Lack of Interesting Topics

by Stros Bro on Jan 29, 2008 8:17 PM CST in News Comment 37 comments

I know.. the site has been dreadfully slow lately. There really just isn't anything interesting to talk about. I mean, everyone is tired of steroids/clemens/tejada/mitchell report etc... and if you're not, then you are either A)not actively watching sportscenter/reading about sports, or B) have mental health issues. Okay, the B) part is probably just me being mean, but you get the drift.

For lack of anything better to post, here, take this little tidbit of information that you probably already knew about.

From here :

The Astros added two more players to the mix on Tuesday when they inked right-hander Brian Moehler and infielder/outfielder David Newhan to Minor League contracts. Both have received invitations to Major League Spring Training. Moehler, 36, returns to the Astros after spending the 2007 season with the club as a member of the bullpen. He was 1-4 with a 4.07 ERA while appearing in a career-high 42 games.

Whoopidy doo dah.

TBurford says "Pitchers and catchers report in less than a month. I love just saying it."

And we love hearing it.

I'm so ready for something other than steroids... it will be nice to have some actual baseball being played, even if they are in meaningless(statistically) games.

So, is anyone thinking about making a trip to spring training? I'm sure Rastro will make a few games... hopefully he'll drop buy and give us a story or two. Me personally, I've never gotten a chance to go to spring training. I almost did last year, but unfortunately plans fell through and I didn't get to go. But one day I will.

In some non-Astros related news, the Mets look to have sealed the deal in getting Santana... but, there is a catch.

At a seemingly reasonable price -- swift outfielder Carlos Gomez and young pitchers Philip Humber, Kevin Mulvey and Deolis Guerra -- the Mets have satisfied the Twins. Now they have three days, beginning Tuesday, to satisfy Santana who, armed with a no-trade clause that can be as effective in these circumstances as his world class changeup, can veto the trade if the Mets don't make him happy.

From here. Hello 5 years 100 million dollars?

0 recs | Comment 37 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

7 years, $150 million

by TexSkins on Jan 29, 2008 9:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

7 years, $150 million...

since he'd almost have to be worth more than Barry Zito at 7 years, $126 million.

Both are left handed. Santana's almost a year younger. Not to mention, Santana's been the best pitcher in baseball since 2003 or so.

5 years at $100 million is too low. Here's a chart (homage to Rastro) that shows the $100 million plus salaries, with Barry Zito as the top pitcher (and 6th overall) on the list. You have to assume that Santana a) knows this and b) wants more money than Barry freaking Zito.

Right?

by TexSkins on Jan 29, 2008 9:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe..

5 years 100 mil is more per year than Zito... I'm not sure the Mets will go more than 5 years with Santana.. We'll see.. I could be completely wrong, I'm just thinking 5 years is about the max

Only time will tell. Giving Zito 7 years at 126 I thought was a dumb move(especially now w/the losing record last season and all).

Santana may be the best pitcher in baseball since 2003(arguable.. but I'm not going to), but he probably won't be the best pitcher in the NL next year... there's a chance(albeit a very slim one) that he doesn't break the top 5(Peavy/Oswalt/Webb/Penny/Smoltz).

Go 'Stros!

by Stros Bro on Jan 29, 2008 10:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Santana is top 5 easy

in the NL.
I kind of wonder what the arguement would be for a better pitcher since 2003 actually. No one has the numbers he has over the last 4 years.
If he says he'll go for 5yr/100mil and I was the Mets I'd be diving over the desk to hand him the contract. Pitching in Shea with that lineup I am guessing he wins 20+ barring injury.

It's the next generation of Astros. Let's see if they can play like the men they are replacing.

by TBurford on Jan 30, 2008 12:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

In some ways,

the Santana talk is almost as painful as the steroids talk, seeing as how the Astros had him at one time. Oh well.

I'm not going to Spring Training this year. I went in 2006, which was when Bagwell was still trying to see if his shoulder would hold up. I got a picture of he and Bidge in the on-deck circle at Osceola, figuring (correctly, unfortunately) that it might be the last time I would see the two of them in uniform together. It was bittersweet in that regard, but overall just great fun. I was sitting right behind home, about 6 rows up, surrounded by scouts.

