, the farm system would have been decimated, and right now especially pitching wise, the Astros can't afford to do that.

To me I'd rather "overpay" Lee than give up a lot of talent for a guy that either is signed to a big deal like Lee, or will be soon like Vernon Wells.

Speaking for myself only in response to your baffledness:

1. Bullshit.
2. Trades are easy. Bullshit, part deux.

I hate to seem like I'm picking on you specifically but the generalizations toward those who may disagree with the Lee signing in this thread prompted the response.



When Purpura returned from the GM meeting, very much aware of the fans impatience that he do anything, just do it NOW, (and commenting that the general public will understand his job about the same time he figures out heart surgery) he said that he was surprised that the deals he thought were available to the Astros, did not match up.  If he's saying that in public so that reporters can hear, imagine what he's saying to other people in private.   Consider another of his public comments, that he didn't want to do anything that affected the future of the organization followed shortly thereafter by the Lee and Williams signings.



You and I both know that impatience on the part of the Astro fandom likely has little or no impact on the decision-making process of Purpura and McLane. And it would seem rather odd for Tim to say anything other than positives when it comes to what they might do or actually do in the off-season.

My reaction earlier was in response to the generalizations toward those who aren't thrilled to pieces about the Lee signing. I do not recall EVER calling Drayton a penny-pincher nor recall saying trades were easy to accomplish.



I misunderstood.  Sorry.  And now I'll just expostulate generally.  Purpura does not pay attention to the fans concerns.  Although in his tenure he has attempted to make some large deals, Winn & Moyer and the Tejada kerfuffle, that got sidetracked through no fault of his own. He has made some good deals, some good non-deals, and had a good theory about Wilson that didnt pan out. Nonetheless, he is not seen as a proactive GM, by the fans.  His current employer thinks he's patient.  But GMs don't stay with any time for very long.  I don't know how that looks on a resume.

Purpura, himself, thought the offense a problem and did attach urgency to fixing it.  The current state of The Market is just the way things are right now.  In order to address the problems on the team they dealt with reality and not as they wished things were.  As you have previously said, Drayton Mclane has always spent money as needed.  Bagwell's contract set a short lived precedent in the League, Clemens was the highest paid pitcher, per diem, ever.  It should come as no surprise that Mclane was willing to go as far as he did with Lee.  (Which, by the way, was not greater than market value, as the Cubs Soriano deal was, the Giants, tax issues not withstanding, offered more.)

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Here are the two things that baffled me about the fan reaction to a signing Lee:

1) They were upset the astros overpaid to get a big bat.   These are the same people that would have called Drayton a penny pincher if he went for another "bargain."

2) They think that trades are easier/better than overpaying Lee.   To get a hitter the caliber of Lee, the farm system would have been decimated, and right now especially pitching wise, the Astros can't afford to do that.

To me I'd rather "overpay" Lee than give up a lot of talent for a guy that either is signed to a big deal like Lee, or will be soon like Vernon Wells.

Speaking for myself only in response to your baffledness:

1. Bullshit.
2. Trades are easy. Bullshit, part deux.

I hate to seem like I'm picking on you specifically but the generalizations toward those who may disagree with the Lee signing in this thread prompted the response.

When Purpura returned from the GM meeting, very much aware of the fans impatience that he do anything, just do it NOW, (and commenting that the general public will understand his job about the same time he figures out heart surgery) he said that he was surprised that the deals he thought were available to the Astros, did not match up.  If he's saying that in public so that reporters can hear, imagine what he's saying to other people in private.   Consider another of his public comments, that he didn't want to do anything that affected the future of the organization followed shortly thereafter by the Lee and Williams signings.



You and I both know that impatience on the part of the Astro fandom likely has little or no impact on the decision-making process of Purpura and McLane. And it would seem rather odd for Tim to say anything other than positives when it comes to what they might do or actually do in the off-season.

My reaction earlier was in response to the generalizations toward those who aren't thrilled to pieces about the Lee signing. I do not recall EVER calling Drayton a penny-pincher nor recall saying trades were easy to accomplish.



