With a week to go before baseball's Winter Meetings begin here in New Orleans, player movement from one organization to another has already begun in earnest, with the air shifting so fast in Boston, Philadelphia, Montreal, Minnesota, and New York as players leave for new teams that the resultant bone-chilling draft from all the open doors threatens to start an influenza epidemic all by itself.

Although I'll mention this week's deals in a little more detail in a few moments, what most of us are interested in is the status of the "yes, we're having them / no, we're not" Astro talks with Andy Pettite. There's still no definitive word from any source about what Pettitte is likely to do, but I took the Yankees' trade for Javier Vazquez this week as a hopeful sign that New York was making plans for life without their 31-year-old left-hander. George Steinbrenner and Brian Cashman could still make a serious pitch for Pettitte's services, either by trading Jeff Weaver and his $6.25 million contract to clear space or by simply taking on Pettitte's additional money, whatever the cost--$10 million over five years, if the rumors are to be believed. I think the Yankees will, in the end, trade Weaver and make a hard push for Pettitte because they have to. Vazquez helps them do what they've needed to do for the last several seasons--get younger in the rotation--but Pettitte is also just past his prime young years. The Yankees' rotation beyond Vazquez without Pettitte has some issues. Mike Mussina may stay healthy, but Jon Lieber is a huge question mark for next season, and I'm not completely convinced that Jose Contreras can make the transition to an every fifth-day starting pitcher. He could do that, of course, but the roles of set-up guy and starter are so different that I'd have to see him do it before I'd believe it. Thus, the Yankees need Pettitte, and maybe Weaver, too. The floated story about Kevin Brown going East I never quite believed and, as it turned out, that proposed trade was part of a four-way deal that fell apart.

Having briefly explained why Pettitte will still probably wind up in New York, I am a little more optimistic this week than I was last week that Pettitte will take less money to move home. The Astros have yet to say whether they've actually made an offer to Pettitte, but the rumor of three years and $30 million sounds about right for the Astros' payroll, and informal contacts, at least, continue between the two sides. There are two principal questions about the Pettitte deal that need to be answered. The first is, can the Astros do this deal and stay within a $73 million budget? The second is, should the Astros do the deal?

The answer to the first question is "Yes, but Pettitte would be a tight fit." Back on November 9, Jose DeJesus Ortiz of the Houston Chronicle wrote that the Astros have a "book" value of $48 million already committed to Bagwell, Kent, Hidalgo, Biggio, and Berkman for 2004. The "book" number of a given salary means that any deferred portion of that salary is counted in the year that it is earned, rather than as part of the "average annual value" of a contract. Signing bonuses under book valued contracts are spread out over the life of the contract, even if the bonus is given as a lump sum. Ortiz also figures that Geoff Blum, Octavio Dotel, Wade Miller, and Roy Oswalt will cost the Astros an additional $12 million in arbitration, with the latter three getting at least $3 million each. If the contracts for Dotel, Oswalt, and Miller do come in at $3 million, the Astros should count themselves lucky. The awards could be higher, and each man does have a compelling case for a higher figure. Brad Ausmus has come back for $1 million in 2004, Jose Vizcaino has re-signed for about that much, and Dan Micelli has re-upped for, if memory serves, $600,000.

That's $62.6 million right there, and we're still left with a gaggle of players with whom to settle using the remaining money. The heartless and cruel among you will say, "Ah, but these players are under club control. Houston doesn't have to pay them much." Two responses: even a bunch of major-league minimum salaries on a payroll will add up within a year; and, this is Christmas, which is my way of saying that the Astros, while perhaps desiring to keep as many players as possible at the major league minimum salary of $300,000, know that they need to offer at least modest raises to Everett, Robertson, Redding, Ensberg, Lidge, Stone, Duckworth, Chavez, Saarloos, and Gallo, with raises also going to Jason Lane, Eric Bruntlett, and Colin Porter if those three make next year's club. I assume that those three will make it, and I estimate Houston will spend $5.6 million on salaries for all of them, or $6 million in round figures. That puts the payroll at a conservative estimate of $68.6 million, but it's quite possible that the raises for Robertson, Redding, Lidge, Ensberg and Stone could be slightly higher than the $500,000 I've pencilled in for each of them, which would push the total payroll even closer to the magic $73 million number.