My big baseball-related trip this year (other than to Houston for Stros games, of course) is the ASG at Yankee Stadium in July. Gonna see Mets/Rockies the weekend before, so that I can say I've been to Shea, and also going to go to Cooperstown while I'm up there. I can't wait!

by Danyah on Jan 30, 2008 5:31 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

If I'm the Mets...

I would jump all over this deal. Santana should get a 1/2 run or more improvement in his ERA from moving to the NL, and Shea Stadium is a spacious pitcher's park which should help his stats too. If you are the Mets, and can make your team a favorite to win the pennant with this trade...you have to do it.

I am surprised that the Mets were able to acquire Santana from the Twins so cheaply. I don't see Gomez as clearly better than Melky Cabrera or Ellsbury, and he is a good bit more risky, given his stage of development. Really, why would one think that Gomez will be a better player than Michael Bourn? Mulvey and Humber are not elite pitching prospects. (The Mets' package is so much weaker than I expected, that it almost makes me wonder if the "pre-Tejada" Astros could have put a package which would have been competitive for Santana....oh, well.) How did the Mets luck into this situation? My guess is that the Twin were determined to send Santana to the NL, and that the Mets were the only NL team which would pony up the size of contract which Santana might demand.

Supposedly the Mets have a 15 day signing window. Rotoworld cites a Minneapolis newspaper report that Santana will receive a six-year deal from the Mets worth $130 million, with other reports suggesting that the Mets may not go beyond five years. The interesting question is what happens if the Mets can't sign him. Would the Mets and Twins change the deal to reduce the trading value...or would they just let the deal fall apart? In the latter instance, the Mets' fan base would be cursing Minaya at every opportunity.

Danyah, I agree with you about the serious regret that Santana brings Astros fans. How in the heck do you let him go in the Rule 5 draft?

by clack on Jan 30, 2008 11:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Well

Santana should get a 1/2 run or more improvement in his ERA from moving to the NL

That's probably what Zito thought to :)

Go 'Stros!

by Stros Bro on Jan 30, 2008 2:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Zito and Santana...

are much different cases. Zito's troubles were predictable (and were predicted by many analysts). All the signs were there that he is no longer an elite pitcher and could encounter a fall to the point that he might not be even a good pitcher: declining K rate; lucky BABIP stats; and declining velocity. Zito probably was lucky to go the NL, because he probably would have had an even worse ERA in the AL. Santana had an "off" year by his standards, last season, but I haven't seen any doubts about his continuing ability to be a superior pitcher. Santana is only 27 years old, but has already won 2 Cy Young awards, after only 1300 ML innings. Like any pitcher, Santana's career could be derailed by injury, but I have to like his chances, given the heights he has achieved with so little mileage on his arm.

by clack on Jan 30, 2008 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yea, you're probably right

Zito hasn't really been a dominant pitcher in 3 or 4 years.. Santana was dominant before the All-star break last year, but didn't show that dominance afterwards...

I'm just putting in my 2 cents.. I really don't have a side in this :)

Go 'Stros!

by Stros Bro on Jan 30, 2008 6:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Spring Training!

So I'm going to spring training for the first time this year and I'm pretty excited about it.
March 1-4. I've got tickets to see Stros v braves, yankees, and tigers. I'm also driving down to vero beach (dodgertown) to see LA V NYM (stros playing a split squad game that day).

Anyone who's been to Kissimmee have any suggestons? Places to go, have a beer..whats the best place to get autographs of players..etc.

ps..just found this blog last week , looks great. Looking forward to some ball being played as you said. I'm as sick of Steroids,Clemens, and the all of that crap as everyone else.

by bullpen116 on Jan 30, 2008 11:25 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Welcome aboard

It's agreat place, especailly when there's actually a game being played.

