Sidenote to Valverde/Wigginton Article: Should Oswalt and Berkman be considered Untouchables?

by HighLeveragePerformer on Nov 19, 2008 11:05 AM CST in Hot Stove Comment 18 comments

So it looks more and more likely that the Astros are going to trade at least one veteran player this offseason. I usually don't give much credence to a Richard Justice article, but the billowing smoke coming from the Crawford Street denotes a probable fire. But, why Wigginton and Valverde specifically? Because as Richard Justice wrote in his article today:

Roy Oswalt and Lance Berkman are untouchable. McLane wants both of them to finish their careers with the Astros. If either of them makes the Hall of Fame, it’ll be wearing the uniform they now wear.

My question is this- Should those two be untouchables? I know they are superb baseball players who have been with the Astros their entire careers, and their no-trade clause makes them difficult to deal, but does that make them personas-non- trade-candidates? In this of all years, with the economy struggling, and Drayton's stock portfolio most likely taking more hits than Matt Schaub, is he in a position to so strongly rule out any deal that may have been put forward by another team? Apparently, the Yankees have already made an inquiry as to the availability of one or both of them. Who's to say that other teams haven't as well? Both of their contracts are extremely reasonable in terms of dollars and duration.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

In my mind Drayton made the same mistake with Bagwell. We all knew his shoulder was shot and he was not going to be a viable option in the future yet Drayton kept him so he could retire an Astro. I was glad to see the Astros keep Biggio because he was a special player and a special person to the City and a Hall of Famer. But as far as I am concerned this is a Business bottom line if you are going to deal players away to save money then you should trade the players with the highest potenial for return. look at what San Deigo is possibly getting for Peavy. If we dealt one of them and got the right return we could be just like Tampa bay. The central is ripe for a team to rebuild and run away with the Division. I somtimes think Drayton is to loyal, you have to rebuild or restock and we dont have the talent to rebuild and Drayton doesnt want to Spend the money so what do you do? Trade away star players and rebuild. In a way you are rewarding those players for there loyalty over the years when you trade them to a conteder.

by wadero on Nov 19, 2008 12:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

i think it goes back to

how drayton never ever wants to ruffle anyone’s feathers, whether it be the fan base or the commissioner. he wants to be able to maintain the status quo, yet build a championship contender. most of the time, that isn’t possible because only a few teams are truly able to say that they are a championship quality team at any given time.

the majority of fans i think would be upset if berkman or oswalt were traded. they’d scream that sports aren’t the same as they were back in THE DAY…well, guess what sherlock holmes? they aren’t. owners rarely hold their team as a public trust to benefit the community. the city of houston is a transient sports city. with so many people that are not from houston living there, people will continue to follow the astros as long as they win…even the people whose families have always lived in houston are not as hardcore on the whole as fans from other towns. its just how it is.

by HighLeveragePerformer on Nov 19, 2008 12:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sports fans everywhere are the same.

The fact is that fans care when their teams do well. That’s true everywhere. There isn’t a town in the world that gives half a shit about their teams if they are awful (post 1960 Boston and Cubs fans notwithstanding). I wouldn’t say we’re any more or less hardcore than anyone else.

And, from the way I’ve heard it, the Luv Ya Blue era Dome was quite a scene. So I wouldn’t condemn the city’s fans so quickly. The past thirty years have taught us all that Houston has a special capacity for choking, so we tend to not get too worked up about anything.

Yeah, people would be really upset if Berkman or Oswalt were traded. I know that I would be. But people would get over it fairly quickly. Trading away either of those two isn’t the worst we’ve seen, as far as Houston sports personnel decisions are concerned – Bud Adams takes the cake with his firing of Bum Phillips and trading away Warren Moon a decade later. Those two were nonsensical. People would probably understand the rationale behind trading Lance and Roy.

Bottom line – trade them if you need to. And I’m not entirely sure that trading them is necessary. If we draft well and spend well, then fire sales are unnecessary.

by Only_A_Lad on Nov 19, 2008 2:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No Trade

Trade them and I will see you again in five years.

by entropic soul on Nov 19, 2008 3:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I dont understand something you would be willing to see Berkman and Roy O stay and be on a middle of the pack central division team? If we got the right players in a deal for either Berkman or Roy we would be in a postion to play for a Title in 2 years top. 5 years makes no sence? I never been able to understand the mind set the Astros front office has regarding players. They bring them up way to late and they hold onto them after there prime. I will give example the Marlins gutted there team and then restock and won the WORLD SERIES. Several teams in MLB do this and suceed why cant we?

by wadero on Nov 19, 2008 3:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

2 YEARS TOPS?

Who do you think we are getting in return for these guys? Just because someone is a prospect doesn’t mean they are going to be any good. You are gambling on a return here. Do you think other teams are going to trade their ALL of best MLB ready talent? You might get a couple for those two, but there is still no guarantee that they will be any good. With Berkman and Oswalt you have have two dependable guys that will play for the next 4 years at least, and likely would play a few years after that.

