Astros Waive Woody Williams
The Astros have put Woody Williams on waivers, for the purpose of giving him his release.
He's owed $6.5 million this season, which the Astros will have to pay him. The Astros paid him $6 million last season, for 188 innings in which he provided an ERA+ of 83. And signing him cost the Astros their 2nd round pick in 2007 (it would have cost them a first rounder, had they not also signed Carlos Lee).
Richard Justice defended the signing earlier this spring, which is another reason why you probably should listen to what Richard Justice thinks about baseball. Seriously:
Williams seemed like a solid, no-risk signing. He was coming off a solid season in San Diego, and there was no reason to think he was at the end of the line. With Pettitte and Clemens likely gone, he would also be a perfect role model for the younger pitchers.
I didn't understand why Purpura would give him a second year, but it didn't seem like a big deal. I imagine his thinking was that if Williams was solid in 2007, he'd want him back in 2008. The money was reasonable.
There simply was no way to know that Williams would have the worst year of his career and look like a guy with nothing left.
Maybe someone in the Astros front office should have considered that Williams, despite having a gaudy 3.65 ERA and 111 ERA+ in 2006 for the Padres, was playing in front of a great outfield defense (which Houston couldn't offer) and in a park that plays well for flyball pitchers like Williams (he had a 4.29 road ERA in 2006). And his peripherals were going down the drain in 2006, as well...he allowed 21 homers and struck out just 72 batters in 145 1/3 IP. He had a DIPS ERA of 4.82 while striking out fewer than 4.5 batters per 9 innings. That's a huge, blinking red light saying, "This guy is toast."
Anyway, it occurred to me a couple of days ago, when there was talk Williams would get released, that a team like the Rangers, who have more money available in their budget to spend on players than they have players to spend it on, could swoop in and offer to take Williams (and his contract), along with a couple of nice prospects, for the equivalent of Scott Shoemaker or Kevin Mahar (to list a couple of guys who were released yesterday from the minors). Basically, buying a couple of prospects from the Astros for $3.25 million apiece. The Rangers could then just release Williams themselves.
Unfortunately, the Astros farm system is so bad, there's probably not any package of guys available that you could get that would make eating Williams contract worthwhile.
0 recs |
37 comments
Comments
Sorry
I don't even know how I did that.
by brettgardner on Mar 29, 2008 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
defense independent pitching statistic
DIPS was the original but there are a few newer ones - xERA, FIP, etc. All of them are essentially measures that say what your ERA "should" have been if you had given up an average number of hits on balls in play (and sometimes an average number of HRs on flyballs), based on Ks and walks primarily.
The theory behind DIPS is that a pitcher can only really control his Ks and walks -- on average, if he allowed more or less hits than he should have, we can blame it on defense and walks.
In practice, of course, this is not really true -- some pitchers allow stronger or weaker contact in general based on how they pitch. But overall the stats work surprisingly well except for some outliers who can consistently beat out or be beaten out by their DIPS ERA. (Sinkerballs like Chien-Ming Wang, soft tossers like Kenny Rogers, Jon Garland and Mark Buerhle, and a lot of lefties.)
by a bebop a rebop on Mar 29, 2008 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see.
Thanks for that. Interesting. I have a feeling your opinion of the reality of the stat is probably closer to the truth, but it is interesting to see a stat like this.
by brettgardner on Mar 29, 2008 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure Adam's aware of the deficiencies of the stat
by a bebop a rebop on Mar 29, 2008 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No need to be a tool.
But I guess that's your style. I was trying to be less abrasive and "get over myself" for the sake of the board, but maybe you're the problem.
by brettgardner on Mar 29, 2008 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
seemed like you were implying that Adam took DIPS as gospel
by a bebop a rebop on Mar 30, 2008 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In what way?
I gave my personal opinion of the statistic. I honestly couldn't care less what Adam's opinion of it is, and I can't find a single shred of evidence from my post to indicate otherwise.