Keeping Warm During Hot Stove Season

by Joe in Birmingham on Jan 30, 2008 11:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Santana

Does anyone else think, this trade was really lop-sided. Carlos Gomez and Phillip Humber... a lesser known Kevin Mulvey, and a nobody in the mets system. for Johan Santana?...What about Troy Patton, probably matches up with Humber, and Luke Scott, better but older then Carlos Gomez...and of coarse our other 3 players we threw in, we could have had a better deal, even giving Burke. I know he has a no trade clause, but maybe he could have saw us as a winning team with a lineup like...
Lineup Rotation
Bourne Roy
Kaz Johan
Pence Backe
Berkman Wandy
Lee Williams/sampson/paulino
Wiggy
Towles

Maybe we could have still gotten Valverde Without Burke. that would be a great team if we had Valverde and Johan, and not Miguel Tejada
Everett

by Big Puma 17 on Jan 30, 2008 12:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

the last Everett

was supposed to be at the end of the lineup...

by Big Puma 17 on Jan 30, 2008 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No way Puma

Patton is not looked at as the prospect that Humber is, Gomez has Taveras type speed and is 18 not going on 30 like Scott. The other guys are looked at as middle of the order types and maybe better.
No GM in baseball would take the offer you put out there over what the Twins got.
I do think they could have gotten a little better from the Red Sox or Yanks though.

It's the next generation of Astros. Let's see if they can play like the men they are replacing.

by TBurford on Jan 30, 2008 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

my thought...

is that Gomez and Bourn are essentially equivalent. Look at their stats: they are basically the same type player. This is all "after the fact," and doesn't mean much but I would compare a Bourn, Patton, Gutierrez, Albers, plus another prospect package favorably to the Mets' offer. What I've read is that Humber is now viewed as a back of the rotation pitcher, after his TJ surgery. So I don't agree with your assessment of the Patton comparison. I think Patton-Albers are comparable to Mulvey-Humber. Of course, at the time the Astros made the Tejada trade, it appeared that the Red Sox/Yankee packages were going to be winning offers, and the Astros didn't have anything to match up with those.

by clack on Jan 30, 2008 1:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There's an interesting article...

that says the Twins waited too long and the Mets made the right offer at the right time.

It goes through the different trade offers the Twins had origionally from both the Yanks and the Sawk. I think I would take those deals over the Mets offer in a second. The order:

The Sox deal involving Jon Lester. (This site has it as Lester, Coco Crisp, Jed Lowrie, and Justin Masterson.)
The Yanks deal with Melky Cabrera and Phil Hughes.
The Sox deal with Jacoby Ellsbury. (This ESPN article kinda talks about the trade but doesn't get too specific about the players involved.)

That makes the Mets offer 4th best. And that's just of the known offers.

I'd take the Mets offer over the Astros package to Baltimore.

by TexSkins on Jan 30, 2008 7:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I can't blame the Yanks or sawx

The package of players is only half of what Santana costs. They have to sign him as well for the most expensive contract for a pitcher ever. He is awesome but no one really wants to pay 22 mill every year for one pitcher. He is bound to get hurt or be bad every once in a while and at 650-750K per start damn near every one has to be great.

So that is one of the reasons Santana's trade value wasn't as good as once thought. Because once the owners realized they were trading 20 years of cheap talent for 7 years of the most expensive talent + risk the deal looked worse and worse. The Twins screwed themselves out of some better talent.

Also, beware of the east coast bias that follows east coast prospects. Some of their value is derived from name recognition from the media hype. Seems damn near every year the mets/yanks/sox generate a prospect out of thin air when hot air is all it really is.

My first mistake was assuming you knew what I was talking about.

by Shamus on Jan 30, 2008 10:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Your right about the hype...

surrounding the Sawk and Yanks, but after seeing Hughes this year, Cabrera for almost 2 years, Lester for 2 years (minus the time he was out) and Ellsbury for the second half last year... I'd take those guys over Gomez.

The other, lesser-known prospects are just that-- lesser-known and "prospects" in every sense of the word. But I'm not sure Gomez starts right now for the Twins, whereas the other names I mentioned above start right now for them.

And yeah... $20+ million a year is an insane amount of money. I'm not sure I'd make the trade if I was the Yanks or Sawk.

But for what they gave up, I think the Mets made the right move. If nothing else, they'll have butts in the seats this year and in the new ballpark next year.

by TexSkins on Jan 30, 2008 10:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I heard on the radio today

that the contract could possibly be in the 5 years 120+ million range... which I think is beyond absurd.

Go 'Stros!

by Stros Bro on Jan 31, 2008 8:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And you thought my 7/$150 mil was crazy...

by TexSkins on Jan 31, 2008 8:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Did I?

