View Full Version : [Chron] Hunsicker must prove that he's trustworthy
Vengeance
11-02-2005, 11:55 AM
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/sports/3432294
Nov. 1, 2005, 10:28PM
ON BASEBALL
Hunsicker must prove that he's trustworthy
By JOSE DE JESUS ORTIZ
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
During the World Series, quite a few highly respected national baseball writers wondered why former Astros general manager Gerry Hunsicker wasn't getting enough credit for building the National League champions.
They wrote about how Hunsicker signed Andy Pettitte, lured Roger Clemens out of retirement and convinced Brad Lidge to throw a slider. All were wrong.
I'm not saying Hunsicker lied to some of my good friends. But as one Astros official put it recently, somebody misled through omission of the facts.
When it was time to close the deal on Pettitte, Hunsicker already had been taken off the assignment by owner Drayton McLane. McLane was the one who drove to the offices of Houston agents Randy and Alan Hendricks and put the final touches on the deal because, well, Hunsicker already had gone as far as the Hendrickses would let him.
The best thing Hunsicker did in the Clemens negotiations was keep his mouth shut, get out of McLane's way and hope the Hendricks brothers still weren't too mad at him for ripping them half a decade earlier when McLane and the Hendrickses were trying to get Clemens to Houston.
Clemens signed with the Astros because of McLane's lobbying. You and any other fan had more to do in convincing the greatest pitcher of our era to sign with the Astros than Hunsicker did.
For the record, the Hendrickses still don't care too much for Hunsicker.
Astros pitching coordinator Dewey Robinson taught Lidge the slider in just a few minutes, and the decision on Lidge's future was made in a group with at least six player development folks.
Questionable tactics
Don't get me wrong. Hunsicker was a tremendous general manager. If I owned a team, I'd definitely consider him for the GM job. But I'd have to ask some serious questions in regard to all the rumors about him circling around these days.
Some baseball officials have asked why Hunsicker has been bad-mouthed as a self-promoter with a tendency to throw his team owner under the bus. He always found ways to take credit when credit belonged elsewhere.
Personally, I like Hunsicker. I think he's funny and smart and a solid baseball man.
But if given the choice right now, I'd hire Tim Purpura in a hurry. Purpura is a hard worker, and he's loyal, too.
If something goes wrong, he takes the blame.
The first time I knew Hunsicker's days were numbered with the Astros was when he flirted with the New York Mets for their vacant general manager's job after the 2003 season. A report in the Newark Star-Ledger stated that Hunsicker wanted out of Houston because he had been overruled when he wanted to hire Tony Peņa instead of Jimy Williams as manager after the 2001 season.
The morning that report ran, I was awoken by Astros brass furious because they believed Hunsicker was trying to take credit for discovering Peņa.
For the record, Purpura, not Hunsicker, was the one pushing for Peņa.
Trust was gone
Asked about the report, Hunsicker declined to comment. I told him I was running something about it with or without his comments because folks in his front office were offended by the inference. Whether it was true or not, Astros officials distrusted Hunsicker and believed he was the biggest leak in the franchise.
Moreover, it was obvious McLane had decided to replace Hunsicker with Purpura. I wrote as much that October.
Hunsicker made tremendous strides for the Astros, acquiring Willy Taveras and Luke Scott for Jeriome Robertson while picking up helpful players such as Jose Vizcaino and Orlando Palmeiro.
In the end, however, McLane simply did not trust him, because the belief was that Hunsicker was peppering the local scene with inaccurate portrayals of his boss.
Now as Hunsicker tries to land another job, he must wonder what kind of recommendation he's getting from his former employer. How would you like to be the owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers, wondering if the GM you hire will turn on you and rip you behind your back?
That's the rumor going on in baseball circles these days. How else can you explain such a successful GM lasting this long without another job when quite a few already have been up for grabs this offseason?
I had no idea about any of this. Interesting article.
MadMax
11-02-2005, 12:00 PM
i knew bits and pieces of it. particularly the parts about the Hendricks brothers not wanting to ever deal with Hunsicker again.
Rule0001
11-02-2005, 12:01 PM
interesting indeed
Castor27
11-02-2005, 12:04 PM
Wow this article puts it into perspective the new hot rumor, The Hun is close to signing with:
wait for it:
Tampa Bay ???
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051102&content_id=1263510&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
Drewdog
11-02-2005, 12:15 PM
Wow. Thats an amazing article. Kind of makes me feel bad for ripping on Uncle Drayton in the past.....
:(
MadMax
11-02-2005, 12:22 PM
Wow this article puts it into perspective the new hot rumor, The Hun is close to signing with:
wait for it:
Tampa Bay ???
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051102&content_id=1263510&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
yeah, they were talking about that this morning on the radio. saying they weren't sure what his job would actually be there...other than to serve as mentor to the guy who is actually charged with covering baseball operations.
Major
11-02-2005, 12:29 PM
[url]Personally, I like Hunsicker. I think he's funny and smart and a solid baseball man.
But if given the choice right now, I'd hire Tim Purpura in a hurry. Purpura is a hard worker, and he's loyal, too.
If something goes wrong, he takes the blame.
Interesting stuff, but I have a problem with this section. I'm sorry, but at this point in their respective careers, if you have the choice between Purpura and Hunsicker as your team GM, you take Hunsicker every time. Purpura may become a great GM - he may already be one, in fact - but he hasn't done anything to prove it yet. Hunsicker brought a mid-market team a decade of success competing with the big boys. Yeah, he was pissed that Clemens wanted to play for his hometown back in the late 90's, but only for $25M/yr. I was too; so were lots of others. But ultimately, he does have a decade-long track record of success that Purpura simply does not. Purpura gets some credit for this year's team, but it was not built from the ground up by him - it is Hunsicker and McLane's team with a few tweaks.
That's not to say anything bad about Purpura, but you can't judge a GM to be good or bad when they make no significant moves outside of promoting rookies over the course of his only season. We have yet to see how he manages salaries, trades with other teams, free agent signings, etc.
Major
11-02-2005, 12:32 PM
yeah, they were talking about that this morning on the radio. saying they weren't sure what his job would actually be there...other than to serve as mentor to the guy who is actually charged with covering baseball operations.
If he gots lots of control there, it could be a great fit. They have loads of young positional talent there, but need pitching. They were one of the better teams in baseball the 2nd half of the season. They are supposedly upping their payroll, so his salary-conscious background will be extremely helpful in picking and choosing what to get. If they want to win now, he could move some of that young talent and get the right pieces they need.
Their problem is no matter how good they are, they are stuck in a division with the Yankees and Red Sox.
Groogrux
11-02-2005, 12:47 PM
So, I'm guessing if he goes to the Devil Rays, no chance at Huff, huh? :)
Dennis2112
11-02-2005, 12:52 PM
Interesting stuff, but I have a problem with this section. I'm sorry, but at this point in their respective careers, if you have the choice between Purpura and Hunsicker as your team GM, you take Hunsicker every time. Purpura may become a great GM - he may already be one, in fact - but he hasn't done anything to prove it yet. Hunsicker brought a mid-market team a decade of success competing with the big boys. Yeah, he was pissed that Clemens wanted to play for his hometown back in the late 90's, but only for $25M/yr. I was too; so were lots of others. But ultimately, he does have a decade-long track record of success that Purpura simply does not. Purpura gets some credit for this year's team, but it was not built from the ground up by him - it is Hunsicker and McLane's team with a few tweaks.
That's not to say anything bad about Purpura, but you can't judge a GM to be good or bad when they make no significant moves outside of promoting rookies over the course of his only season. We have yet to see how he manages salaries, trades with other teams, free agent signings, etc.