But hey, try to find the ennui embedded within it.
You crack me up. I guess I stuck a bee down your shorts when I first started posting and it's still stinging. Your problem, not mine.
by brettgardner on Mar 30, 2008 11:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
taking on bad contracts
yeah - I think there is potential gains from that strategy. Cincy (Stanton) could have been another match, but I think they've chosen a buyout.
by Randy Richardson on Mar 29, 2008 2:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Would anyone trade our rotation straight-up
for Houston's? In fact, would any team at this point?
Sure, Oswalt would be great to have, but everything after that just looks like crap (Wandy Rodriguez, Brandon Backe, Shawn Chacon, and Chris Sampson).
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
by willamos2 on Mar 29, 2008 2:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think I would
Oswalt, and then a mix of Hurley/Harrison/Backe/Wandy/Mendoza is probably better then what we have now.
by DSheppard on Mar 29, 2008 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you are talking...
...long-term, factoring in contract status and everything, I would...
Hell, I'd give the Astros Millwood, Padilla, Jennings, Mendoza, and Gabbard for Oswalt alone right now.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 29, 2008 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats a little steep dont you think Adam,
I wouldnt do that at all.
Adam loves him some Lard
by NYTXFAN on Mar 29, 2008 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
he kept mccarthy
Unloading the like of padilla jennings and mendoza to have a major upgrade from millwood to oswalt would be fine. They are serviceable contributers on short term contracts. Fine, but replaceable.
2009 - Oswalt, Free agent, McCarthy, Hurley, Harrison
Sign me up!
by DSheppard on Mar 29, 2008 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well if you kept BMac like Dsheppard said I might lean towards
that because we have guys who could fill the last couple of spots(Hurley, Harrison). I guess Id be okay with that but I do think Mendoza is gonna be a workhorse at the back of the rotation and would hate to lose that.
Adam loves him some Lard
by NYTXFAN on Mar 29, 2008 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
I'll give up 3 or 4 back of the rotation workhorses to get a legit #1 like Oswalt.
by Adam J. Morris on Mar 29, 2008 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why keep D-Mac?
He goes 1st IMO
JD is the greatest GM ever! (Friends now?)
by Clueless on Mar 29, 2008 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
DMac probably will go in the 1st
but what an odd transition to the NFL
by ab03 on Mar 29, 2008 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because he is under control twice as long and much cheaper
and up until last year did not have an injury history. and you know, is a good pitcher when healthy.
theres no way any ranger fan should want to get rid of mccarthy right now.
by DSheppard on Mar 29, 2008 6:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But a real Ranger fan
WOULD want to get rid of Millwood, Padilla, Gabbard, Mendoza, and Jennings, but NOT B-Mac? Interesting.
JD is the greatest GM ever! (Friends now?)
by Clueless on Mar 29, 2008 7:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im pretty sure I clearly explained my thought process on that one
First of all, this is all just pointless conjecture on a situation that doesnt exist.
But Ill sum it up for you.
1) I wouldnt want to "get rid of" Millwood, I'd be fine in trading him in a package for a legitimate Ace that is much more difficult to find then the middle rotation guy Millwood really is.
2) Padilla/Jennings are short term mediocre solutions, the best options the rangers have at the time but given their contracts, timetables and who we have to replace them they would be acceptable losses in such a deal for an ace. Doesnt mean I want to DFA them for nothing.
3) Gabbard and mendoza are back of the rotation filler. I dont want to "get rid of" either of them, or padilla/jennings, but they are expendable to get the most difficult player to acquire in baseball - an ace.
4) McCarthy is in neither group, being both a middle of the rotation quality arm who is under control for cheap. This makes him significantly more valuable than any of those 4 in my eyes, injuries or not. And i think youd find the vast majority of people would agree.