Not really.. I think it's too much... then again, I don't think he's worth 5-6 million more than Roy O. That being said, Clemens wasn't either and we paid him 22 mil a year(pro-rated).

Go 'Stros!

by Stros Bro on Jan 31, 2008 11:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

FYI.

Morgan Ensberg signed with the Yankees. He will be in the mix for the 1b position in spring training.

by clack on Jan 31, 2008 4:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Wash out Astros

Seem to be the Yankees thing this offseason.
Let them know that Derek Bell is available.

It's the next generation of Astros. Let's see if they can play like the men they are replacing.

by TBurford on Feb 1, 2008 3:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps Ensberg..

has a chance with the Yankees, but I have a harder time imagining a comeback season by Lane in NY. I don't know if Ensberg's baseball skills are in decline or if his problems were basically an injury followed by loss of confidence. I think it is possible that Ensberg could become a valuable platoon player for the Yankees. Ensberg's offensive style fits well with the Yankees. The Yankees' strategy stresses a lineup full of very patient hitters who take a lot of pitches. When all the lineup spots force the opposing pitcher to throw a bunch of pitches, the Yankees get to the opposing bullpen faster. Ensberg's approach matches that strategy. He usually is one of the top players in pitches per plate appearance.

by clack on Feb 1, 2008 5:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yankee Tradition

Ruth & Gehrig

Mantle & Maris

now . . .

Ensberg & Lane

Keeping Warm During Hot Stove Season

by Joe in Birmingham on Feb 1, 2008 5:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Called it!

7 years, $150.75 million for Santana.

I was off by $.75 million. Pennies.

by TexSkins on Feb 1, 2008 8:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Wrong link...

try this one.

by TexSkins on Feb 1, 2008 8:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

99 rule 5

good piece on that dreadful draft here. it's amazing that this happened.

http://mlbfleecefactor.com/2008/02/02/great-moments-in-fleece-history-the-santana-rule-5-draft-twin- fleece/

by em3 on Feb 2, 2008 12:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I tell Twins fans...

who are upset that they got so little for Santana: hey, be happy your team got something for him, the Astros only received $50,000 for Santana in the Rule 5 draft. That article compares Santana to the other pitchers on the Astros' major league staff at the time, but it might be more interesting to compare him to other minor league players who were protected on the 40 man roster that year. (It probably looks worse from that standpoint.)

In 2006, I kept lamenting the loss of Santana. Roy Oswalt had a Cy Young-quality season, and Santana was a Cy Young winner in the AL. Can you imagine if both Oswalt and Santana had pitched 1-2 in the Astros rotation that year (followed by Pettitte and Clemens!).

Everyone has heard about how productive the Astros' Venezuelan academy used to be. But it is interesting that so few of those players contributed to the Astros (just Hidalgo?). Players like Santana, Abreu, Melvin Mora, Freddy Garcia, Carlos Guillen went on to have good careers for other teams.

by clack on Feb 2, 2008 7:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Read this article

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/10607275

It is true. I was going to write a long diary about it but it started to make me sad and angry so I stopped.

All I can say is the only reason other writers don't do stories like this is because the Astros aren't worth the time.

My first mistake was assuming you knew what I was talking about.

by Shamus on Feb 2, 2008 12:58 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I have no respect...

for the author of that article, Shamus. It is a good example of what is wrong with sports journalism in this day and age. Sure, some of the overall criticisms of the Astros have validity. However, his analytic ability is pure crap. He thinks "put-downs" are a substitute for intelligent discussion and accurate information. Some of his supposed "facts" seem to be made up out of thin air.

Here is something which immmediately angered me: he says Felipe Paulino is "dippy" and has "a head full of porridge." I doubt that this guy knows anything about Paulino. And a fair criticism might question whether Paulino will develop adequate command in the future. But I have never heard anyone talk about him as a "head case," and to imply that he is a mental case just so the author can make a funny comment is deplorable. He labels Wandy as bad with little more basis for his comment than the average internet message board poster whose analysis is "Wandy sucks."