I misunderstood.  Sorry.  And now I'll just expostulate generally.  Purpura does not pay attention to the fans concerns.  Although in his tenure he has attempted to make some large deals, Winn & Moyer and the Tejada kerfuffle, that got sidetracked through no fault of his own. He has made some good deals, some good non-deals, and had a good theory about Wilson that didnt pan out. Nonetheless, he is not seen as a proactive GM, by the fans.  His current employer thinks he's patient.  But GMs don't stay with any team for very long.  I don't know how that looks on a resume.

Purpura, himself, thought the offense a problem and did attach urgency to fixing it.  The current state of The Market is just the way things are right now.  In order to address the problems on the team they dealt with reality and not as they wished things were.  As you have previously said, Drayton Mclane has always spent money as needed.  Sometimes with a nod to marketing.  Bagwell's contract set a short lived precedent in the League, Clemens was the highest paid pitcher, per diem, ever.  It should come as no surprise that Mclane was willing to go as far as he did with Lee.  (Which, by the way, was not greater than market value, as the Cubs Soriano deal was, the Giants, tax issues not withstanding, offered more.)

[DVauthrin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Drayton cannot catch a break. he did what the damn Tribune-dictated market required him to do to get the guy the baseball folks wanted...

Out-freaking-standing!  Lee = the perfect fit for cleanup behind Berkman.  Cost = inflated beyond measure due to insanity all around the league, lead by the Tribune.

Two forces working in conjunction, like a perfect storm mix.  Number 1 is without question that was answered positively.  Number 2 was a question answered with some major concern but as always, it is market driven.

What smart men like Drayton McLane know is that the market adjustment will never go downward, so when he's ready to get out, he'll recoup a lot of this money.  What is necessary at this point is getting that elusive championship McLane is now coveting.  He loved the World Series spotlight, he wants back.  Is he doing a Huzienga on the league?  No entirely, but he's doing what the market dictates to get the man that was the perfect fit.

It is what it is in terms of business.  Will it be the perfect fit in terms of baseball?  I think so and so did every baseball man in the organization.  My head, however, will not roll (and neither will anyone in the media or my fellow fans) if this does not pan out.  Baseball men in the organization are not immune though.

Here are the two things that baffled me about the fan reaction to a signing Lee:

1) They were upset the astros overpaid to get a big bat.   These are the same people that would have called Drayton a penny pincher if he went for another "bargain."

2) They think that trades are easier/better than overpaying Lee.   To get a hitter the caliber of Lee, the farm system would have been decimated, and right now especially pitching wise, the Astros can't afford to do that.

To me I'd rather "overpay" Lee than give up a lot of talent for a guy that either is signed to a big deal like Lee, or will be soon like Vernon Wells.

Speaking for myself only in response to your baffledness:

1. Bullshit.
2. Trades are easy. Bullshit, part deux.

I hate to seem like I'm picking on you specifically but the generalizations toward those who may disagree with the Lee signing in this thread prompted the response.

1) I never  said the fan reaction was from here, sorry you took it so personally.  I don't just read this website(despite how great it is) and the reaction i'm referring to are from other fans/sites/talk radio.  And yes, some people in here were upset about the money being played to Lee, but not many if any think drayton is cheap.  But this website is made up of some of the most educated fans of the team around.   However, some worried that the Lee contract would hurt the team in keeping players in the future, which was reasonable, but again, Drayton can afford a big payroll if he wants to.   It isn't like he isn't one of the richest owners in MLB, or people in the world.

2)  Trades are not easy, will never be easy and the Astros do not have many good tradeable commodities to part with.   Especially when they don't just need a decent bat, they want the cleanup hitter for their lineup.  If they were so easy, we would have one at the drop of the hat.   Right now, the astros have as the following main trade bait: burke, willy, lidge, ensberg.  Plus any prospects.   Two of those coming off horrible years negating their value, and one of which is the heir apparent to the soon to be hall of fame 2b on the club.    

Jim R specifically said the Astros do not have enough to land Vernon Wells or Carl Crawford, and he has connections to the team or people close to them.  I'm sure those offers were a combination somehow of these names: Pence, Burke, Taveras, Ensberg, Lidge, Patton, Hirsh, Buchholz, and Nieve, along with any other good young talent the team has. However the Astros have to be careful with young pitching because they have a lot of question marks in the rotation for 2007.   And they were told they don't have enough.   Furthermore Andruw Jones won't be cheap, the Orioles are dysfunctional, and Rocco Baldelli was not the idea of a big bat.   And as far as Jones, and Wells go, after next season, they would be making Lee money.    Tejada already is a big contract, and Crawford/Baldelli aren't really what the team needed most.  