In short, the Astros can keep Hidalgo and bump up the salaries of Oswalt, Dotel, and Miller, but there's no room for Pettitte at $10 million for three years unless Drayton McLane is willing to expand the payroll to $78 million or Hunsicker is able to trade Hidalgo. Even if my salary estimates for the Astros' non-core players are too high, it would still be necessary to trade Hidalgo if the Astros are to latch hold of Pettitte or one of the other marquee free agent pitchers. And I don't believe the Astros could keep Hidalgo and acquire Pettitte, even if they wanted to. Hidalgo's $15 million salary in 2005 will be too big a drag on Houston's budget. If the Astros are to trade him at all, it must be now. Dealing him away at this time next year will be even harder.

If, as appears probable, Gary Sheffield signs with the Yankees next week, that Steinbrenner move might open the door between Houston and Atlanta for a trade for Hidalgo. We can't discount the possibility that the Dodgers might still step in and offer a package at the Winter Meetings, but the odds of a Houston-Atlanta trade went up just a tad over the last few days, and I like the Braves' potential minor leaguers in any deal a bit more than I do LA's. If Hidalgo can be dealt, that would clear a spot for the less-expensive Jason Lane in RF and it would certainly make room for Pettitte, but we haven't answered the second of our two questions: should the Astros sign Pettitte, if he's willing to forgo New York money and come to Houston?

My answer in financial terms for the Astros is "Yes." I have concerns about Pettitte's left elbow, about whether it will hold up over the life of the contract, but I have similiar concerns about Oswalt's groin, successful surgery or not. I'd be willing, if I were McLane, to go into this signing with a clear conscience. Pettitte's track record of success to this point in his career is greater than was that of Doug Drabek, who came to the Astros two full seasons removed from his career year of 22-6 in 1990. After joining the Astros, Drabek, although pitching well at times, reverted to the more modest, closer-to-.500 form he had showed in his early years with the Pirates. Greg Swindell, the other man in the Houston free-agent bonanza of 1993, was 27 that year and was expected to do far more than he did for the Astros. Although there were statistical signs during Swindell's career in Cleveland that perhaps he wasn't the best guy to invest in, no one expected or could have predicted that he would do as poorly as he did. Pettitte is neither of these two men. His glittering 21-8 record in 2003 was actually the second time he's posted that record for the Yankees. (The first was in his second season with New York, in 1996). Consistency has been a hallmark of his career, and the Astros will pay a high price for it, as they should, if they sign him. For the money they'd probably have to pay, they could get two rotation arms (for instance, Miguel Batista and John Thomson) and build up some welcome depth on a staff that's had its share of injuries every year since 2000, but if a top-flight starting pitcher is what we're talking about, then Pettitte's the guy to get, and signing him would entail no more than "normal business risks" for McLane.

One way to look at what Pettitte could do for the Astros that a lesser pitcher might not is to compare the innings that Pettitte put up for the Yankees to the innings that Shilling and Javier Vazquez put up for Arizona and Montreal, and those that Oswalt, Miller, Robertson, and Redding put up for the Astros. In 2003, while beset with injuries, Shilling went at least six innings eight times and went 7+ innings seven times. The workhorse Vazquez went at least six innings 29 times and went 7+ 19 times. On the Astros, even with three separate stints on the DL, Roy Oswalt went at least six innings 17 times and 7+ nine times. Miller went at least six innings 21 times and went 7+ 10 times. Although there can be no doubt that the "complete game" has diminished in value in the contemporary game, the task of the starting pitcher is still to get his team as deep into the game as possible, and Pettitte fits right in with the hard-working patterns of these other men. In 2003, Pettitte went at least six innings 29 times and went 7+ 18 times. Consider what a difference those innings would make on an Astros' staff wherein Jeriome Robertson went at least six only 13 times and 7+ only six times, and Tim Redding went at least six only 15 times and 7+ only five times. The suggestion's been made that because of the way Jimy Williams uses his bullpen, Pettitte would be wasted, but last year's figures for Oswalt and Miller indicate otherwise. When Williams has a horse out there, he usually lets him run as long as he can. Second, the "7+" figures may be critical for the Astros this season. With the departure of Billy Wagner for Philadelphia, there will be no trio of late-inning relievers for Houston, only the duo of Lidge and Dotel, with variations. Even without Pettitte, Astro starting pitchers will be compelled to go deeper into games next season, and I regard that as a good thing. Although six pitchers can throw a no-hitter on any given night, it's also true (and more true) that at least one pitcher of those six on any given night will be "off" enough to cost his team the game. Williams will use his bullpen, to be sure, but the better his starters are, the more he'll trust both them and his bullpen guys very late in the game. (Who knows? If Williams had been managing the Red Sox this season, he'd have pulled Pedro and Boston would be the AL champs.)

