Wanna Read Something Totally Ridiculous?

[Toy Cannon]

Can't these idiots think of something plausible to write about?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=citadel-2_390793_248&prov=citadel&type=story

Would the Astros, for example, accept Estrada as part of a package for closer Brad Lidge ? Houston is all but out of the race, and with Lidge only making $500,000 this season he would definitely fit the Braves price range. Lidge is also eligible for arbitration this winter, but with Rafael Furcal off the books after this season and also probably replaced by a young, inexpensive player (Wilson Betemit ), the Braves could have money available to pay Lidge - especially since it's almost a certainty that Dan Kolb's $3.4 million will be off the books this winter as well.

There have been rumors that Lidge could be available. With Brad Ausmus probably nearing the end of his career as a starter, the Astros could use a young catcher and Estrada fits the bill. Could a deal of Estrada and one of our young pitching prospects, which Houston also needs, get the trade done?

[rockin500]

doesnt make sense on a couple of levels. Isnt Estrada a key component to the Braves? And I wouldnt expect the astros to concede anything like that until July 31st. (if they are like 10-15 games under at that point)

[PopTop]

:hmm: Yeah, like Houston is going to trade a cheap, productive member of the team to anyone, much less the ATL's. I honestly believe that trading Lidge to the Braves would cause a much larger riot amongst the fans than dealing Clemens to the Yanks.

[Sandy]

While getting a catcher makes some sense for Houston and getting a closer makes sense for Atlanta - surrendering these guys makes no sense for EITHER side.

Atlanta has Eddie Perez as the #2 catcher, which would be a dreadfully steep drop in production this year. And Reitsma, while not your 'classic' closer, has been doing a solid job since taking over.

The REAL question here is how much are the Astros willing to spend to keep Lidge. At his age, the arb figure shouldn't be dreadfully bad - but you're gonna WANT to sign him to a multi-year and keep him around awhile.

While this deal IS on the silly side - it does bring up a legit question -- which is, once the Astros DO admit that 2005 is a lost season, what moves SHOULD they make for the future?

1) Upgrade Ausmus - Kendall's implosion in Oakland has been pretty fierce, and Oakland would almost certainly love to dump the salary. But I doubt the team would go this route, as his contract is too pricey (UNLESS Bags' opts for retirement).

2) Replace Rocket - can't see him sticking around for a rebuilding year. Pettitte, Oswalt and Backe aren't a bad top 3, but to compete with the Cubbies and Cards you HAVE to have another stud starter in the rotation.

3) Upgrade SS - Everett may be cheap - but he's miserable offensively and only pedestrian defensively.

In truth, a trade with Atlanta 'might' make some sense - but moving someone like Qualls makes more sense to me than Lidge. Getting an Atlanta spec or two for Qualls could help both clubs. I could also see Atlanta shopping Furcal when Chipper returns, as Betemit has been stellar and Marte still provides some insurance.

The truth is - with Bagwell and Rocket costing so much, the Astros can't afford to eat any salary - and ANY trade would likely be someone immediately useful to the club buying (Clemens, Pettitte, Lidge, Qualls, etc.) - while Houston would be getting prospects in return, which 'might' help in coming years.

The core for the future as I see it at this point are: Oswalt, Backe, Berkman, Lane, Ensberg, Lidge, (Bags)

I include Bags because his contract runs another couple of years, making him impossible to move - barring retirement.

But the club needs to make some decisions on which prospects it is going to give up on (Burke, Self?), and which it is going to keep plugging with (Taveras, Wandy?). The "easiest" places to upgrade (IMO) are catcher and short - where the production is so low, almost any move would have zero downside.

It's easy to point at the last in the majors offense and forget that Rocket is a major cog keeping the pitching stats impressive. If you assume that Berkman will play all year, and Bags comes back (even at 85% of his former self), the offense moves toward mediocrity quickly. But Clemens' loss moves the overall pitching staff toward mediocrity fast, too. How you go about tweaking the offense up - or replacing Rocket will determine a LOT of what the next 5 years of Astros baseball will be like.

[Toy Cannon]

The core for the future as I see it at this point are: Oswalt, Backe, Berkman, Lane, Ensberg, Lidge, (Bags)

I include Bags because his contract runs another couple of years, making him impossible to move - barring retirement.



Curious that you don't include Taveras in your core. You have an inexpensive player who, while still somewhat raw, shines both offensively and defensively. With his speed and with some experience, I feel that he is a potential batting crown winner. I realize he needs to draw more walks to make him a perfect fit as a lead-off man, but I absolutely do not like trading speed.