I agree that Hun is better overall currently but I feel that Pupura's skills are directed more towards the farm system. Specifically building from within, which is how you stay competitve with the Big-market teams while spending less money. Talent from a deep farm system can keep your roster full of talent and still give you barginning chips to get that key vet when needed.
For all of Hun's talents wheeling and dealing, it left the cubberd a little bare than it once was.
kevwun
11-02-2005, 01:14 PM
Let's not even pretend that the Hendricks' brothers were saints in the first round of the Clemens to Houston negotiations. Also, what was the impetus for this article? It reads like the Boston Globe article that Lucchino used to take a shot at Epstein.
NJRocket
11-02-2005, 01:14 PM
Not to be a party pooper...but, I really dont give much credence to this article. Not one Astros exec (or Hun for that matter) is quoted. I'm not saying that some of it isnt true...but whee was this article back when everyone in Houston was so upset that Hun was retiring? Why not run it then to ease the pain?
Look...so far, Purp has only let the kids play and has gotten a huge return on his gamble....and I am thrilled at the success we had. However, I think the jury is still out on Purp as far as winter dealings/signings go. Maybe he does nothing and we get back to the show again....whatever works!
Not to be a party pooper...but, I really dont give much credence to this article. Not one Astros exec (or Hun for that matter) is quoted. I'm not saying that some of it isnt true...but whee was this article back when everyone in Houston was so upset that Hun was retiring? Why not run it then to ease the pain?
Look...so far, Purp has only let the kids play and has gotten a huge return on his gamble....and I am thrilled at the success we had. However, I think the jury is still out on Purp as far as winter dealings/signings go. Maybe he does nothing and we get back to the show again....whatever works!
I agree completely.
DieHard Rocket
11-02-2005, 02:18 PM
Mr. Ortiz must really not want Hunsicker to get one of these open GM jobs. That's what I take out of this. Why else would it just come out now?
pgabriel
11-02-2005, 02:23 PM
Mr. Ortiz acts like Drayton's word is gold. I don't see why either of the two get credit for bringing Pettitte and Roger here. Pettitte maybe, but who ever got those deals done was working with the homefield advantage. Sure and bad owner and gm could have screwed it up but it probably only took a competent
RocketFan007
11-02-2005, 02:40 PM
So, I'm guessing if he goes to the Devil Rays, no chance at Huff, huh? :)
That was my first thought when I saw he was likely to get the job.
SuperS32
11-02-2005, 02:57 PM
Wow - what a tool. Self-promoter or not, this is Hunsiker's team. Even if everything he said was true [Gasp! the Henriks brothers are mad! Let's fire Hun now!], I think big chunks of this story are being left out to further ridicule Hun while exonerating Drayton.
rrj_gamz
11-02-2005, 03:04 PM
I always liked him and wondered why he hasn't gone somewhere else...Good article...
"The Chronicle Sports Section" and "utter drivel" are slowly becoming synonymous...
MadMax
11-02-2005, 03:09 PM
Wow - what a tool. Self-promoter or not, this is Hunsiker's team. Even if everything he said was true [Gasp! the Henriks brothers are mad! Let's fire Hun now!], I think big chunks of this story are being left out to further ridicule Hun while exonerating Drayton.
i certainly understand why you'd think that.
but i don't understand why that would be coming from Ortiz??
Look...so far, Purp has only let the kids play and has gotten a huge return on his gamble....and I am thrilled at the success we had. However, I think the jury is still out on Purp as far as winter dealings/signings go. Maybe he does nothing and we get back to the show again....whatever works!
TP (or was it Uncle D?) stayed the course and struck bloody gold. That is doing something -- unless done because of fear or inertial force.
Let's see what tomorrow brings and then judge TP.
Hun? I think he's ok, but not great. Pettitte and Rocket made this team's difference over the year (and last, too, but without anything contributarily from AP) and he, by all accounts, was lucky they fell into his lap on his watch.
My, my, my; how soon we forget. I don't know anything about Hunsicker's personality. He may be an angel, a horse's end, or anywhere in between.
But, looking over his 10 years with the Astros, anything short of *phenomenal* is not superlative enough. The dude did an incredible job. If he's really been "blacklisted", it's not due to his job performance.
And, the attempt at the "journalist" (I prefer the term mediot) to credit McLane with much of the signings is utterly laughable. First of all, there's a lot more that made the Astros' organization what it is than the very recent signings of AP and Rocket. Secondly, McLane came into this business knowing *nothing* about baseball, and regardless of how much he may have learned he could *not* run an organization and build its personnel *this* competitive with expert help. TP may have been a huge part of that (well, he was--dude has an awesome eye for talent), but that does not take away from Hun's stellar job performance.
Here's hoping TP eclipses the Hun, but so far, the Hun is head and shoulders, heck lengths upon lengths, above any GM that has ever worked in Houston.
MadMax
11-02-2005, 04:16 PM
My, my, my; how soon we forget. I don't know anything about Hunsicker's personality. He may be an angel, a horse's end, or anywhere in between.
But, looking over his 10 years with the Astros, anything short of *phenomenal* is not superlative enough. The dude did an incredible job. If he's really been "blacklisted", it's not due to his job performance.
.
i think you misread this article. he says he's a great baseball guy and a great GM. he says the problem is the guy isn't loyal. that he was hard to trust. that's what the whole article is about.
and i agree with you...he is a tremendous GM. which is why it's so odd he hasn't landed elsewhere. which seems to provide at least some credence to this article.
i think you misread this article. he says he's a great baseball guy and a great GM. he says the problem is the guy isn't loyal. that he was hard to trust. that's what the whole article is about.
and i agree with you...he is a tremendous GM. which is why it's so odd he hasn't landed elsewhere. which seems to provide at least some credence to this article.
I caught that the first time around, and forgot it as I read through some of the replies.
Regardless, that article provided no facts and nothing newsworthy, just rumors. This isn't freaking People magazine. I really wish the hacks at the Comical could give us some world-class journalism and quit with the BS.
kevwun
11-02-2005, 04:27 PM
Maybe he doesn't have another gm job because he doesn't want one right now? It doesn't have to be because he's been blacklisted for not being loyal. I'll echo what others have said, why did this article come out now?
Groogrux
11-02-2005, 04:30 PM
Regardless, that article provided no facts and nothing newsworthy, just rumors. This isn't freaking People magazine. I really wish the hacks at the Comical could give us some world-class journalism and quit with the BS.
Far be it for me to defend the Chronicle, but this is not something unique to them as a newspaper.
Saint Louis
11-02-2005, 04:37 PM
Far be it for me to defend the Chronicle, but this is not something unique to them as a newspaper.
The Chronicle blows.
Drayton McLane is as much about PR as he is about winning.
The only time McLane is willing to shell out the $$ is if there's an angle.
He doesn't mind giving contracts to Drabek/Swindell/Biggio/Bagwell/Berkman/Pettitte and Clemens - all Houstonians or lifelong Astros.
Richard Hidalgo burned that money bridge and McLane will probably never go back.
Now that the Astros are so close, will McLane spend the $$ to get a big bat in the lineup or will he hope our overacheiving lineup can be just good enough to sell tickets and make a playoff run.
Drayton McLane is as much about PR as he is about winning.
The only time McLane is willing to shell out the $$ is if there's an angle.
He doesn't mind giving contracts to Drabek/Swindell/Biggio/Bagwell/Berkman/Pettitte and Clemens - all Houstonians or lifelong Astros.
Richard Hidalgo burned that money bridge and McLane will probably never go back.
Now that the Astros are so close, will McLane spend the $$ to get a big bat in the lineup or will he hope our overacheiving lineup can be just good enough to sell tickets and make a playoff run.
