Fred Faour isn't bullish on the Astros because they have lots of problems and no obvious way to fix them. Who's to blame?
So if there is no help coming -- at best, they will bring back Randy Wolf -- and, in fact, the team will be weakened, Astros fans will want to know why.
Two words: Miguel Tejada.
In retrospect, it was a complete disaster.
First was the bad press. One day after the deal, Tejada showed up in the Mitchell Report. Astros GM Ed Wade looked foolish. Later, questions about Tejada's actual age came up. While that is relatively unimportant, on the heels of steroid issues, it added to the appearance that the trade was stupid.
Then there was the practical results. Tejada played an adequate shortstop, hit .283 with a pedestrian 13 homers and 66 RBIs -- often from the No. 3 spot in the lineup in front of Lance Berkman and Carlos Lee.
Outfielder Luke Scott, one of the throw-ins in the deal, hit .257 with 23 homers and 65 RBIs for the Orioles. In addition, the Astros gave up two of their best pitching prospects -- Matt Albers and Troy Patton. Patton was injured in the spring and did not pitch. Albers was 3-3 with a 3.49 ERA, which would have ranked fourth on the Astros' staff.
Trading Albers and Patton crippled an already weak farm system and prevented the Astros from making other moves. Albers would have made a nice piece of a Jake Peavy trade package.
Forgetting the fact that the Lidge to Philadelphia deal was a disaster, the Tejada trade might have set the franchise back years.
Tejada will make $13 million this year -- well above his actual value -- and is untradeable because of his contract. The Astros have no young players worth trading because they gave them away in the Tejada deal.
If they chop payroll by trading Valverde, they will be significantly weaker, all because of one bad trade.
For better or worse, Miguel Tejada will define Ed Wade's role as GM.
Look, it was a lousy trade. I probably said so when it happened. But I think it's a stretch to blame the Astros' problems on Tejada.
Trading Albers and Patton "crippled" the farm system? As Faour notes, Patton didn't even pitch this year. He's 23 and still a prospect, but after missing an entire season, he's not exactly ticketed for stardom. Albers' 3.49 ERA is a red herring, because he pitched only 49 innings in which he struck out 26 batters and walked 22. He'll turn 26 in the winter and has a 5.20 ERA as a major leaguer. He did pitch well in the minors and might become a useful major leaguer. But he's not the sort of pitcher who wins you pennants.
Luke Scott's a good player, but he's no better than Miguel Tejada.
The real problem with the trade? Getting rid of Scott left a hole in right field, which the Astros filled by shifting
Hunter Pence from center field to right and installing
Michael Bourn in center. Bourn is one of the faster men in the National League, but he's no better than Pence defensively, and (worse) he's an absolute zero at the plate.
Of course, the Astros got Bourn in that Lidge-to-Philadelphia deal. They also got
Geoff Geary, who wound up being their most reliable relief pitcher. And it should be said that Bourn really isn't as bad as his 2008 stats suggest. Still, in retrospect, it's fair to say that when Wade traded Lidge (and
Eric Bruntlett), he might have been able to do better than Bourn and Geary. (Then again, we don't know what sorts of offers were on the table.)
Tejada is not worth $13 million. He's not a terrible player, though, and the Astros' payroll this year was nearly $90 million. He may not be a part of the solution. But he's not the problem, fundamentally. The Astros' biggest problems are that they got nothing this year from their center fielder or their catchers, and that
Roy Oswalt and
Wandy Rodriguez were their only good starting pitchers. The first of those problems may solve itself, while the second is likely to persist, whether Tejada's around or not.
Rob Neyer
