My argument is that the cost was too great. That being 2007-14? of irrelevancy. No one can say what would have happened if we had continued to have a strong farm, strong player development, and not mortgaged our assets. But one thing im sure about is that the team we would have had in the 2007-14 era would have been competitive, and given the generally weak NL central these days, we would be in the hunt for a division title right now rather than setting a franchise record for losses.
Sorry, I simply can't bring myself to regret 2004-2005. Jeff Kent throwing his helmet up and jumping onto the plate. Rocket throwing three innings of relief in an 18-inning win against the Br*ves. Berkman's big mash, and Burke's game-winner. Oswalt putting Pujols in his place. That awesome twin killing. Finally getting over on those **** Br*ves. And, of course, being able to say, "National League Champion Houston Astros."
Respect your viewpoint because it's ballsy, your basically giving up being part of two of the greatest comeback seasons in baseball history, bring part of one of the greatest playoff series of all-time, a pennant and everything else MSN mentioned for the chance at sustained good play. That said, IMHO, if you have a shot at a world series title...you take it and worry about the future after the season. Sometimes it works and sometimes, like now, it doesn't but still wouldn't trade those memories.
If you had asked me back in 2004-05, I too would have said, go for it! Those years were amazing. I am not discounting them. But a sustained strong farm system may have given us the same chance without paying the price we are now is my point. How do we know we couldnt have won a couple divisions in the 2004-present era if we had had great call-ups all these years. Had a great draft in 2007, instead of a bogus one. Not to mention that guys like Pence, Bourn, Oswalt, Berkman, and Kepp would likely still be on the team, and Lee wouldnt.
I would argue the rapid crash and burn of Ensberg, Lane, Burke, Tavares - oh, gosh: I could list nearly a dozen mid-20-year old guys who fizzled after the '05 season is what hurt the team; not anything done prior. I don't see/remember any egregious decisions where they cashed in the minor league system to feed the major league roster. You look at the '05 roster and they had a gaggle of core guys who were all under 30. And who contributed to the team in '04 and/or '05. And by, like, literally the mid-point of the following season, they all had giant question marks. And suddenly... I think they hit the panic button. Their next wave was crashing and burning and their next wave after that wasn't even close to being ready. That, to me, is when they started to mortgage the future - they signed Lee and Williams, traded for Jennings and Huff, etc.
Some good points.....but keep in mind that I am NOT arguing that ALL the farm damage was done pre-2005, only that it began then.
Well, sure - just not egregiously, IMO; and certainly not enough to even suggest '04 and '05 weren't worth it. The really, truly biggest culprit, IMO, is Ensberg. If he comes anywhere near replicating his '05 season in '06... he and Berkman, teamed with Oswalt, provides a terrific core. But when he fizzled, when Lane fizzled, Burke, Lidge, Qualls... BTW, I did not realize Lee, Williams *and* Jennings were all 2007. If you're looking for ground zero... that cost you a 1st round pick, a 2nd round pick and Taylor Buchholz, Jason Hirsh & Willy Tavaras.
Jim, who are some of the guys that it hurt our farm to lose prior to 2005? John Buck? Did we lose 1st round picks signing Jeff Kent, Andy Pettitte, and Roger Clemens?
The problem was not going for it in 2004-2005. The problem was that they failed to begin the rebuilding in 2007. In some ways being competitive in 2008 was the worst thing that could have happened because it fooled management into thinking that they did not need to go into rebuilding mode.
I just spent some time looking around......basically, I was very wrong about something. I really believed (until I looked it up) that the 2004-05 teams were build in part by trading away our farm assets. But apparently, it was 2006-08 where this happened, trying to stay in contention. Those of you pointing this out were right, and I was wrong
Huff was prior to Jennings, and involved probably the one guy we'd like to take back (Zobrist) but... I won't begrudge 'em too much for that one. Half a year removed from the WS with Berkman, Oswalt, Pettitte and Clemens still on the team?... After that season, with Pettitte and Clemens done, they should have been smarter moving forward. Ah, hell - it's all too depressing to talk about...
I will defend the Huff deal, at that moment Huff was a BIG upgrade over the just turned nutcase Ensberg in the mist of a pennant race with our three horses. Zobrist has turned into a very nice player for Tampa and his minor league numbers were very good. I think if we had resigned Huff and not just let him walk then it wouldnt have been such a loss but losing both has turned into a tough pill to swallow.
Oh, they're going to be bad for a looooooooong time, especially if Crane is voted down and McClane has to begrudgingly return to the fold. I'll gladly defend McClane (mostly) - but I can't imagine he'd be even remotely invested in picking back up his ownership duties. I think the Astros need fresh eyes to gut its franchise and rebuild it. That's not an angry response to 100 losses; it's just where they are. These things happen. And Crane seemed like a sensible guy to lead that charge.
I wasn't too happy about trading away Patton at the time, but looking back I don't think the trade was good or bad. Luke Scott had a couple above average years, the pitchers all turned out to be below average relievers.
I was thinking of Dan Wheeler just as much as Zobrist. Then I looked it up, we traded Wheeler for Wigginton. Purpura just didn't do well in any facet of the big-league GM game, did he.