The acquisition of Jeff Kent proves your theory wrong. Also, that was another FA that Drayton acquired sole negotiating rights to, while Hunsicker was forced to take a back-seat.
As long as Drayton is the owner, he will also be the de-facto GM in terms of signing FA's, and extending the contracts of the current guys. The actual GM of the Astros develops the farm system, and puts together trade opportunities... and for that, Gerry (and TP for the farm system) was invaluable.
The acquisition of Jeff Kent proves your theory wrong. Also, that was another FA that Drayton acquired sole negotiating rights to, while Hunsicker was forced to take a back-seat.
As long as Drayton is the owner, he will also be the de-facto GM in terms of signing FA's, and extending the contracts of the current guys. The actual GM of the Astros develops the farm system, and puts together trade opportunities... and for that, Gerry (and TP for the farm system) was invaluable.
Signing Jeff Kent to a 2 year contract - that really proves Im wrong. Maybe if we had Kent this year, we could've actually scored a few more runs in the WS.
That's about a season and a half more than we had Randy Johnson - also a huge financial risk for Drayton.
Signing Jeff Kent to a 2 year contract - that really proves Im wrong. Maybe if we had Kent this year, we could've actually scored a few more runs in the WS.
That's about a season and a half more than we had Randy Johnson - also a huge financial risk for Drayton.
Or maybe we don't make the WS at all with Kent here:
1. Biggio floundering in LF (not hitting 26 HR's because he isn't comfortable the entire season, and his legs give out... just as what happened in 2003-04)
2. Burke never even sniffs the big leagues
3. Berkman spends the entire year at first... not letting Lamb into the lineup at all.
Also, I don't look at giving Kent a 2 year deal as a bad thing. In this day and age, with everybody signing huge deals and RARELY living up to them, this was a rare case where the player was actually worth the contract during his time here.
I, for one, actually expected Kent to put up BIGGER #'s by playing most of his games at MMP during his run here. But, Kent went on record saying that the home ballpark actually isn't as hitter-friendly for a guy like him (more gap power than straight pull-hitter), and he wasn't exactly the most healthy of players during his tenure here either.
But, I guess in the end... Drayton can never win. He gets slammed for giving huge/long back-loaded contracts to guys like Bagwell, and gets criticized for giving too short of contracts to Kent. He gets slammed for letting Randy Johnson go (forget about the fact that RJ wasn't going to re-sign here regardless), but we hardly hear anything when he refused to re-sign Wade Miller (who was awful for Boston). Beltran goes... its more Mclane's fault for no-trade contract; he locks up Lance Berkman... "that was just a home-town discount" (at 14 million a year, its not).
Really... Drayton "hate" is getting old... fast.
Or maybe we don't make the WS at all with Kent here:
1. Biggio floundering in LF (not hitting 26 HR's because he isn't comfortable the entire season, and his legs give out... just as what happened in 2003-04)
2. Burke never even sniffs the big leagues
3. Berkman spends the entire year at first... not letting Lamb into the lineup at all.
Also, I don't look at giving Kent a 2 year deal as a bad thing. In this day and age, with everybody signing huge deals and RARELY living up to them, this was a rare case where the player was actually worth the contract during his time here.
I, for one, actually expected Kent to put up BIGGER #'s by playing most of his games at MMP during his run here. But, Kent went on record saying that the home ballpark actually isn't as hitter-friendly for a guy like him (more gap power than straight pull-hitter), and he wasn't exactly the most healthy of players during his tenure here either.
Im not saying Kent wouldve been our panacea or that we shouldve signed Kent to a long-term deal. Im saying that other than Hidalgo, Drayton rarely takes chances with big contracts unless there's also a marketing angle.
And a 2 year deal to Kent was a safe and calculated manuever similiar to all of McLane's other manuevers.
Im a firm believer that a great owner is someone who wants to win and puts winning above all else. McLane runs the team more like a business than a sports fan.
Obviously it's his money. But as a fan, I'd much rather have someone dedicated to winning.
Les Alexander and Bob McNair are much better owners.
Im not saying Kent wouldve been our panacea or that we shouldve signed Kent to a long-term deal. Im saying that other than Hidalgo, Drayton rarely takes chances with big contracts unless there's also a marketing angle.
And a 2 year deal to Kent was a safe and calculated manuever similiar to all of McLane's other manuevers.
Im a firm believer that a great owner is someone who wants to win and puts winning above all else. McLane runs the team more like a business than a sports fan.
Obviously it's his money. But as a fan, I'd much rather have someone dedicated to winning.
Les Alexander and Bob McNair are much better owners.
I agree with you totally... McLane doesn't spend blindly, he calculates his moves, and he rarely spends unless he knows he can get something big on that return.
But, for some reason, its produced a consistently winning franchise over the last 10 years. Maybe not spending after every single FA allows you to not make the many mistakes that can cripple a franchise for years (see Kelvin Cato, Maurice Taylor, Moochie Norris, Matt Maloney, and the Rockets from 99-03). It also forces you to look from within the farm system a little more than you normally would: Roy Oswalt, Brad Lidge, Morgan Ensberg, Jason Lane, Chad Qualls.
In the end, you can say you don't think he's a great owner because he doesn't hand his GM a blank check... but at the same time, you can't argue about his sucess vs. the other owners who DO spend blindly... or have in the past. (Texas Rangers, LA Dodgers, Baltimore Orioles, Philadelphia Phillies).
The Astros and the Cardinals are the model franchises in the NL on how to win consistently ... sign your home-grown superstars to long term deals, trade for superstars if needed, and only sign key FA role-players (avoid the disgruntled superstars) to short-term deals.
redgoose
11-02-2005, 08:57 PM
I'd put a little money that Hunsicker will be the next GM of the RedSox or Phillies. Hunsicker has always wanted a larger payroll to twiddle with and this is where he can get them. My guess is Boston because of the so called "prestige" that comes with the job.
Im a firm believer that a great owner is someone who wants to win and puts winning above all else. McLane runs the team more like a business than a sports fan.
So, you're a firm believer in running a franchise like Peter Angelos does then? Well, root for him then, and enjoy the "winner" you're saddled with.
If you follow them closely enough, you will see that even the Yankees are run like a business--some guys are let go, and the budget is set based on projected income. Just because Georgie's income dwarfs anyone else's doesn't mean it's not run like a business.
Really... Drayton "hate" is getting old... fast.
You're about five years late, bro.
I'd put a little money that Hunsicker will be the next GM of the RedSox or Phillies. Hunsicker has always wanted a larger payroll to twiddle with and this is where he can get them. My guess is Boston because of the so called "prestige" that comes with the job.
Well, the Phillies must not have been too impressed... cause after they interviewed him, they went over and interviewed a guy already with another team... and convinced him to take the job (Pat Gillick).
And, I wouldn't put money on Hunsicker automatically being successful with a ton of money... part of the thing that I thought made him such a good GM was his ability to scrounge around and find players like Brandon Backe, Mike Lamb, Orlando Palmeiro, and Dan Wheeler... and those names would not even be close to being on the radar if you were a big money team.
There have been a lot of GM's out there who went from geniuses when they were on mid-market teams, to "idiots" once they got to the big market teams... because they stopped doing what made them successful in the first place (being discreet at evaluating talent, not just signing superstars).
Luckyazn
11-02-2005, 10:42 PM
Purpura should tell Hunsinker to HOOOK us up with
Aubrey Huff and maybe Carl Crawford for Everett and Lane ;) ;)
So, you're a firm believer in running a franchise like Peter Angelos does then? Well, root for him then, and enjoy the "winner" you're saddled with.
If you follow them closely enough, you will see that even the Yankees are run like a business--some guys are let go, and the budget is set based on projected income. Just because Georgie's income dwarfs anyone else's doesn't mean it's not run like a business.