If the Astros were to sign Pettitte, the rotation they'd have, with Oswalt, Pettitte, Miller, Redding, and Robertson, and Duckworth, Carlos Hernandez, and Taylor Buchholz available for depth or swing duty in the bullpen, would be a formidable quintet. The Astros could accomplish much the same goal of building depth more cheaply by forgoing Pettitte and looking elsewhere for pitching, but if the door really is open and Pettitte wants to walk through it this winter, I think the Astros should invite him in as heartily as possible. Every big deal involves some risk, and they could all go wrong for any club, but teams and players still take those risks. I think Pettitte's a pretty good risk for the Astros, a man that they should pursue until he signs with them or takes the glitzier dollars of the Bronx. And even if he does not sign with Houston, there are still some intriguing possibilities that could emerge a week from now for the ballclub, so there's good reason to anticipate major announcements from the Astros in the coming days.

While we wait for the Winter Meetings to begin, it's worth noting what some of the other clubs are doing. The Cubs snapped up RP LaTroy Hawkins from the Twins, and Philadelphia overpaid for Minnesota's Eric Milton this past week, too. I have coveted Milton for the Astros for several years, but Philly's risking a lot for a guy coming off an injury. That said, if Milton does come back successfully in 2004, the Phillies will have yet another piece to the puzzle of how to take the NL East away from Atlanta. As things stand now, Philladelphia is already better than the Braves, and the gap will widen if Atlanta can't cope with further losses from free agency. The Cubs can have Hawkins, as far as I'm concerned, but things will get really interesting for that staff if Chicago goes hard after Greg Maddux, as they are rumored to be interested in doing. Hawkins and Maddux are two of the reasons I'm hoping that the Astros can either sign Pettitte or make a trade next week. Chicago will have fine starting pitching regardless of what Houston does, but I would not like to see the Astros fall too far behind them on the mound. The gap between the two teams' everyday lineup just shrank a little bit with the Cubs' acquisition of Derrek Lee. I am surprised that the Cardinals haven't done anything yet, but they may be more payroll-strapped than they are letting on. The Brewers, although they surely hated to see Richie Sexson go, got four good players in return from the Diamondbacks, and they will be a better club for it in 2004. That's bad news; they're tough enough for the Astros as it is.

In the AL, for all the publicity attendant to the trades of Shilling and Vazquez, all those deals really do is ensure what we already knew would happen--the Red Sox and Yankees will make the playoffs next season. The Sox, in particular, could be extraordinary if everyone stays healthy, and Steinbrenner ain't done dealin' by a long shot in his efforts to keep New York ahead of them, but if Arizona, Anaheim, and Florida have taught us anything, it is that a World Series title isn't guaranteed to any team, regardless of the size of one's payroll. The present-day Diamondbacks got some good quality in return for Shilling and can still build a competitive rotation, and I like the players the Expos got in return for Vazquez, but what is Montreal going to do now for starting pitching? I don't know. My sense is that the Expos may come out weaker rather than stronger on the field by making this trade, even if, as it appears, they had to make it.