He criticizes Bourn and Matsui at the top of the Astros lineup. And legitimate criticisms exist...I've indicated my own skepticism at times. But the basis of this author's criticisms are not based in reality. He states: "Neither of these guys have shown much inclination in the past to accept a walk." Bourn has shown a consistent 10.5% -11.7% walk rate in the minors and a 11.1% walk rate in the majors last year. You can question other aspects of his offensive skills, but walks isn't one of them. Matsui hasn't shown a great ability to draw walks, but he hasn't been terrible (7.7% walk rate). Matsui's walk rate last season was about 40% higher than Pence's walk rate (and the author argues that Pence should lead off). The author also omits the fact that Bourn and Matsui had OBPs of .346 and .337, respectively, last year.

OK, that's enough...I've got my revulsion to this article off my chest. Again, there are fair criticisms to be made about the state of the Astros' farm system, and the Astros' recent trading strategies...but this guy just wants to pile on without doing is research.

by clack on Feb 2, 2008 9:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

One other comment....

on the CBS sportsline article. He says that the Astros would have to score 1,100 runs with this starting rotation. That is obviously ridiculous. The Astros' starters allowed about 500 runs last year. My analysis (using the projections from ZIPS, CHONE, Bill James) indicates that the Astros' starters should be expected to reduce starting rotation runs allowed by 2.4% - 14.5%, compared to last year. (Why? Well, start off with the fact that the 2007 Jason Jennings and Matt Albers are no longer in the rotation.) I've made it clear in other posts that I think the Astros' rotation needs improvement, but the idea that the offense has to score runs at some historic record rate to compensate for the deficiencies of the pitching staff is not grounded in reality. I think the Astros need to acquire another starting pitcher, in order to increase the odds that the team will contend next year. BTW, if anyone is interested, I could update and post my analysis as a diary at some point. I haven't done it so far, because it takes some time, and I'm not sure people want to see that kind of thing.

by clack on Feb 2, 2008 9:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

despite all the generalities

I think he is on point. I have no idea of his previous writings and don't think he delved that far into the Stros but most of the observations, less Bourn's, are believable.

Things I liked in the article:

His observations that the Stros overextended themselves trying to upgrade the team for 08. And implying that even with the upgrades they are not a real contender and it will hurt bad in the future.
He mentions actually making moves at the deadline if the Astros aren't in contention. Something they haven't done in many years.
Busts Drayton for being a Seligophile and not breaking slot money in the past few drafts.(Unlike Roy O and Patton)

Things I didn't like:

His snippy and insulting remarks to players. Like you mentioned, he has maybe never even seen Paulino and says he is lacking aptitude to pitch.
It would also been nice to have a little more statistical analysis so someone without immediate knowledge of what he is referencing could have some ability to have objectivity.

All in all I just liked to read something that agrees with many points I have written.

My first mistake was assuming you knew what I was talking about.

by Shamus on Feb 2, 2008 5:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Santana History

Great piece looking back on how Johan got to where he is today.

http://mlbfleecefactor.com/2008/02/02/great-moments-in-fleece-history-the-santana-rule-5-draft-twin- fleece/

by ET90210 on Feb 2, 2008 8:08 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

ha..

i just posted that article ET.

by em3 on Feb 2, 2008 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I just say this...

article on work visas for players suspended for PEDs.

Interesting topic.

by TexSkins on Feb 4, 2008 6:32 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I don't think...

that will be an issue unless congress/senate/whoever actually files anything against Tejada... and if that happens, him getting a work Visa is the least of his worries.

Go 'Stros!

by Stros Bro on Feb 4, 2008 10:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Search

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

New FanPost All FanPosts

Current Series

3 game series vs Pirates @ Minute Maid Park

Pittsburgh Pirates Bucs Dugout @ Houston Astros The Crawfish Boxes Monday, Jul 6, 2009, 7:05 PM CDT Minute Maid Park Partly cloudy,rain. Game time temperature around 90. Complete Coverage >
Tue 07/07		7:05 PM CDT
Wed 07/08		1:05 PM CDT

NL Central Standings

	W	L	PCT	GB	STRK
St. Louis Viva El Birdos	45	39	.535	0	Won 1
Milwaukee Brew Crew Ball	43	39	.524	1	Lost 1
Chicago Bleed Cubbie Blue	40	39	.506	2.5	Won 1
Cincinnati Red Reporter	40	40	.500	3	Lost 1
Houston The Crawfish Boxes	39	41	.487	4	Won 1
Pittsburgh Bucs Dugout	37	45	.451	7	Lost 2