You're about five years late, bro.
There are always owners who spend foolishly and make mistakes. And there are owners who win will spend whatever it takes if they feel the team is close.
Drayton is much more conservative with his purse strings than many owners. He's had the fortune of people like Gerry Hunsicker running the club who's saved him with cheap talent and good management. You don't always get that lucky (see Bob McNair).
Yes, the Yankees are run like a business and they have a much larger revenue stream. However, living in CT and being innundated with Yankees and Red Sox coverage, I can guarantee you Steinbrenner is about winning first. The Yankees have enough revenue source just by their market size alone that they don't have to spend what they do just to make money. They will always have fans.
If the Yankees or Red Sox ever tried to go the cheap route to save a buck, their fans would rip them to shreds and see through their facade in no time. They may criticize management and/or players but they are loyal, passionate fans. Above all else, they are knowledgeable.
In Houston, we're much more forgiving because most aren't die hards and we accept making the playoffs as good enough. This is also why Houstonians are often bandwagon fans.
Major
11-02-2005, 10:58 PM
Yes, the Yankees are run like a business and they have a much larger revenue stream. However, living in CT and being innundated with Yankees and Red Sox coverage, I can guarantee you Steinbrenner is about winning first. The Yankees have enough revenue source just by their market size alone that they don't have to spend what they do just to make money. They will always have fans.
The question, however, is about losing money. The Yankees, with their payroll, still make money. The Astros, with their payroll, break even (more or less). If the Yankees' revenues were lower, they would not spend as much either. Neither team is willing to lose money to win. Drayton, by the way, has more than doubled the payroll over the last 10 years. He's consistently in the top half of baseball in payroll. And wins far more than any other team not named the Braves or Yankees. Can you name one owner that consistently spends above budget and also consistently wins?
Air Langhi
11-02-2005, 11:09 PM
I can't believe people are putting down what Gerry the Hun has done for this team. I mean he ripped the marlins off for alou. He got carl for a scrub rp. He got rid of hampton for two guys who he later used in the beltran deal. He got willy T and wheeler for not much. This are just the moves I can get from the top of my head. This man should be heralded for what he has done for this Team.
The question, however, is about losing money. The Yankees, with their payroll, still make money. The Astros, with their payroll, break even (more or less). If the Yankees' revenues were lower, they would not spend as much either. Neither team is willing to lose money to win. Drayton, by the way, has more than doubled the payroll over the last 10 years. He's consistently in the top half of baseball in payroll. And wins far more than any other team not named the Braves or Yankees. Can you name one owner that consistently spends above budget and also consistently wins?
The Yankees spend money on players they feel will help them win. They don't care if it's Joe Smith or Bob Doe. When they trade players or refuse to resign players, it's based on performance as they'll spend the money on another player with a similiar salary.
When you look at the Astros payroll, yes, they are 12th in the league but let's look at where they spend their money:
Ausmus, Brad$ 3,000,000 Catcher
Backe, Brandon $ 350,000 Pitcher
Bagwell, Jeff $ 18,000,000 First Baseman
Berkman, Lance $ 10,500,000 Outfielder
Biggio, Craig $ 3,000,000 Outfielder
Bruntlett, Eric $ 335,000 Shortstop
Burke, Chris $ 316,000 Second Baseman
Chavez, Raul $ 360,000 Catcher
Clemens, Roger $ 18,000,000 Pitcher
Duckworth, Brandon $ 500,000 Pitcher
Ensberg, Morgan $ 450,000 Third Baseman
Everett, Adam $ 445,000 Shortstop
Franco, John $ 700,000 Pitcher
Harville, Chad $ 365,000 Pitcher
Lamb, Mike $ 1,300,000 Third Baseman
Lane, Jason $ 345,000 Outfielder
Lidge, Brad $ 500,000 Pitcher
Oswalt, Roy $ 5,900,000 Pitcher
Palmeiro, Orlando $ 800,000 Outfielder
Pettitte, Andy $ 8,500,000 Pitcher
Qualls, Chad $ 316,000 Pitcher
Scott, Luke $ 316,000 Outfielder
Springer, Russ $ 550,000 Pitcher
Taveras, Willy $ 316,000 Outfielder
Vizcaino, Jose $ 1,250,000 Shortstop
Wheeler, Dan $ 365,000 Pitcher
$36,000,000 is divided between Clemens and Jeff Bagwell. That's almost half the payroll.
If Clemens and Bagwell retire, does that mean McLane will be willing to shell out an additional $36,000,000 in player acquisition? I hypothesize no, because it wasn't necessarily just about winning but about the public relations of having Bagwell and Clemens on the team.
Maybe he'll surprise me but I doubt he'll bring in 3 players worth $12,000,000 a piece or even 2 at $18,000,000.
Of course resigning some of our own cheap players will eat up a lot of the excess but I doubt we'll have anywhere near the payroll when Clemens and/or Bagwell are gone.
Major
11-02-2005, 11:37 PM
If Clemens and Bagwell retire, does that mean McLane will be willing to shell out an additional $36,000,000 in player acquisition? I hypothesize no, because it wasn't necessarily just about winning but about the public relations of having Bagwell and Clemens on the team.
This theory doesn't hold water if you look at the past. We had high payrolls before Clemens too. Before Clemens, we had Kent. Before that, we had Alou. Before that, Derek Bell. At various times, we've had high paid pitchers too. None of those were PR moves. Besides which, this high payroll is not a 2-year wonder of any sort. Our payroll has been fairly consistently and steadily growing over the past decade.
This theory doesn't hold water if you look at the past. We had high payrolls before Clemens too..
We've never had a "high payroll". The highest payroll we've had since 2000 was 12th (2004, 2005) which is slightly less than our media market. Yes our payroll has gone up but so has the average MLB salary in general.
Other than these last 2 seasons, between 2000-2005 our payroll has fluctuated between 14th and 18th in the league.
Groogrux
11-03-2005, 07:50 AM
For those critical of Drayton, what owner would you prefer him to emulate, considering all the financial issues?
Also, how good do you believe Les Alexander and Bob McNair would be if they were owners in MLB instead of the NBA or NFL?
We've never had a "high payroll". The highest payroll we've had since 2000 was 12th (2004, 2005) which is slightly less than our media market. Yes our payroll has gone up but so has the average MLB salary in general.
Other than these last 2 seasons, between 2000-2005 our payroll has fluctuated between 14th and 18th in the league.
Major is doing a great job presenting the facts here, so I will only add that the Astros' revenue does not compare with their media market size--it's smaller. Although Texas systematically cranks out some of the *best* baseball talent, it is still a "football first" area. It's hard for the Astros to generate revenue, just like it would be hard for a Steinbrenner-owned team to generate revenue.
In Houston, we're much more forgiving because most aren't die hards and we accept making the playoffs as good enough. This is also why Houstonians are often bandwagon fans.
This is one stupid, tired argument.
It *is* possible to be pleased and still want more.
Secondly, if the Yankees are so freaking good at "not just making the playoffs because that's not good enough", then where in the hell have they been since 2000?? Why aren't the precious, all-knowledgeable NE fans "ripping them apart"? A five-year hiatus from the only acceptable result, and this year they almost didn't even make the playoffs. Did NE fans say, "wait till next year"? Does that make them "bandwagonners"?
What the Yanks did from 1996-2001 was *amazing*. Not the norm. Everyone can shoot for it and hope for it, but to hold it up as the standard for success is, well, stupid. Shortsighted. People who talk like a WS ring every freaking year is the only acceptable result have no clue how difficult it really is to win playoff baseball--much less to even get there.