I would also include Wheeler and Qualls in my group of players with whom I'm building around.

[barzilla]

I'd include Taveras myself, but as a "probationary" member of the group. He has to improve upon his OBP. He hardly ever walks, so his .280s batting average is good, but decieving. However, he is only 23 and has never had an at bat at the AAA level, so I'm willing to give him some time, but I'm definitely not putting him in that group.

There is no way the Astros are giving up on the season now. They will be in third place in the NL Central by the All-star break and probably behind the Cubs by no more than two games. Folks, I would not give up on the season at that point.

I agree, the chances of the club passing the entire NL East is doubtful, but if you "give up" on 2005 it will send the wrong message to fans. Now, the real question on everyone's mind is: do we add?

I saw a blogger say we have to get to the .500 mark before considering adding. I don't think winning percentage is nearly important as establishing parameters for the deal. I have two groundrules:

1) The player must either be under contract or arbitration tied in 2006.
2) The player should be close enough to their prime where we can reasonably expect them to be productive in 2007.

We cannot afford another rental or another mid thirties veteran looking for a swan song. You cannot expect other veterans to have the same career pattern as Clemens, Bonds, or Julio Franco.

I have a guy in mind that fits this description. Adam Dunn is arbitration eligible and says he wants to come to Houston when he is a free agent. If the Reds are ready to quit on 2005 (he is set to be a free agent in 2007) they may look at an Astros package as a way to get out of a huge arbitration pay day in 2006 and almost certain defection.

Now, here is where things get dicey. I'm sure the Reds would ask for a package like Chris Burke, Ezekiel Astacio, and another minor league arm. Are we willing to do that? Getting a Dunn would give us three thirty home run type hitters with Biggio and Lane as 20 home run type hitters. That's a lineup that might be enough to overtake the mediocre pretenders in the NL East. More importantly, even in the likely event we come up short we would still have Dunn and could sign him to a long-term deal in the off-season.

[Sandy]

Note that I did say "once they decide that 2005 is lost." My intent was not to indicate that it already is lost - (though I can see how one could read it that way) - but to direct the discussion toward that (IMO likely) reality. I concur that there is still time and potential to climb to striking distance for a WC spot. But, in all honesty, the prospects can't be considered good at the moment, (as of this post, Houston sits 8 games behind the WC leader (Atlanta), needing to pass NINE (9) teams to claim a playoff spot.

==============

In regards to Taveras - I could agree with including him in the core of tomorrow. I'm just not convinced that the Astros are committed to him at this point. I guess my problem is that Houston has shown a tendency to require immediate STELLAR performance from its prospects before settling. Ensberg, Burke, Lane - the list of up and down - let's use them in dribs and drabs - prospects is awfully long.

They'll let a Viz or Palmeiro slump and work out of it, (despite already knowing they have NO upside), but Lane slumps for 2 weeks, and suddenly the flavor of the month from Corpus is called up. Taveras "appears" to be treated as a fixture - but I'm antsy based on the concept that the club simply doesn't have any other reasonable options for CF.

=============

On the subject of Dunn -- I follow the logic (to a point), but have a problem. If Bags DOES come back, (and at this point, there's basically zero info on the odds), what is the shakeout in the OF? Berkman, Lane, Taveras, Dunn -- that's 4 guys for 3 slots, and Lane is the likely odd man out.

For THIS season, Dunn makes a lot of sense, since Bags is only going to be a problem for a month or less. But if Bags returns, doesn't Dunn become exactly what you said was NOT needed - a 3-month rental that won't get re-signed?

This is what makes planning for the future SO problematic for the Astros - so much of what you do hinges on Bagwell. His salary is simply too huge to ignore, and his retirement frees a MASSIVE amount of cash to work with, changing the entire landscape of what it possible in the off-season.

This is why I'm looking at catcher and shortstop. These spots NEED upgrading (regardless of what happens with Bags). The OF/1B situation is a mess - but there is NO position easier to buy cheap competence than the OF. Sanders, Lofton, Dellucci, Jordan - the list of cheap decent OFs is ALWAYS long.

Frankly, if you're looking at a "Dunn-ish" move, Furcal makes a lot of sense to me, as he'd be an upgrade both offensively AND defensively, he's young, and coming off a down season, his price tag will likely be lower than it would've been last year to retain.