Lastly, don't get me started on teams that negotiate a trade, say we have a deal, then go to the owner and change the parameters of said deal(see Baltimore).

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
...the reaction i'm referring to are from other fans/sites/talk radio.  And yes, some people in here were upset about the money being played to Lee, but not many if any think drayton is cheap.  But this website is made up of some of the most educated fans of the team around.   However, some worried that the Lee contract would hurt the team in keeping players in the future, which was reasonable, but again, Drayton can afford a big payroll if he wants to.   It isn't like he isn't one of the richest owners in MLB, or people in the world.

I think the distinction for everyone is what exactly is the dissatisfaction with the Lee deal.  It is about two parameters:

1. Money paid.
2. Baseball improvement.

Both are mutually exclusive.  It is my belief that many fans (of which you're speaking of) meld the two issues together or mis-match the two in some way to voice their displeasure.  "The money is too much to pay for a guy who isn't better than Luke Scott!" is probably a-typical of those fans' opinion.  It isn't without warrant mind you, it is however a hard argument to follow.

However if the discussion is the price tag alone, it is a very good discussion to have.  It is highly inflated a price to pay for Carlos Lee.  Because Luke Scott is better (baseball solution-wise?).  No.  It is an inflated price to pay because of the construction of winning teams has proven to be rarely about paying a huge amount of the payroll to a handful of players.  It is a dangerous route to take unless you know what you're doing in terms of what you have in your farm system.

A-Ha!

Here is where Tim Purpura may have that ace up his sleeve.  He is counting on young players around a core amount of veteran high priced players to construct a team?  Perhaps.  It sure seems that surrounding a handful of high priced veterans who will perform consistently with a bunch of mid-market veteran players is *NOT* the route that is going to be taken here in Houston.  Looks more like four to five veterans along with young players either coming up from the farm and/or under club control players who are pretty good.

The ones that may be in trouble because of the Lee signing (and the Oswalt and Berkman signing last year and perhaps Clemens and Pettitte looming out there with comeback price tags) means trouble for the Morgan Ensbergs and Brad Lidge of the team.

When you might think a Dan Wheeler is a cheaper option to paying a Brad Lidge, and a Fernando Nieve is also ready for a full time gig soon... then the mid-market player is who is in danger.  The only problem is that Morgan Ensberg is probably not the one who will be overpriced and Aubrey Huff is.  Looks to me that this sort of signing of Lee means no Huff and perhaps a return of a cheaper and hopefully better Morgan Ensberg.

[DVauthrin]

Quote:

Quote:
...the reaction i'm referring to are from other fans/sites/talk radio.  And yes, some people in here were upset about the money being played to Lee, but not many if any think drayton is cheap.  But this website is made up of some of the most educated fans of the team around.   However, some worried that the Lee contract would hurt the team in keeping players in the future, which was reasonable, but again, Drayton can afford a big payroll if he wants to.   It isn't like he isn't one of the richest owners in MLB, or people in the world.

I think the distinction for everyone is what exactly is the dissatisfaction with the Lee deal.  It is about two parameters:

1. Money paid.
2. Baseball improvement.

Both are mutually exclusive.  It is my belief that many fans (of which you're speaking of) meld the two issues together or mis-match the two in some way to voice their displeasure.  "The money is too much to pay for a guy who isn't better than Luke Scott!" is probably a-typical of those fans' opinion.  It isn't without warrant mind you, it is however a hard argument to follow.

However if the discussion is the price tag alone, it is a very good discussion to have.  It is highly inflated a price to pay for Carlos Lee.  Because Luke Scott is better (baseball solution-wise?).  No.  It is an inflated price to pay because of the construction of winning teams has proven to be rarely about paying a huge amount of the payroll to a handful of players.  It is a dangerous route to take unless you know what you're doing in terms of what you have in your farm system.

A-Ha!

Here is where Tim Purpura may have that ace up his sleeve.  He is counting on young players around a core amount of veteran high priced players to construct a team?  Perhaps.  It sure seems that surrounding a handful of high priced veterans who will perform consistently with a bunch of mid-market veteran players is *NOT* the route that is going to be taken here in Houston.  Looks more like four to five veterans along with young players either coming up from the farm and/or under club control players who are pretty good.

