Not sure how much sarcasm was intended here... The teams win pace is irrelevant when you have constituent parts that are badly under-performing and you have ready and waiting resources to bolster it.
I don't see how pace is irrelevant. Astros are either going to win and make playoffs easily or be incredibly hurt. It is hard to win more games than the Astros are already winning. Besides for a temporary band-aid like swapping out Fisher, there really isn't anything that is pressing that doesn't involve putting a player on waivers. The likely fixes of Tucker or Alvarez cost about 15 million in arbitration later to call up now. Astros likely think they get more wins and more important wins out of $15 million later than Tucker or Alvarez can contribute in April and May. Not one playoff game is played in April or May. Unless Tucker or Alvarez are doctors that prevent pitcher injuries, they aren't going to impact whether Astros make the playoffs or not now.
First, let me say that I can see things through the lens you are using. Your right that Fisher, Marisnick and Gattis are not likely to cause us to miss the playoffs. I also agree that waiving guys right now is premature. I say that pace is irrelevant because it seems some folks are using that as an excuse not to make improvements when and where they are possible and feasible. Swapping Fisher for Kemp, for instance is both possible and feasible. So why not? Sure, the Astros are winning games. I disagree that we couldn't have won a couple more at this point if we didn't have 2 or 3 inning killers at the bottom of the lineup. If your going to have Springer leading off, the 7-9 nine guys have to contribute something. Last year, at least in part, our offense flourished because the 7-9 guys did enough to allow Springer and company to bat them in, leading to long innings and continued traffic on the bases regardless of what part of the order is up to bat. This year, the top 5 or 6 guys have to do all the damage. And yes, we are pretty good even with them accounting for almost all the offense. But if we want to be the juggernaut offense we were last year, you cant have Gattis, Marisnick and Fisher in the order as they have played up to this point. Another thought to consider is having one less pitcher and one more position player. Last year, the offense was better than the pitching, so it made all the sense in the world to have as much pitching available as possible. But the tables have turned. Pitching is our strength this year. With an additional position player, we can not only supplant left field with an alternate body, but we can have someone else DH some.
It's all perspective. But of all possible scenarios, I don't have a problem with them taking a long look at Derek Fisher right now. With rare exception (e.g. elite talents like Correa), prospects need long looks to get acclimated to the big leagues. Breggy's ML start is infamous, but even lesser prospects like Fisher, Reed and Davis will probably need more time to get adjusted. Fisher has the highest upside of position prospects not named Tucker/Alvarez, therefore he should be getting the longest look. They're winning at a good clip despite Fisher and Marisnick, that's readily apparent. That doesn't mean it's something they need to change/address this early in the season (imho of course).
I've talked about this, and I love the idea in theory given their rotation and Hinch's struggle to find regular work for the pen. However, it's a veteran pen and they would have to trade/waive somebody and it's early in the season to be doing that.
Fisher has 185 AB (2017-18) in the majors for a slash line of .195/.279/.335 Maybe your right, and he needs more than 185 AB's. Some have said it takes 500 AB's to properly evaluate a player. That may very well be. But I do know that we cant give every AAAA prospect 500 AB's. And for Fisher to get that many, it will take a couple more years. Do we have that kind of time? http://www.espn.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/33794/derek-fisher
Besides for replacing Fisher which should happen any day now unless he goes on a tear, this post reeks of "panic". As the Astros are now, they look like they are struggling and are on pace to win 108 games. Panicking about 7-9 hitters not getting on for Springer seems insignificant at this point. Panicking that the Astros might not have one of the best offenses ever while they have one of the best pitching staffs ever assembled seems insignificant at this point. Panicking about whether Astros need another hitter seems insignificant at this point. The Astros aren't perfect, but they are good enough that they have time to see what they can do to be even better. If some other team is willing to do something stupid, Astros should take advantage. If not, Astros should give this team a chance to show they are the best outside of a small band-aid in left.
For the most part, yes I think we have that kind of time this year. We've seen him impact the game with his speed just like Jake has with his defense. So there's not quite as much pressure on his bat. From just a purely development standpoint, I think they need to see what he can do when he's in a groove hitting wise. He's got to tools to be not-quite a star but an above average regular. That has massive value on a team where there's only a handful of position players making the minimum.
You and Buck both have implied the Astros have too much pitching on the same page. Do you know how weird a thought that is? No manager has ever told a general manager, "Yeah, I don't need that MLB pitcher. I want to try out this fringy OF from AAA instead". My head can not handle the thought of having too much pitching. Granted Sipp is pretty bad.
To me, its about shifting needs and priorities. Right now, we need (IMO) more flexibility to test guys out on the offense than we need a LHP that is clearly bad.
Astros have one spot to test guys. Whether it is Fisher, Kemp, White, or Davis, not going to get enough bats to test two guys at once especially if you are concerned with 7-9 batting spots. If Sipp is replaced, look for Hoyt or James to take his place.
Fisher and Marisnick have 98 combined PA....they have 48 K's and 2 BB. That is abhorrent. I'm very much a patient type, we have to give young players a chance. But these 2 are making it nearly impossible. There's hitting into bad luck, and then there's not even coming close to being productive.
Indians grabbed Melky Cabrera for a million bucks with incentives to earn another million. So glad we are being patient with Derek Fisher......
Making moves to upgrade DH whether it's platoon more at DH or the bottom of the order or pick up someone, fine by me. It is not even one month though, and even very good hitters often look bad during sample sizes larger than this. During one month last season our offense performed as if we had 9 Paul Goldschmidt caliber hitters in the lineup, which is unheard of. Expect peaks and valleys, it's a long season.
With Fisher, I agree the sample is small. Still, other guys in the minors deserve looks. But Gattis has been bad as a DH for more than a year. And Marisnick for his career has never been more than mediocre at the plate. That said, I wouldn't be complaining if it was 2017 Jake or Gattis as catcher that we were getting this year. But were not. In any case, the sample size for these two is not small.
I don’t think Jake is the kind of player you just keep sticking out there and hope he plays through it, he needs to sit a while and have his approach tweaked.