[barzilla]

Note that I did say "once they decide that 2005 is lost." My intent was not to indicate that it already is lost - (though I can see how one could read it that way) - but to direct the discussion toward that (IMO likely) reality. I concur that there is still time and potential to climb to striking distance for a WC spot. But, in all honesty, the prospects can't be considered good at the moment, (as of this post, Houston sits 8 games behind the WC leader (Atlanta), needing to pass NINE (9) teams to claim a playoff spot.

Again Sandy, we agree in principle, but there is a difference between REAL reality and ASTROS reality. In Astros reality, they will never give up on the season because "look what happened in 2004". What people are overlooking is that it is hard to play that kind of ball for longer than they did in 2004. We might be in the midst of an extended streak like that (we are 19-11 since we were 15-30) and could win ten or eleven of the next sixteen games. That would be a 30-17 streak at best. Yes, that isn't as good as 36-10, but it's still pretty darn good. That streak would put our record at 45-47. Yes, that puts us back into contention, but its a lot like coming back from being down 20 in a basketball game. Often times, you expend so much energy getting back into contetion that you have nothing left for the home stretch.

In regards to Taveras - I could agree with including him in the core of tomorrow. I'm just not convinced that the Astros are committed to him at this point. I guess my problem is that Houston has shown a tendency to require immediate STELLAR performance from its prospects before settling. Ensberg, Burke, Lane - the list of up and down - let's use them in dribs and drabs - prospects is awfully long.

I think the Astros are sold on him, but I am not. This guy never walks. Juan Pierre used to be like that, but has evolved into a complete player in Florida (at least he's added the OBP). Taveras must do that. Now, I'm giving him through the 2007 season to do this. While he is cheap you might as well enjoy the good defense and blinding speed. When it comes time to pay millions you need production and that is when it is time for him to show he get all of the infield hits AND draw enough walks to have a .350ish OBP.

On the subject of Dunn -- I follow the logic (to a point), but have a problem. If Bags DOES come back, (and at this point, there's basically zero info on the odds), what is the shakeout in the OF? Berkman, Lane, Taveras, Dunn -- that's 4 guys for 3 slots, and Lane is the likely odd man out.

I thought about that believe it or not. I imagine Lane will get dealt in that scenario. More than likely, Lane will have a low batting average (.240-.260) with around 25 home runs if he continues to play everyday. If the Astros are so inclined, they could deal him and pitching prospects to the As for Kendall. Of course, I'm dreaming there because the Astros have never admitted they are troubled by the catching situation. However, the fact remains that Lane has never gotten respect from this organization. I would rather see him dealt when his value is high (coming off of a 25 HR season is better than a partial one) then to see them push him along as a fourth outfielder again.

For THIS season, Dunn makes a lot of sense, since Bags is only going to be a problem for a month or less. But if Bags returns, doesn't Dunn become exactly what you said was NOT needed - a 3-month rental that won't get re-signed?

Dunn is arbitration eligible after the season so he can't be another rental. He is our property in 2006 (assuming the trade) no matter what. You could argue that we could get him in a deal in the off-season when/if we know what is going on with Bagwell. That is a fair point. However, Dunn would be a permeanent fixture in the outfield and so not a 3 month rental.

This is why I'm looking at catcher and shortstop. These spots NEED upgrading (regardless of what happens with Bags). The OF/1B situation is a mess - but there is NO position easier to buy cheap competence than the OF. Sanders, Lofton, Dellucci, Jordan - the list of cheap decent OFs is ALWAYS long.

Absolutely correct. I think the problem is that there are few teams out of the running that would be willing to deal such a player. If you're a contender, you don't trade an important part of your team. You only trade future specs to add to your nucleus. I see an Oakland willing to trade a Kendall in the off-season and Ramon Hernandez will be available in free agency (I like Hernandez since he has spent his entire career in PITCHERS parks). Furcal, Garciaparra, and Polanco will be free agents at shortstop. I think they have a better chance to upgrade those positions then.

Frankly, if you're looking at a "Dunn-ish" move, Furcal makes a lot of sense to me, as he'd be an upgrade both offensively AND defensively, he's young, and coming off a down season, his price tag will likely be lower than it would've been last year to retain.

I don't see Atlanta dealing him and he breaks my first rule of making a deal. He is not under contract for 2006 so he might be a rental. We have been burned too many times by guys that say they will consider us and then jerk us around (Johnson, Beltran). I'm sure Furcal would come to Houston for the right amount, but I don't know what his feelings are and I don't know who his agent is. I definitely like him as a guy to target in the off-season, but we can't afford to get screwed again.