The ones that may be in trouble because of the Lee signing (and the Oswalt and Berkman signing last year and perhaps Clemens and Pettitte looming out there with comeback price tags) means trouble for the Morgan Ensbergs and Brad Lidge of the team.

When you might think a Dan Wheeler is a cheaper option to paying a Brad Lidge, and a Fernando Nieve is also ready for a full time gig soon... then the mid-market player is who is in danger.  The only problem is that Morgan Ensberg is probably not the one who will be overpriced and Aubrey Huff is.  Looks to me that this sort of signing of Lee means no Huff and perhaps a return of a cheaper and hopefully better Morgan Ensberg.

Here is the thing:  I don't take issue with saying Lee is overpaid.   I think the deal is financially more than Lee is worth.  

And yes, if you make a habit of building a team  by signing large FA contracts, you will get in trouble down the line.    See baltimore and peter angelos, and the tom hicks rangers.  But this was a special case.  The Astros had their season go down the toilet last season in large part due to the inconsistency of Morgan Ensberg and the ineptitude of Jason Lane, who were expected to be solid number 4/5 hitters.   They envision themselves as perennial contenders right now    and they needed a guy with consistency to protect Lance Berkman.  Lee was a perfect fit, who had interest in
the Astros.   So than it boils down to Lee at 16 mil, or trading away more than likely young pitching for a guy like Wells/Tejada(if they even wanted to approach them again)/Jones(all of whom will make close if not more than Lee after next season).  Or talking to Boras about injury prone JD Drew at 12 mil a year/ or bargain hunting yet again.    Drayton got burned bargain hunting last year, and good luck having him in the same conversation with Boras ever again.  So it was Lee or trade basically.

It's all about cost benefit analysis.  To me, Lee was the kind of hitter they needed and overpaying Lee > trading away young pitching with so many starting pitching questions for guys who in all likelihood will make right around lee's salary in the near future.

And btw, yes this market is out of control.  When juan pierre and gary matthews jr are getting 9/10 mil a season for 5 seasons, there is little financial restraint being shown by owners.   So if you wanted to say prices are way inflated this offseason, i'd agree easily.  

Lastly, we will see on Huff.   I have yet to hear any dollar figures in connection with him to any team in this free agent market.  If he is drawing interest it is very quiet interest so far.   I think it depends on the type of contract he is looking for.  If it's not too much more than Ensberg, I think they prefer to keep him.

[Michael N]

Again, my apologies for seemingly venting only at you.

As for trade possibilities, again, I never meant to imply trades are easy. Clearly they are not.  But to say we don't have what it takes to land a Vernon Wells or other top hitter in trade is crap. More likely what happened at the GM meetings was an inflation in trade cost for established stars that mirrored the FA market and Purpura did not want to give up that much young talent.

My continuing hope is that Purpura can get creative enough to pull off the kind of deals that recall John Hudek for Carl Everett. Or Eric Anthony for Mike Hampton. Or Geoff Blum for Brandon Backe. Or Adam Seuss for Dan Wheeler... etc.

Quality improvement to the team often comes from deals that don't merit mention on ESPN.

[DVauthrin]

Quote:
Again, my apologies for seemingly venting only at you.

As for trade possibilities, again, I never meant to imply trades are easy. Clearly they are not.  But to say we don't have what it takes to land a Vernon Wells or other top hitter in trade is crap. More likely what happened at the GM meetings was an inflation in trade cost for established stars that mirrored the FA market and Purpura did not want to give up that much young talent.

My continuing hope is that Purpura can get creative enough to pull off the kind of deals that recall John Hudek for Carl Everett. Or Eric Anthony for Mike Hampton. Or Geoff Blum for Brandon Backe. Or Adam Seuss for Dan Wheeler... etc.

Quality improvement to the team often comes from deals that don't merit mention on ESPN.

Apology accepted.

This was from jim on a different thread and what I was basing the can't trade for Wells/Crawford on.  He has had a source in the past so I trust him.

 they have been in on Wells and Crawford but do not have what it takes.

I also don't expect trades to all be blockbusters, and a lot of good trades were never blockbusters, like bagwell for anderson, wheeler for a minor leaguer, backe, everett, etc.  In fact two of the 3 members of the 2007 starting outfield came from one of the best trades the organization  has ever made in trading Jeriome Robertson for Willy Taveras and Luke Scott.  

