At the trade deadline this year, my dad and I kept facitiously holding our breaths for someone to announce that the Astros had traded something of value for a seemingly-washed up Tampa Bay 3B (yes, I know Wiggy was good this year and so was Huff, but at the time I think everyone of us scratched their heads). Fortunately, it didn't happen. Either way, last night had me thinking about those trades as Dan Wheeler imploded yet again in the post season. I thought to myself, "Well, at least we never really gave up anything too valuable in those trades." Graciously, the Hardball Times gave me a swift punch to the gut this morning and reminded me of Mitch Talbot.
> 
Huff would come to Houston after Tim Purpura, in his infinite wisdom, traded Ben Zobrist and Mitch Talbot to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. Aubry Huff played decently for half a season in Houston, hit .250 and OPSed .819, but in the end his average performance will not be able to outweigh the fact we could have a gifted major league ready starter come up in 2009. It will always perplex me how the organization went from almost trading Oswalt away to the Mets to finding a washed-up 3B/utility OFer as their answer to our inept offense. Somehow we went from rebuilding mode to throwing prospects and money at veterans make a run at the NL Central -- this deal might actually mark the beginning of our organizational idiocy (not that I think we should have traded Oswalt away though). For those of you who want to argue, "we almost made the post-season." I'll remind you that we one 82 games and got incredibly fortunate that the Cardinals managed to lose 7 straight games in the middle of September for us to have a shot at that...82 wins...
I'll keep my eye on Mitch Talbot next year, because he's a candidate for a mid-season call-up in a stacked rotation, and I'll try to resist the urge to find Tim Pupura and wring his neck. Either way, I just want to know if we can get a do over on this trade.
What trade would you want a do over on? I'll limit it to the last 20 years, because we'd all want Joe Morgan back.
0 recs | 8 comments
How 'bout the Jennings deal
Willy T, Taylor Buchholz, Jason Hirsh for about half a year of suckage, and a reliever who did nothing.
jonthefon - October 17, 2008
The Jennings Deal Has Got to Be Up There
But I think we might want to go back a little further.
I wrote the following page before Purpura in his suckass wisdom made the Jennings deal, but I’d still say that Lofton for Taubensee and Blair is, and Lord let us hope will always be, the second worst.
In some ways the Lofton trade is even more inexplicable than the Morgan one. Like, everyone knows Spec Richardson was a dumbshit, but Bill Wood was a pretty good GM . . . .
rastronomicals - October 17, 2008
I wouldn't be so upset over the Huff trade.
The bad part of the decision chain regarding Huff was the Astros’ choice not to offer him arbitration. If he had been offered arbitration, more than likely the Astros would have gotten a 1st and 2d round draft pick (he was a Type A FA), which would have erased any regrets over the trade.
But as for the trade decision, itself, I don’t think it was a bad deal. The Astros were desperate for offense, and Huff did just about what was expected of him. By the way, most fans’ “regrets” at the time involved Zobrist, rather than Talbot. But the Astros projections for these two players seems about right. The Astros felt that Zobrist’s defense was inadequate for shortstop and they projected him as a utility infielder. Zobrist, in fact, appears to be headed for a career as a utility infielder (albeit, maybe a good one)…and his defense at shortstop in the major leagues has been poor. The Astros projected Talbot to be a middle reliever in the major leagues, and the Hardball Times article indicates that his future is likely to be as a relief pitcher.
At the time, the loss of Talbot seemed acceptable, because the Astros appeared to be rich in young pitching, with Talbot ranked below several other young pitchers. Think about his competition in the Astros system: Nieve, Buchholz, Hirsh, Gutierrez, Barthmeier, Patton, Albers ,Paulino. Subsequent trades, along with injuries, emptied that treasure chest of young pitchers.
I would object to characterizing the Astros as “very fortunate” because the Cardinals had a 7 game loss streak….that 7 game loss streak included a 4 game sweep by the Astros, which means that the Astros made a lot of their luck.
As for worst trade…yes, I agree with Rastro that the Lofton trade was terrible. However, that trade can be rationalized by the fact that Taubensee was highly rated as a catching prospect. If Taubensee had turned out to be what they thought, it would seem to be a more even trade. For some reason, Taubensee turned out to be a complete dud until he was traded to the Reds…at which time, he had a few decent seasons. However, as a fan at the time, I knew Lofton’s potential, and my immediate reaction was: “we will regret losing Lofton in a couple of years.” But I didn’t realize how lopsided the trade would turn out.
These aren’t exactly trades, but I rank them as the worst player moves (at least, in hindsight): failing to protect either Abreu or Santana, allowing them to be picked up for nothing. (Abreu was unprotected for the expansion draft, and Santana was unprotected for the Rule 5 draft.)
clack - October 17, 2008
So wait
After 06 we offered nothing to Clemens, Huff or Pettitte. All three were Type A? Granted, we didn’t know what Rocket was planning, but that’s six draft picks if they were all Type A. We’d have a nice little farm system if we’d made good picks in 07 as a result…
jonthefon - October 17, 2008
Yeah
Tim Purpura is a moron.
Stephen Higdon - October 17, 2008
I know he's a blowhard and nobody likes him,
but I’d like a do-over on the Schilling for Grimsley trade. Had the Astros converted him to a starter like the Phillies did, he would have really come into his own around the time of the Astros’ playoff appearances.
Only_A_Lad - October 18, 2008
Good one...
I didn’t think about that trade. Wow, that was a terrible, terrible trade, and it definitely has to be one of the Astros’ worst in the last 20 years. Arguably, the trade may have given Schilling the jolt necessary to improve his career. The Astros weren’t happy with his attitude, and they asked everyone from Ryan to Clemens to talk with him about changing his work ethic. (Schilling has said that the blunt talking to from Clemens actually did have an effect, shortly before his trade.) So, maybe the change of scenery was necessary. But trying him as a starter seems like an obvious move the Astros should have made; my recollection is that Schilling chafed at being a relief pitcher, because he wanted to be a starter.
clack - October 18, 2008
What's stupid is that we didn't even use Grimsley
we kept him in the minors for 1992 and then released him. At least with Morgan we got some players in return whom we used. In 1991, we basically just gave away Schilling.
But, yeah, Schilling’s an arrogant, self-centered prick and a prima-donna. And if he hadn’t been such a dick in 1992, then the Astros would likely have kept him.
Hard to blame the Astros for trading him then, but it was still one I’d like a do-over on.
Only_A_Lad - October 18, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of The Crawfish Boxes to post a comment.