I've been around since 1979 and I ain't going nowhere. I'm thrilled that my Astros made brought a pennant home to Houston and went to the big dance. I hope they make the playoffs next year so they'll have a chance to win it all. Guess that makes be a "bandwagon fan". :rolleyes:
Major
11-03-2005, 09:28 AM
What the Yanks did from 1996-2001 was *amazing*. Not the norm. Everyone can shoot for it and hope for it, but to hold it up as the standard for success is, well, stupid. Shortsighted. People who talk like a WS ring every freaking year is the only acceptable result have no clue how difficult it really is to win playoff baseball--much less to even get there.
The funny this, when they made their huge run, they didn't have the massive (or as massive) payroll, and most of their talent was homegrown. Brosious, Jeter, Bernie Williams, Pettitte, Tino Martinez, Mariano Rivera, etc, etc. It was when they started signing all the big name free agents that they started losing.
NJRocket
11-03-2005, 09:58 AM
For those critical of Drayton, what owner would you prefer him to emulate, considering all the financial issues?
My issue with Drayton (can't speak for all) is that it's known that he is possibly the wealthiest owner in baseball (give or take 1 or 2 guys)...he has a new cable deal...he's made a ton of money the last 2 years....but refuses to budge on raising the budget significantly with the exception of grabbing a high paid player in July for 3 months. Granted, this formula has worked....and worked well...but I would just like to see our name in the mix and not be an afterthought when the big names become available.
I wouldn't want him to emulate George....in fact, I think it was a lot more satisfying doing what we did this year with the players/payroll we have....but I'd like to be in the mix if/when the time comes that a big name/high paid player becomes available through trade or free agency. My guess is that if a guy like Manny is available, Drayton isn't on the "must call" list (unless its July) for the Red Sox...I could be wrong....but who knows.
My issue with Drayton (can't speak for all) is that it's known that he is possibly the wealthiest owner in baseball (give or take 1 or 2 guys)...he has a new cable deal...he's made a ton of money the last 2 years....but refuses to budge on raising the budget significantly with the exception of grabbing a high paid player in July for 3 months. Granted, this formula has worked....and worked well...but I would just like to see our name in the mix and not be an afterthought when the big names become available.
I wouldn't want him to emulate George....in fact, I think it was a lot more satisfying doing what we did this year with the players/payroll we have....but I'd like to be in the mix if/when the time comes that a big name/high paid player becomes available through trade or free agency. My guess is that if a guy like Manny is available, Drayton isn't on the "must call" list (unless its July) for the Red Sox...I could be wrong....but who knows.
I think the Astros are more than an afterthought in the real world. Whether or not they are an afterthought in the media is beside the point.
As far as his cable deal, he should just now begin reaping the benefits of it, and I did read that the initial payroll figures for the Astros in 2006 were $86M (iirc).
As far as Drayton being the wealthiest owner in baseball, that should have positively no bearing on the Astros' personnel decisions. None. Zilch. Nada. You are setting a business up to fail if you begin throwing personal resources into it. In the same manner that you wouldn't expect your CEO to give you a bonus out of his own pocket, we shouldn't expect Drayton to personally fund any signings, salaries, or bonuses (although he did buy Roy O a tractor for his farm). It makes absolutely zero business sense, and this *is* a business.
Rileydog
11-03-2005, 10:36 AM
My issue with Drayton (can't speak for all) is that it's known that he is possibly the wealthiest owner in baseball (give or take 1 or 2 guys)...he has a new cable deal...he's made a ton of money the last 2 years....but refuses to budge on raising the budget significantly with the exception of grabbing a high paid player in July for 3 months. Granted, this formula has worked....and worked well...but I would just like to see our name in the mix and not be an afterthought when the big names become available.
I wouldn't want him to emulate George....in fact, I think it was a lot more satisfying doing what we did this year with the players/payroll we have....but I'd like to be in the mix if/when the time comes that a big name/high paid player becomes available through trade or free agency. My guess is that if a guy like Manny is available, Drayton isn't on the "must call" list (unless its July) for the Red Sox...I could be wrong....but who knows.
1. I couldn't agree more. I think some folks are missing the point. We're not ignoring the fact that the Astros are one of the 5-10 best franchises in MLB.
2. What absolutely CHAPS MY ASS is that we are always, always, always left to wonder how good the Astros COULD BE if McLane would go after another hitter, a great middle reliever or whatever. Nobody is saying that spending more is guaranteed to work. No. We're not saying that at all. But if McLane spent more and it did not work, I guarantee you that I would be the first to say - - - it's not for a lack of effort on the part of ownership. I'm sure many feel this way. Nobody is saying we have to be the Yankees.
So I'm not all that receptive to the idea that we should be so thankful for the successful franchise and quit banging on Uncle Drayton.
3. Finally, last offseason, we were all saying that this is the time to strike. Ownership needs to capture momentum and load up the team for a big run. McLane whiffs. Completely whiff.
4. This year, we get to the WS. I confidently predict that McLane will do nothing but attempt to maintain status quo. He'll just say - "See, I was right. I didn't spend last offseason and we got to the WS. Let's just do nothing and see what happens." Maybe everyone will have career years.
5. But Drayton owes Biggio more than that. He owes Bagwell, Clemens, Pettitte, Oswalt, more than that. He owes these guys for taking less to stay home. He owes these guys for making the decision to try to do something special for the hometown. Yeah, he's paid millions to each of them and they're not paupers by any stretch. But everyone has to sacrifice something and everyone has, in their own relative terms. I'm not saying he legally owes anything. I'm talking about the fact that it takes a team effort to win. The team includes upper management and ownership. Nobody would accuse the players of dogging it, because they haven't. Drayton's the one that's been dogging it. It's time for Drayton to ante up.
6. And, yes, he owes the fans more. The fans shelled out dollars to support the team. We bought tickets, beer, dogs, jerseys, Tshirts. Drayton owes, yes, owes us a response.
7. Finally, I don't see how spending a little more does not make financial sense. An extra 5 million for a decent additional bat, or upgrading a position. It's not guaranteed to increase revenue but, if you push the team to another level, the financial rewards far outweigh the cost.
------
In stark contrast, let's consider les alexander. I grant you that bball has a salary cap, so it's totally different from baseball. But does anyone question whether Les wants to be a champion? Hell no. He is willing to make bold trades, moves, signings to make the team better. No, he hasn't wandered willy nilly into luxury tax land because the moves, at least the ones that I recall from public discussion, don't look like they'd help.
yeah, rockets management had bad contracts, but at least we as fans have never felt hamstrung because of ownership cheapness.
Here's a hypothetical: let's say the Rockets make it to the WCF but lose. I don't think there's any chance that Les fails to seize momentum and, if req'd, he'd re sign players or go after FA's that would give us the best chance to win it all.
In stark contrast, let's consider les alexander. I grant you that bball has a salary cap, so it's totally different from baseball.
Exactly. All the bold moves are possible *because* of the salary cap, and some pretty wise cap management, at least currently, by that front office. In baseball, other guys simply outbid you with no repurcussions whatsoever. The Astros have made quite a few bold bids, offering some pretty significant tender, only to be outbid by others.
Svpernaut
11-03-2005, 10:54 AM
Since when is JOSE DE JESUS ORTIZ invited to these "baseball inner-circles?" give me a break... This story may be 100% true but De Whatever his name is is also "fluffing" himself up just as he accuses Hunsicker of doing by acting like he is "in the know" on issues in MLB.
Oski2005
11-03-2005, 05:08 PM
Seems to me that article was written with the collective #&ck of the astros front office in Ortiz's mouth. He's definately sucking up to the Astros brass by bashing Hun.
This is one stupid, tired argument.
It *is* possible to be pleased and still want more.