  But I also know that the caliber bat the Astros needed wasn't going to be cheap or easy to acquire via trade, at least not until maybe the july deadline, and teams usually want pitching, which until the duo decides their plans for 07, the astros can't really part with.   I mean there really are people out there who are like chris burke for vernon wells, why can't timmy pull that off.   Sad but true, and every team in sports has those fans.   Or, put Burke at SS, he can't be worse than Everett.  That is my personal favorite, as they have no idea how important/good on defense AE is.

Lastly, maybe the Lee deal is an albatross down the line, but that will depend on how drayton treats the payroll of the team. He can afford a large payroll however.  That isn't for debate.  I'm just going to live in the present and worry about 4-5 years down the road when the time comes.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
More likely what happened at the GM meetings was an inflation in trade cost for established stars that mirrored the FA market and Purpura did not want to give up that much young talent.

I can't imagine this isn't the case. If Carlos Lee and Alfonso Soriano are getting $16 million and $17 million in the free-agent market, then what GM in his right mind would trade a comparable player without demanding a premium in return? And I think this absolutely has to be factored into the price paid for Lee -- not only how much Vernon Wells or Rocco Baldelli would have to be paid when he got here, but how much it would cost in free agency or trade to replace the blue chips that Toronto or Tampa Bay would've demanded.

It's one thing when you've got a young player in your organization who might be able to make the high-priced veteran free agent you're about to sign unnecessary. It's another thing when there's nobody in the organization to play that role and you're going to have to go outside anyway, either via trade or free agency. I don't think there's anyone floating beneath the surface in Houston's system that can match what Lee is capable of doing in 2007, and trading for someone would likely have meant giving up young starting pitching that may be sorely needed in the next year or two. Even if only one or two of their best young arms pan out, that could be worth $10 million in savings per year over the next few seasons.

[JimR]

actually, Mr. Nash, i did not say it. i reported what someone who knows what the negotiations for these players was told me. i'll let him know what he said is "crap."

[WulawHorn]

Johnny Ash-

2b from stanford- correct?

He doesn't strike me as the Astros type of player clubhouse wise.  If it is the 2b from stanford I've heard nothing but negative things about that guy.  When I was interning in the Northwoods league he got sent home for the summer for bad behavior. Some stuff that you wouldn't want from a guy in your locker room. Not good at all.  It's interesting to me that this guy would find his way into the astros organization.

I'll pm if anyone is interested

[Michael N]

I did not say you said it, Mr. Raup. Another poster ascribed those words to you.

However, if you do decide to tell the person what I said I seriously doubt that person could give a damn about what I write on a chat board. You might want to save your breath...

[austro]

Quote:
Johnny Ash-

2b from stanford- correct?

He doesn't strike me as the Astros type of player clubhouse wise.  If it is the 2b from stanford I've heard nothing but negative things about that guy.  When I was interning in the Northwoods league he got sent home for the summer for bad behavior. Some stuff that you wouldn't want from a guy in your locker room. Not good at all.  It's interesting to me that this guy would find his way into the astros organization.

I'll pm if anyone is interested

That's interesting.  Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly (entirely possible), but I thought he was the subject of a lot of gushing College World Series commentary about what a stand-up guy he was, what an outstanding student, and how he looked to have a big-time future in business.  Maybe that was another guy and I'm confused.

[Zan]

Quote:
but I think we agree that value shouldn't be measured by past contracts.

I think this was the entire point being made.

[pravata]

Quote:
I did not say you said it, Mr. Raup. Another poster ascribed those words to you....

If you're refering to me, I'm using this as my reference,

(Purpura said I'm)"probably a little disappointed, in some ways, because there are some players out there we thought we might match up for, and we probably don't have the matches."
The Link

[Greg D]

Quote:
Johnny Ash-

2b from stanford- correct?

He doesn't strike me as the Astros type of player clubhouse wise.  If it is the 2b from stanford I've heard nothing but negative things about that guy.  When I was interning in the Northwoods league he got sent home for the summer for bad behavior. Some stuff that you wouldn't want from a guy in your locker room. Not good at all.  It's interesting to me that this guy would find his way into the astros organization.

I'll pm if anyone is interested

What year was this? 2002?