Everyone says they are getting old and they are declining, but they aren’t declining. And even if that were the case, what makes you think you would get the best prospects for them? Everyone is assuming that we’d get a bunch of guys that would be awesome in 2 or 3 years and that is simply not the case. We’d get a lot of guys that would likely need to be in the farm for at least that long before they came up, plus the draft choices we’d be making in the mean time. It would take several years to get enough players to field a complete team really good players.

You mention the Marlins, but it took them 6 years to get back to the playoff after they won the World Series. They won it again in 2003, but they haven’t been back to the playoffs since. The Marlins get 1 good year every 6 years.. so fans have to wait through 5 years of suckiness to be rewarded. And they don’t even have a good team “for years to come.” It’s just for one year! Then 5 more years of suck. That’s the plan you want to follow?

by entropic soul on Nov 19, 2008 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

This is an interesting thread

Wadero, your first post is excellent. It is contrary to my thoughts but I see your view and am partially persuaded.

I disagree somewhat with the post that McLane doesn’t want to upset people. He does it all the time. I’m still ticked how he fired Alan Ashby from the radio booth (and his shabby treatment of Larry Dierker as two examples.

I Think Berkman and Oswalt bring skills and leadership to the team. Tejada serves that same leadership purpose (Not so sure about the skills).

A team needs a face – Berkman especially serves that purpose (On a minor level Backe may save his job becasue of his own face of the Astros feel ). You can take MArlins _ and I admire their success in playoffs – but what’s the joy in attending a game in a virtually empty stadium. Fans need to identify with some players.

Astros need history and pride. Berkman and Oswalt join our hall of memories

Oswalt and Berkman (esp Oswalt) bring legitimacy in the eyes of other teams and media.

I understand the cost savings can translate into paying for more players that would make up the loss (esp for Berkman) – pitching ?? _ Oswalt is a good deal now – financially and on the field. It would cost more to replace him.

Astros may get great players in return. But great meaning what? – play more remaining years with Astros? (proabably) . Play better than Berkman and Oswalt can play the next three? (I doubt it).

I think if you checked the team roster , Astros (as do most teams) have a big turnaround in players over a three or four year period. How many are still here from 2005? How many on the 2005 team were on the 2002 team?

I’m started to ramble so I’ll stop. (except to say Berkman and Oswalt – particularly Berkman have said “no place but Houston” )

Astros fan for life

by Joe in Birmingham on Nov 19, 2008 5:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'd trade Roy

if we got a really good haul for him (a Teixeira-type deal)? I’m not sure about dealing Lance for such though, mainly because we dont’t appear to have anyone to replace him.

by jonthefon on Nov 19, 2008 5:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm OK with making Berkman and Oswalt off-limits to trade.

First, it’s never can happen with Berkman. He has made clear that he bargained for a no trade clause for a reason…he doesn’t want to play anywhere but Texas. And I think Oswalt would make it harder to trade him than Peavy has with the Padres.

Second, with premier hall of fame caliber players, I don’t think you ever get enough in return. In part, it is because nobody can provide you equivalent value in return without tearing up their teams. It reminds me of the situation with Olajuwan and the Rockets in the early 90s. Aikeem got mad at the Rockets and asked to be traded, and the Rockets put him on the block. But it became clear that the Rockets could never get enough in return, compared to his true value. Nobody had enough stars to trade for him At that point, both the Rockets and Aikeem realized that they needed to mend their relationship (with 2 world championships resulting). I don’t think the Twins got enough for Santana (and Oswalt should be worth a lot more than him, given Santana’s contract status at the time). None of the packages I have seen discussed for Peavy are what I consider equivalent value, and now the Padres admit that it make take 3 or 4 teams to come up with the pieces to acquire him. I think it’s very possible the Padres may be forced to retain him next season.