Secondly, if the Yankees are so freaking good at "not just making the playoffs because that's not good enough", then where in the hell have they been since 2000?? Why aren't the precious, all-knowledgeable NE fans "ripping them apart"? A five-year hiatus from the only acceptable result, and this year they almost didn't even make the playoffs. Did NE fans say, "wait till next year"? Does that make them "bandwagonners"?
What the Yanks did from 1996-2001 was *amazing*. Not the norm. Everyone can shoot for it and hope for it, but to hold it up as the standard for success is, well, stupid. Shortsighted. People who talk like a WS ring every freaking year is the only acceptable result have no clue how difficult it really is to win playoff baseball--much less to even get there.
I've been around since 1979 and I ain't going nowhere. I'm thrilled that my Astros made brought a pennant home to Houston and went to the big dance. I hope they make the playoffs next year so they'll have a chance to win it all. Guess that makes be a "bandwagon fan". :rolleyes:
You really have no clue about Yankees fans. They do expect to win it every year and if they don't add personnel to try to win it, they get roasted.
As far as Houston fans, are you serious?
How many Oilers games were blacked out by television and the local station had to bail them out - even during the playoffs.
How many 2 for 1 Rockets coupons were printed in the middle 80's, when Hakeem was at his prime. We have Yao and Tracy McGrady and we can barely sell out.
How many Astros games drew less than 25,000 people?
Houstonians are some of the worst fans in the nation because many of our residents are transplants from other cities.
How would you compare Drayton McLane vs Dr. John McMullen? One is beloved and defended by people like you while the other was hated.
Ive been a Houston fan since 1977 and I can say McLane and McMullen are probably two of the worst owners this city has had during that time period.
McMullen was also succesful getting the Astros to the brink because of good management decisions by Tal Smith just like McLane with Hunsicker.
The difference was McMullen didn't properly play the PR game and let Nolan Ryan go while McLane is much more PR saavy with local heroes like Roger Clemens.
...
You tell me if Yankee stadium was sold out in the late '80s and early '90swhen they were a doormat for the rest of the junior circuit, and then you may have a point. But probably not.
*Every* city wants a quality product, and *every* city's attendance wanes when they don't get one, except of course for Atlanta who doesn't show up regardless of how good the product is.
Also, comparing McLane to McMullen is humorous, but that's about it. There are sooooo many other factors involved.
MadMax
11-03-2005, 05:46 PM
of course, McMullen drove the team into receivership..while drayton has actually been at the helm during their very best years. but you know..whatever.
Also, comparing McLane to McMullen is humorous, but that's about it. There are sooooo many other factors involved.
McMullen had the foresight to bring in Tal Smith. He outbid the Angels , $1 million to get Nolan Ryan. He oversaw some very competitive teams in the late 70's all the way through the mid 80's based on pitching and defense.
The JR Richards tragedy was a big blow and other than a few bad breaks, we shouldve played in the World Series in 1980 and 1986. We had great starters, played small ball, and had a great bullpen with Sambito and Dave Smith.
His only flaw was making the PR mistake of refusing to pay Nolan Ryan more than Mike Scott who was at that time, the best pitcher on the team.
And please explain to me exactly what the differences are between the 2 men? Try me.
of course, McMullen drove the team into receivership..while drayton has actually been at the helm during their very best years. but you know..whatever.
I would argue that other than this season, 1980 and 1986 were our "best years".
McMullen had the foresight to bring in Tal Smith. He outbid the Angels , $1 million to get Nolan Ryan. He oversaw some very competitive teams in the late 70's all the way through the mid 80's based on pitching and defense.
The JR Richards tragedy was a big blow and other than a few bad breaks, we shouldve played in the World Series in 1980 and 1986. We had great starters, played small ball, and had a great bullpen with Sambito and Dave Smith.
His only flaw was making the PR mistake of refusing to pay Nolan Ryan more than Mike Scott who was at that time, the best pitcher on the team.
And please explain to me exactly what the differences are between the 2 men? Try me.
Some competitive teams in the late 70s? You mean like half a season in 1979? How much credit should McMullen get for 1979 when he didn't even own the team until May 26, 1979? After just his first two full seasons as owner, the Astros went to hell as a competitive ballclub--sucking balls from 82-85. Tal Smith was brought in in August of 1975--not by Dr. McMullen. Dr. McMullen actually fired Tal Smith after the Astros came within 6 outs of the World Series in 1980.
Let's have a lil' year-by-year comparison, hmm?
McMullen:
1979: good
1980: good
1981: good
1982: suck
1983: suck
1984: suck
1985: suck
1986: good
1987: suck
1988: suck
1989: suck
1990: suck
1991: suck
Lesseee, that's four good years and nine sucky years.
Drayton McLane:
1992: suck
1993: suck
1994: good
1995: so-so
1996: suck
1997: good
1998: good
1999: good
2000: suck
2001: good
2002: suck
2003: good
2004: good
2005: WS
Lesseee, that's eight good years, one on the border, and five sucky years.
About hirings and firings:
McMullen: fired a great GM (Tal Smith) after just one full season, a season in which the Astros nearly reached the WS.
McLane: hired a great GM (Hunsicker) and we'd still have him had he not left of his own volition.
Did you even research your facts before you posted this stuff?
Did you even research your facts before you posted this stuff?
You just wasted 4 hours researching this? You need therapy.
About hirings and firings:
Man, there's even more.
Everyone still wonders why McMullen fired Gene Elston in 1986 after that great run. McMullen fired Al Rosen in 1983 and Dick Wagner in 1987 or mebbe it was '88. McMullen fired Bill Virdon, who at that time was the winningest skipper in Astros history, in midseason 1982--after successful 1980 and 1981 campaigns--presumably because of a pretty rough start.
McLane has stuck with Milo, and still does, when *all* of us are begging for him to be canned. While McLane has fired folks as well, no skipper lasted five years for McMullen like Dierk did for McLane, no GM even approached five years, much less the NINE years that Gerry had.
Another difference: McMullen stayed at his New York home and made no efforts to embrace the business community in Houston. McLane is the polar opposite--always down in Houston, making it to functions, shaking hands, winning friends--embracing the business community. And that piece is *critical*, because this is a business after all.
There's even more, but I'm tired.
Some competitive teams in the late 70s? You mean like half a season in 1979? How much credit should McMullen get for 1979 when he didn't even own the team until May 26, 1979? After just his first two full seasons as owner, the Astros went to hell as a competitive ballclub--sucking balls from 82-85. Tal Smith was brought in in August of 1975--not by Dr. McMullen. Dr. McMullen actually fired Tal Smith after the Astros came within 6 outs of the World Series in 1980.
Let's have a lil' year-by-year comparison, hmm?
McMullen:
1979: good
1980: good
1981: good
1982: suck
1983: suck
1984: suck
1985: suck
1986: good
1987: suck
1988: suck
1989: suck
1990: suck
1991: suck
Lesseee, that's four good years and nine sucky years.
Drayton McLane:
1992: suck
1993: suck
1994: good
1995: so-so
1996: suck
1997: good
1998: good
1999: good
2000: suck
2001: good
2002: suck
2003: good
2004: good
2005: WS
Lesseee, that's eight good years, one on the border, and five sucky years.
About hirings and firings:
McMullen: fired a great GM (Tal Smith) after just one full season, a season in which the Astros nearly reached the WS.
McLane: hired a great GM (Hunsicker) and we'd still have him had he not left of his own volition.
Did you even research your facts before you posted this stuff?