[Michael N]

Quote:

Quote:
I did not say you said it, Mr. Raup. Another poster ascribed those words to you....

If you're refering to me, I'm using this as my reference,

(Purpura said I'm)"probably a little disappointed, in some ways, because there are some players out there we thought we might match up for, and we probably don't have the matches."
The Link

No, prav, I'm not refering to you. DVauthrin's post is the one that prompted my response.

[Froback]

I think the rest of the off-season moves key on the impression the Astros get from Andy on his return or retirement.

IF he is going to return to the Astros, you will see a few trades that do more to boost the minor league system (ala the Robertson trade), with players like Lane being moved to ensure they don't have too many position players for the 25-man roster.

If he is going to retire, look for a big trade of some sort to land a solid #2 behind Roy.  While I would love to see them go after Schmidt, I am not sure they will... but then if Pettitte isn't going to come back it will free up some serious $$$ that the team is currently willing to spend on him.  But I am not sure Schmidt is available to the Astros at any reasonable price (since he wants to play on the West Coast).

[DVauthrin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I did not say you said it, Mr. Raup. Another poster ascribed those words to you....

If you're refering to me, I'm using this as my reference,

(Purpura said I'm)"probably a little disappointed, in some ways, because there are some players out there we thought we might match up for, and we probably don't have the matches."
The Link

No, prav, I'm not refering to you. DVauthrin's post is the one that prompted my response.

I said and I quote: This was from jim on a different thread and what I was basing the can't trade for Wells/Crawford on.  He has had a source in the past so I trust him.

When somebody says a person has a source, that means the info is being relayed to them via that source.   I am a graduate of UT-Austin with a journalism degree, I know a lot about sources and how to use them.   I did say earlier jim specifically said in a previous post, but said was basically akin to saying posted.   It was not to imply jim was just making this up out of thin air, just saying he posted the statement.

In fact:  Jim R specifically said the Astros do not have enough to land Vernon Wells or Carl Crawford,  and he has connections to the team or people close to them.   Even then I mentioned jim had a source for this info.

I just wanted to clear that up.

[Mike]

I belief he went to Stanford, I saw him with his teamates after a game when he was in lexington, same to get along with everyone.

Quote:
Johnny Ash-

2b from stanford- correct?

He doesn't strike me as the Astros type of player clubhouse wise.  If it is the 2b from stanford I've heard nothing but negative things about that guy.  When I was interning in the Northwoods league he got sent home for the summer for bad behavior. Some stuff that you wouldn't want from a guy in your locker room. Not good at all.  It's interesting to me that this guy would find his way into the astros organization.

I'll pm if anyone is interested

[Reuben]

some thoughts on the main topics of this thread.
1. Lee. Yes, supply and demand. There was nobody else even close to his level after him. Spend it if you got it.

2. Obviously a #2 SP is now top priority. If Pettitte does not come back they are in trouble, and will not have much leverage in trying to get Olsen or Johnson from the Marlins in a Willy T package. Then again, you could argue the Pierre contract makes Willy look that much more appealing to a team in need of a fast CF. But it's hard for me to picture a young, low-payroll team trading away accomplished young pitching.

I don't see Jennings as a #2 starter.

3. As was thoroughly discussed a couple weeks ago, I don't see a huge problem with giving Mike Lamb a near-everyday role. If Ensberg doesn't have a comeback in him Lamb is an excellent insurance policy. It seems like they have some pretty good positional flexibility with guys like Burke, Lamb, Bruntlett, Lane (who could be a 1B back-up, no?), and guys like Conrad and Pence at AAA.

4. If you can get Rocco Baldelli, by all means. He's locked into a decent long-term deal. But probably wishful thinking; if the Marlins prefer him to Taveras seems like they'd get him.

[JimR]

i said those exact words, which were the exact words i was told: "The Astros do not have enough to get Wells or Crawford."

he knows. you do not.

DV: this source is not with the Astros but is at a very high level with another team and is close to the Astros. he knows.

[Bench]

Mark Redman  won't be offered arbitration by the Royals.

He could be a useful pitcher in the event of a Pettitte-less rotation. A rotation of Oswalt, Williams, Redman, Hirsch, Buchholz/Albers/Sampson/etc.. wouldn't be a total disaster. And hey, Redman is an all-star!