That about cover it for you? Or should I repeat myself again?
by DSheppard on Mar 29, 2008 7:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In a heartbeat
Oswalt is so much better than any of our mediocre starters that it'd be worth it. We have 5 guys who very well could each be only a handful of clicks above replacement level (sorry Millwood fans, but its a possibility). Oswalt is only a handful of clicks removed from being one of the best pitchers in baseball.
by JBImaknee on Mar 30, 2008 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Buying prospects
if you're willing to pay that sort of premium for prospects, why not just spend that dough on some above slot guys come draft time?
Take what we gave Beavan or Main, add in what Woody would cost, and you've got enough to sign Porcello, no?
Or, spend it on the latin market. We tend to do pretty well down there, but I've noticed we tend to go for the good-but-not-universally-regarded-as-great types, while avoiding the truly huge bonus-baby types (Salcedo, Villalona, ect.).
6mil would buy the best 3 or 4 most super crazy gold-God premium latin talents on the market this year, easy.
"Sabean did a good job on selling high on Liriano." Excel Hearts Choi
by thedirkatron on Mar 29, 2008 4:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Porcello
It wasn't the money. It was the contract demand. We didn't want to give him a major league contract as a 18 year old kid. And we have started spending more money in latin america the last couple years. JD has made that a priority and convinced Hicks to increase his budget there.
by bigsteve on Mar 29, 2008 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was it?
I know I had a beef with the major league contract, but was that ever confirmed as the reason we passed on him? I'd love to see a link on that. And even if we did for sure balk at the major league contract, the money probably played SOME part in it, don't you think? If he'd been asking for slot plus a major league contract, I doubt he'd have gotten by us, or, for that matter, I doubt he would've gotten to us.
And I know we've spent money in the Latin markets. You either didn't read my post carefully, or I didn't do a good enough job of articulating my point. Let me reiterate that we do a good job down there. We sign a lot of good talent. Our recent big money signings tend to be guys in the 500-750k range, which is fine. It's gotten us some mighty fine prospects the last few years. But we never seem to be in on the true whales. The guys with the scouts are drooling over and comparing to Miguel Cabrera and whatnot. Guys who cost millions to sign. Guys who give you true superstar potential. Guys like Villalona (sp?) and his ilk.
"Sabean did a good job on selling high on Liriano." Excel Hearts Choi
by thedirkatron on Mar 29, 2008 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i dig what your saying
even if it wasnt spent on porcello per say, you can put that money into 2 or 3 of the top latin FA's around. Its the reason we had to trade for andrus and beltre to begin with.
its the whole theory in general. even with all the great latin prospects we've bought recently, they never have spent more than about 700,000 on one, while the yanks, mets, and sox have been giving up to 2M for the cream of the crop.
.500 or bust!
by Jayslick on Mar 29, 2008 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Salcedo
I know you were only giving an example, but...are you sure you'd want Salcedo right now?
by chrisR on Mar 30, 2008 12:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ahhh
I was indeed just throwing him out as an example, but that's an interesting article. The Latin market always seems so shady. I love it. It's all so cloak-and-dagger.
That article goes a long way toward answering my question as to why no one has signed him as of yet.
"Sabean did a good job on selling high on Liriano." Excel Hearts Choi
by thedirkatron on Mar 30, 2008 1:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Age of latin players
they need some way of scientifically determining age from someone's body. Like cutting off a pinky toe and count the number of rings in the bone or something.
by JBImaknee on Mar 30, 2008 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd Probably...
....be willing to pay 6 million to see what Brad James and Reineke will be when they grow up given what back of the rotation starters and solid middle relievers get on the free agent market. It would probably end up saving you money in the long run.
I had a similar thought concerning the A's and Kotsay before he got traded to the Bravos and actually took it a step further and thought "gee, some team with some money burning a hole in their pocket should offer to take all of that salary and a couple of decent prospects, and then offer Kotsay (salary paid) to somebody else who is willing to give him a roster spot for a C+ prospect. Get prospects on both ends of the deal.
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
by JM Barten on Mar 30, 2008 4:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 
