2005 Houston Astros National League 89 73 .549 11.0 2,804,760
2004 Houston Astros National League 92 70 .568 13.0 3,087,872
2003 Houston Astros National League 87 75 .537 1.0 2,455,241
2002 Houston Astros National League 84 78 .519 13.0 2,517,267
2001 Houston Astros National League 93 69 .574 - 2,904,277
2000 Houston Astros National League 72 90 .444 23.0 3,056,139
1999 Houston Astros National League 97 65 .599 - 2,707,017
1998 Houston Astros National League 102 60 .630 - 2,450,451
1997 Houston Astros National League 84 78 .519 - 2,046,781
1996 Houston Astros National League 82 80 .506 6.0 1,975,888
1995 Houston Astros National League 76 68 .528 9.0 1,363,801
1994 Houston Astros National League 66 49 .574 0.5 1,561,136
1993 Houston Astros National League 85 77 .525 19.0 2,084,546
1992 Houston Astros National League 81 81 .500 17.0 1,211,412
1991 Houston Astros National League 65 97 .401 29.0 1,196,152
1990 Houston Astros National League 75 87 .463 16.0 1,310,927
1989 Houston Astros National League 86 76 .531 6.0 1,834,908
1988 Houston Astros National League 82 80 .506 12.5 1,933,505
1987 Houston Astros National League 76 86 .469 14.0 1,909,902
1986 Houston Astros National League 96 66 .593 - 1,734,276
1985 Houston Astros National League 83 79 .512 12.0 1,184,314
1984 Houston Astros National League 80 82 .494 12.0 1,229,862
1983 Houston Astros National League 85 77 .525 6.0 1,351,962
1982 Houston Astros National League 77 85 .475 12.0 1,558,555
1981 Houston Astros National League 61 49 .555 6.0 1,321,282
1980 Houston Astros National League 93 70 .571 - 2,278,217
1979 Houston Astros National League 89 73 .549
The 1983 Astros sucked? The 1985 Astros sucked? The 1988 Astros sucked? The 1989 Astros sucked?
yet the 1994 and 1997 Astros were good?
You are Mr. Spin himself.
You just wasted 4 hours researching this? You need therapy.
Can't admit you're wrong, so you're going to throw insults instead? Nice.
Here, let me help you:
You. Were. Wrong.
And no, I didn't "waste 4 hours doing research". I went home, kissed my girl, went to a meeting, and then sat down to check out the BBS. I spent 5 minutes on google making sure memory served me right. It did.
And, btw, the next post I made was done without any checking back of the facts, so I might be off on a couple of those dates.
Oh, and one more thing before I go pour myself a hot steaming cup of "therapy":
You. Were. Wrong.
Good night.
There's even more, but I'm tired.
This is hilarious. I spend the evening playing with my dog and watching college football with my wife, and you spent it proving me wrong.
You're awesome man.
Now go give Drayton another blowjob. :p
Can't admit you're wrong, so you're going to throw insults instead? Nice.
Here, let me help you:
You. Were. Wrong.
And no, I didn't "waste 4 hours doing research". I went home, kissed my girl, went to a meeting, and then sat down to check out the BBS. I spent 5 minutes on google making sure memory served me right. It did.
And, btw, the next post I made was done without any checking back of the facts, so I might be off on a couple of those dates.
Oh, and one more thing before I go pour myself a hot steaming cup of "therapy":
You. Were. Wrong.
Good night.
Actually, before I admit Im wrong, help me calculate the different winning percentages and then I'll admit it. Don;t stay up too late.
MadMax
11-03-2005, 09:57 PM
I would argue that other than this season, 1980 and 1986 were our "best years".
you can argue that all you want. and that's fine. the point is, we made the playoffs 2 times in our history prior to McLane. you know the rest.
1997 Houston Astros National League 84 78 .519
1994 Houston Astros National League 66 49 .574 0.5
1989 Houston Astros National League 86 76 .531 6.0
1988 Houston Astros National League 82 80 .506 12.5
1985 Houston Astros National League 83 79 .512 12.0
1983 Houston Astros National League 85 77 .525 6.0
The 1983 Astros sucked? The 1985 Astros sucked? The 1988 Astros sucked? The 1989 Astros sucked?
yet the 1994 and 1997 Astros were good?
You are Mr. Spin himself.
First you make fun of research, and then you do some?
Looking solely at W-L records is not a very good way of determining whether a club is good. You have to compare the club to the rest of the league that year, but you knew that (at least I hope so).
1983: 6 games out, third place
1985: 12 games out, fourth place
1988: 12.5 games out, fifth place
1989: 6 games out, third place
(I might be off on some of those 4ths and 5ths)
1994: .5 games out, 2nd place, and an MVP
1997: 1st place
Yeah, but *I* was "spinning" the facts.
you can argue that all you want. and that's fine. the point is, we made the playoffs 2 times in our history prior to McLane. you know the rest.
I would hardly call any of our wild card appearances as really making the playoffs.
They kind of changed the rules a few years back.
This is hilarious. I spend the evening playing with my dog and watching college football with my wife, and you spent it proving me wrong.
You're awesome man.
Now go give Drayton another blowjob. :p
More insults and accusing me of lying?
Up yours, jackass. If you want to have intelligent conversation, let's do so. If you want to act like a sixth grader, then you can spank yourself alone.
First you make fun of research, and then you do some?
Looking solely at W-L records is not a very good way of determining whether a club is good. You have to compare the club to the rest of the league that year, but you knew that (at least I hope so).
1983: 6 games out, third place
1985: 12 games out, fourth place
1988: 12.5 games out, fifth place
1989: 6 games out, third place
(I might be off on some of those 4ths and 5ths)
1994: .5 games out, 2nd place, and an MVP
1997: 1st place
Yeah, but *I* was "spinning" the facts.
You do realize the league became much more diluted when the Rockies and Florida Marlins joined MLB.
Also, without the wild card games, when you were out of the pennant, there wasn't much to play for so it's not an apples to apples comparison.
Im sure You knew that.
More insults and accusing me of lying?
Up yours, jackass. If you want to have intelligent conversation, let's do so. If you want to act like a sixth grader, then you can spank yourself alone.
I was kidding but obviously you weren't. Add anger management to the list. :D .
I mean "up yours jackass" is so much more intelligent.
More insults and accusing me of lying?
Up yours....
You already called me on it, but I need to apologize for this. Two wrongs don't make a right. And no, it wasn't apparrent that you were kidding.
Kerfeld
11-03-2005, 11:24 PM
ladies, ladies, stop fighting... your both pretty (courtesy of espn radio)
jopatmc
11-04-2005, 12:09 AM
I don't know who did what but whoever made the decision to hire Jimy Williams should have been fired with him. What person with any baseball knowledge would hire that guy? He cost us a season and a half. :mad:
bobrek
11-04-2005, 10:53 AM
I would hardly call any of our wild card appearances as really making the playoffs.
They kind of changed the rules a few years back.
Do you consider the Rockets champions the year they made the playoffs as a 6th seed?
pgabriel
11-04-2005, 11:11 AM
Do you consider the Rockets champions the year they made the playoffs as a 6th seed?
that's apples and oranges. REIT's point is that the Astros benefited from a system that wasn't in place while McMullen owned the team. The Astros wouldn't be in the playoffs without the benefit of the wild card in a couple of their playoff appearences under Drayton. that's just a matter of fact.
Groogrux
11-04-2005, 11:19 AM
that's apples and oranges. REIT's point is that the Astros benefited from a system that wasn't in place while McMullen owned the team. The Astros wouldn't be in the playoffs without the benefit of the wild card in a couple of their playoff appearences under Drayton. that's just a matter of fact.
How many teams during the McMullen era would've made the playoffs had the wild-card been in place?
Groogrux
11-04-2005, 11:25 AM
How many teams during the McMullen era would've made the playoffs had the wild-card been in place?