Third, I think Berkman and Oswalt are potential Hall of Fame players, and I respect the Astros for wanting to keep them. That kind of loyalty is admirable in a rather cut throat world of sports. I admired it with respect to the Astros treament of Bagwell and Biggio too.

If the Astros can get decent value for Carlos Lee, I have no trouble trading him. And I feel much the same way for Tejada. But Berkman and Oswalt can be maintained as cornerstones of the franchise, even if it is acting as the mentors for future young players, much like Biggio did with Pence.

by clack on Nov 19, 2008 7:31 PM CST reply actions 1 recs

I understand that Berkman is the face of the Astros, But I hear everyone talking about trading Lee and not Berkman. Granted Berman had a huge last year number wise here are some of his stats.
Lance
BA .312 HR 29 RBI 106 OBP.420 Slug .567 and he did this in 159 at bats

Know look at what Carlos did
BA.314 HR 28 RBI 100 OBP .386 Slug .569 and he did this in 115 at bats.

They are almost Identicle except Lee did his in less at bats. They are both 32 years old and lance made 14,500,000 while Carlos made 12,500,000. I guess the point I am trying to make is They make almost the same money they almost preform at the same level so why is LEE tradeable where lance isnt?

by wadero on Nov 20, 2008 9:05 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think it's because

Lance has unequivocally stated he would only be traded to the Rangers, if allowed himself to be traded. While Lee has the no-trade clause, I think everyone assumes he’d be a little more flexible.

The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.

by DyingQuail on Nov 20, 2008 12:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I would like to make correction on there salaries Lance signed a 6year 85 million dollar deal in 05. Lee got a 6 year 100 million dollar deal in 06. So there payday are not quite the same.

by wadero on Nov 20, 2008 9:08 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Lee's salary will escalate to $18.5 million next year.

That is one of the real problems with his contract. It is questionable whether he is worth that much right now, and he certainly won’t be worth that much in 2 years. Lee’s defense is bad, and Berkman’s defense at 1b is plus. Lee’s defense mostly likely will be get worse as he ages. It’s unfortunate, but Lee’s defensive deficiencies detract from his offensive ability. Last year was the first time that Lee ever surpassed .900 OPS, and it was in an injury shortened season…no telling if he could have kept it up in a full season. It is the norm for Berkman to post an OPS above .900. Berkman has a shot at the Hall of Fame, if he keeps it up. Lee doesn’t.

by clack on Nov 20, 2008 6:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I also think the Astros tends to treat players who come up through their system....

differently than those who were traded or signed here. I’m not saying that is right. But as I look at the other thread about the “Astro-iest” players, it seems that most of the players in that category came up through the Astros’ system. I recall a Richard Justice story a few years ago, in which he said an Astros player pointed to Burke, Lane, Ensberg, Everett, etc., and said to Roger Clemens, “those are the real Astros, we’re just hired hands.”

by clack on Nov 20, 2008 6:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

All of the point you made make a lot of Sence, but if it is such a bad signing why did we do it. Was’nt there someone in the organaztion who said Lee would be a Dh in 3 years? I think that is the biggest problem we have as a organaztion. drayton doesnt listen to anyone. He wants a player they are here he doesnt think of the long term just the know. I wish he would realize he is not a steinbrenner.

by wadero on Nov 21, 2008 9:08 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Christ, I hate Purpura.

by Only_A_Lad on Nov 21, 2008 10:46 AM 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 Giants @ AT&T Park

Houston Astros The Crawfish Boxes @ San Francisco Giants McCovey Chronicles Friday, Jul 3, 2009, 9:15 PM CDT AT&T Park Felipe Paulino vs Ryan Sadowski Mostly clear. Game time temperature around 65. Complete Coverage >
Sat 07/04		3:05 PM CDT
Sun 07/05		3:05 PM CDT

NL Central Standings

	W	L	PCT	GB	STRK
St. Louis Viva El Birdos	43	38	.530	0	Won 2
Milwaukee Brew Crew Ball	42	38	.525	0.5	Lost 3
Chicago Bleed Cubbie Blue	39	38	.506	2	Won 3
Cincinnati Red Reporter	39	38	.506	2	Won 2
Houston The Crawfish Boxes	38	39	.493	3	Won 2
Pittsburgh Bucs Dugout	36	43	.455	6	Lost 2

(updated 7.3.2009 at 5:19 PM CDT)

The Crawfish Boxes: An SB Nation Community

Login Bar

Network Bar

An Unofficial Houston Astros Blog : In Bobby Heck we trust