There are generally four types of trades: 1. Change of scenery trades - in this type you have a guy who you don't think fits your team (like Schilling) and you trade him just to trade him. These are the types of trades in which you essentially give up on a guy and take a flyer on who you get in return. You can put Schilling and Ward in this category. 2. Trades to improve your ballclub for the longterm. These are the trades that involve players like Morgan, Carl Everett and Finley. Teams generally deal from an area of perceived strength to acquire players for perceived weaknesses. These players are not "given up on". They are simply used to make the trade happen. 3. Trades to improve your ballclub for the stretch drive. These are the ones that generally bite a team in the long run. You give up prospects in order to obtain a proven veteran. Would the Astros rather have had Guillen and Garcia for the past few years - Yes. Did they make a mistake in using them to get Johnson for the pennant drive - No. The same with Boston. You know they'd rather have Bagwell for all these years, BUT Andersen did help them make the playoffs that year. The decision always is, do you trade an uncertain future for a probable present? Since the Astros annually contend, they have not been the benficiaries of acquiring prospects for veterans. This has hurt them in the long run. 4. Salary necessitated trades. These are the ones in which you don't want to lose a player for nothing. Had Hampton agreed to negotiate during his last season, he probably would not have been traded (at least not when he was). Once he determined that he would test the free agent market, then it was deemed better to get something for him. They managed to get their current closer AND dump Derek Bell and his salary. We may be talking semantics, but there is a difference in "giving up" on a player and in using players in trades. It sure is nice to have hindsight in all of these matters.
Was dumping Everett not good as hindsight proves? Your points are well taken. So, what to do looking forward? Yanks want Brown, don't want Weaver. Dodgers want offense, less dollars committed. It smells to me like a creative three way could be effected with Hidalgo heading to La La Land and either both LA and NY combining to pick up a substantial piece of Weaver's salary for this year (and/or next), thus freeing the Astros to allocate the savings for Pettitte or someone or someones else. or taking Weaver and his salary AND Soriano or Johnson. or a third idea, but some creativity to counter moves by the Cubs, probably the Cards, and be competitive for an October run to meet the quarter of a billion dollar payrolled Yanks in The Series.
Yanks want Brown, don't want Weaver. Dodgers want offense, less dollars committed. It smells to me like a creative three way could be effected with Hidalgo heading to La La Land and either both LA and NY combining to pick up a substantial piece of Weaver's salary for this year (and/or next), thus freeing the Astros to allocate the savings for Pettitte or someone or someones else. or taking Weaver and his salary AND Soriano or Johnson. 1. Why would the Dodgers want Hidalgo? They could probably get someone better and cheaper direct from the Yankees. 2. Why would the Yankees give away Weaver and pay his salary? There's no benefit to the Yankees there. 3. Why would the Yankees give away Soriano in order to get rid of Weaver? While I'm sure they'd like to get rid of some salary, they certainly don't need to. They'd rather eat Weaver's money to keep Soriano. 4. Why would the Yankees do anything to help the Astros acquire Pettite?
The only reason he makes money a public issue is because the public b****es and moans about him being a cheap owner. One way to combat that ridiculous notion is to show that you're losing money every year.
not that i necessarily disagree with what your saying, but I'm pretty should both of those guys left during the mclane era. Correct me if i'm wrong, but drayton took over in 93. nevin was drafted in 92 and traded in 95 after caminiti was traded. Finley was traded at the start of the 1995 season.
is that right?? i really thought both of those guys were gone well before that....particularly nevin...i thought he was gone before i graduated high school in 92
Nevin was an ass, plain & simple, all the other players hated him. He admitted as much a couple of years ago. Plus he sucked, and continued to suck for a good 4 years or so after the 'Stros shipped him off. Saying that the 'Stros "gave up on him" is pure revisionist history b.s. Trading Finley & Cammy to San Diego was a money move, plain & simple. Both were up for big raises, and the 'Stros were hemmoraghing money. Big time. Those were the days of attendance numbers south of 10,000 on a regular basis. Regretable, but understandable given the circumstances. Under the current management, the only player you can say the 'Stros "gave up on" that really hurts is Bobby Abreu. He had a bit of an attitude and was perceived as lazy. Hun has admitted that it was a mistake in hindsight.
Sorry but this fan is totally unconvinced about the losses. Totally. Paper losses, possibly. But I don 't buy the real $ loss claims. I also don't care if he makes or loses money, I only care if the team wins or loses games. That is where I want my focus, and the team's focus.
then you need to stop watching pro sports, altogether. at it's heart, it is nothing more than a business. an entertaining one, to be sure...but still a business. and owners start sweating when they lose money, whether you think they are or not.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?statsId=5420 http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?statsId=4307
1. Why would the Dodgers want Hidalgo? They could probably get someone better and cheaper direct from the Yankees. IF THE DODGERS ARE MOTIVATED TO GET OUT FROM UNDER BROWN'S 30 MIL COMMITMENT. DOGGY IS A PRETTY GOOD BALLPLAYER, AND AT LESS THAN 1/2 BROWN'S MONEY MAYBE INTERESTING TO DODGERS. Brown is a pitcher in demand. They can get better (and far more consistent) ballplayers than Hidalgo without having to take on a ridiculous $12M contract. 2. Why would the Yankees give away Weaver and pay his salary? There's no benefit to the Yankees there. IF YANKS ARE SO DESPERATE TO DUMP WEAVER AND IF THEY ARE AS INTERESTED AS REPORTED IN BROWN THERE IS GREAT BENEFIT TO THE YANKEES. 3. Why would the Yankees give away Soriano in order to get rid of Weaver? While I'm sure they'd like to get rid of some salary, they certainly don't need to. They'd rather eat Weaver's money to keep Soriano. TO GET SOMETHING DONE TEAMS, EVEN THE YANKEES, SOMETIMES HAVE TO DO THINGS, AND SUPPOSEDLY SORIANO FELL OUT OF FAVOR WITH YANK BRASS (BOSS?) LAST OCTOBER. If the Yankees were willing to trade Soriano, they could trade Soriano and Weaver direct to the Dodgers for Brown. The Yankees get the same, and the Dodgers get a better player, an extra pitcher, and less total contracts. Hidalgo is not going to be a core piece of a 3-way trade: he's expensive, inconsistent, and relatively mediocre for the size of his contract.