A quick glance at the Astros records and finishes suggests that '79, '81 and '84 would've been the only possible years they could've finished in the Wild Card. That would equal five playoff appearances in 13 seasons compared to six playoff appearances in 14 seasons. Pretty close if those seasons in question would've resulted in a hypothetical playoff berth.
pgabriel
11-04-2005, 11:26 AM
How many teams during the McMullen era would've made the playoffs had the wild-card been in place?
I don't know and I don't care. I'm just saying reit made a good point. I don't care who the better owner is.
bobrek
11-04-2005, 11:26 AM
that's apples and oranges. REIT's point is that the Astros benefited from a system that wasn't in place while McMullen owned the team. The Astros wouldn't be in the playoffs without the benefit of the wild card in a couple of their playoff appearences under Drayton. that's just a matter of fact.
He should be more clear. When you say:
"I would hardly call any of our wild card appearances as really making the playoffs."
That certainly says that RIET does not consider the Astros making the playoffs the last 2 years (yet he considers this years season [EDITED - changed 'team' to 'season'] the "best" under McLane). Sure they changed the rules, but the team won the division in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2001.
pgabriel
11-04-2005, 11:38 AM
part of this discussion should be who acquired bagwell and biggio and how much credit Drayton should get for the success they've brought to the franchise. I don't think there's any question this team has been better under Drayton.
TheFreak
11-04-2005, 11:38 AM
They won those divisions when there were 3 divisions, not 2.
bobrek
11-04-2005, 12:02 PM
They won those divisions when there were 3 divisions, not 2.
That is true, but you can also argue that the Astros are still in a division with 6 teams (and have been since the 1998) as they were under McMullen. In essence, they still have to beat out 5 other teams to win the division.
My point to all of this is not who is the better owner but how much of a variance in opinion between Drayton McLane (beloved) and Dr. John McMullen (hated).
There's not much difference between those two men and they were good friends because they were both great business owners and they treat their franchises as such and yet one is hated and is loved. It's all about PR and as a die hard sports fan, the facade is incredibly condescending.
Yes baseball is a business and yes it does not have a salary cap. However, when you compare Drayton McLane with the other Houston owners, Drayton has a much more business angle to running his club.
Bob McNair talks about his passion of bringing a football franchise to the city and being committed to winning a championship.
Les Alexander will take risks to make the Rockets a champion.
Drayton talks about putting together a good product on the field but always infuses the monetary aspect. Is winning a championship #1 on his priority list?
This may be a nuance but it's the attitude of the owner which is partially to blame for Hunsicker's departure.
The funniest part of this whole Richard Justice/Drayton McLane "feud" was when Drayton met with Justice to discuss his less than flattering article. After all, it was bad pr. Drayton will spend the money - when it makes good business sense.
We must now hope Adam Dunn professes his love for the city and goes on a pro-Houston media campaign. Maybe then Drayton will bring the local boy home so we can all applaud his greatness. Maybe, then maybe we can get that cleanup hitter.
Always a business man.
pgabriel
11-04-2005, 12:29 PM
now I do totally agree with that. Drayton cares more about keeping fannies in the seats than winning. Doesn't mean he doesn't want to win, but money is his first priority.
now I do totally agree with that. Drayton cares more about keeping fannies in the seats than winning. Doesn't mean he doesn't want to win, but money is his first priority.
People always bring up the Yankees and Red Sox. If it was purely a business, would anyone notice if Steinbrenner only spent 150 million? Wouldnt it make more sense to pocket the extra $50 million?
If the Red Sox spent $100 million and shaved $20 off their books, would anyone fault them? Wouldnt that make more business sense?
Yes they have more $ to spend but they also have the expectations to win.
Future potential Astros acquirees:
Adam Dunn
Carl Crawford
Woody Williams (oops, not the local splash needed and yesterday's news)
It's all about the image.
Groogrux
11-04-2005, 12:39 PM
Once again, it's easy to say you're all about winning or taking risks when you're in a league that has some sort of salary restraints.
Put McNair (whose franchise is doing a bang-up job of putting a winner out there) and Alexander in a league where they have to worry about the big-market teams out-spending everyone and you might hear a different tune from them. On the flip-side, put Drayton in the NBA or NFL and things might be different.
Once again, it's easy to say you're all about winning or taking risks when you're in a league that has some sort of salary restraints.
Put McNair (whose franchise is doing a bang-up job of putting a winner out there) and Alexander in a league where they have to worry about the big-market teams out-spending everyone and you might hear a different tune from them. On the flip-side, put Drayton in the NBA or NFL and things might be different.
It will be interesting to see what happens if Roger Clemens retires - whether Drayton pockets that $18 million or uses it to bring in another starting pitcher and a bat.
Do we stay at 12th in the league in payroll or do we drop to 15-18.
Groogrux
11-04-2005, 12:52 PM
It will be interesting to see what happens if Roger Clemens retires - whether Drayton pockets that $18 million or uses it to bring in another starting pitcher and a bat.
Do we stay at 12th in the league in payroll or do we drop to 15-18.
It will be interesting. I'm assuming he'll do something. For someone who ya'll just criticized for being all about his image and public relations, you would think he would use that money on something.
By the way, does anyone have handy our payroll for the last several years and it's rank to other franchises?
It will be interesting. I'm assuming he'll do something. For someone who ya'll just criticized for being all about his image and public relations, you would think he would use that money on something.
By the way, does anyone have handy our payroll for the last several years and it's rank to other franchises?
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2005
PhiSlammaJamma
11-04-2005, 01:25 PM
The scary part now is Pupura thinks this strategy will always work. It's his calling card. So he'll likely never stray. What he may not understand is that Clemens was the high priced Free agent we will always need to go the distance..
Groogrux
11-04-2005, 01:27 PM
The scary part now is Pupura thinks this strategy will always work. It's his calling card. So he'll likely never stray. What he may not understand is that Clemens was the high priced Free agent we will always need to go the distance..
C'mon, you have to give him more credit than that. Not to mention, it was only his strategy because there was nothing available that would've significantly helped the team at the trading deadline.
NJRocket
11-04-2005, 02:00 PM
The scary part now is Pupura thinks this strategy will always work. It's his calling card. So he'll likely never stray. What he may not understand is that Clemens was the high priced Free agent we will always need to go the distance..
I think Purpura knows that this past year was less of a strategic plan and more of a roll of the dice....at least I hope so.
To address two earlier points:
--Another difference: McMullen signed Ryan and Sutton within his first two years of ownership. He went to on to trade for or sign... nothing. Well, a washed up 60-year old Omar Moreno I guess counts for something. McLane signed Drabek and Swindell, experienced the same disappointment, but then went on to trade for or acquire by free agency: Moises Alou, Randy Johnson, Ken Caminiti (the healthy, strong one), Jeff Kent, Carlos Beltran, Andy Pettitte, and Roger Clemens. Yeah, that's pretty "similar".
--With regards to it being "easier" to make the playoffs after the realignment and instating of the Wild Card, I would argue, based on the results, that it's *harder* nowadays. Wait, don't tune out just yet even though at first that sounds crazy. You see, it seems that the realignment, in addition to the ridiculously escalated, non-capped salary structure, has further polarized the league. For instance, between 1983 and 1993 *every* team in the NL West won the thing at least once (Padres in '84, Reds in '90, Jints in '89, Dojers in '85 and '88, the freaking Br*ves in '91 and '92, our beloved Astros in '86). Between 1994 and 2004, however, two teams have *dominated* the NL Central, with only a cameo appearance by the Scrubs in 2003 and Reds in '95. These NL Central perennial losers weren't absent from the playoffs for an entire decade back in the '80s: the Brewers in '82, the Reds in '90 and '91, and the Pirates in '90, '91, and '92. Several of those even went to and/or won the Big Dance.
vBulletin® v3.0.17, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.