Surveying the wreckage. Lineup possibilites for 2005.

dotel kicked ass and was made a closer. ultimately, the A's traded for him to be the closer. kline and nelson are like the exceptions that prove the rule. kline has been a closer. but ultmately you name two guys, total, who've spent considerable time as middle relievers without being named starter or closer. they're far and few between. again, that's the very nature of middle relief.

 

berkman is a rice guy. his wife and her family are from here. they have deep roots here. i doubt seriously that he'll turn down a competitive offer from the astros.

 

I think I'd bring biggio back...

Ensberg? Not positive about if i'm sold on him or not..

Mike Lamb was a good uitlity guy this year.. I hope he is back

 

I'm not sure of the numbers, but I do know they were good in September. Miceli had a 0.86 or something ridiculous like that.

 

I hate to disagree with you man, but you're just way off. Mike Timlin, Mike Stanton, Guillermo Mota, Ray King. BJ Ryan's establishing that type of career. K-Rod is great, but you have to figure he'll become a closer someday. Chris Hammond has become a great middle reliever after being a mediocre starter. Steve Karsay's another good example. These guys aren't glamorous, so you might not know their names or be able to rattle them off, but they're out there, and they fill an important role. Not every important inning can be pitched by a starter or closer, as we've seen demonstrated.

 

The reason I get annoyed with drayton is like cabbage said....

the over and over. doing whatever it takes to be a champion then followed by.. and we have been champions...

gets on my nerves.. everything I can do in my budget maybe.. but not everything it takes..

 

The funny thing is, I don't recall Drayton doing that all the time. I don't personally ever recall him saying it like that, with no caveats whatsoever.

 

rocketman95.. maybe I'm hearing things... it comes across like that to me on the radio interviews..

 

eh didn't see the caveats part.. maybe he did use some and I missed them.. but I don't think you can have any buts or exceptions in anything it takes

 

i disagree with you. those are the best among middle relievers. but they're not great pitchers. there aren't enough good starters and closers around for there to be room for great pitchers pitching year in and year out as middle relievers. from year to year, you have very little idea of what you're going to get from your middle relief. even among the "greats" you cite there is huge inconsistency from year to year. statistics do crazy things with middle relievers who pitch in so few innings...but from year to year you see significant bounces in ERA among middle relievers that you don't see among traditional closers and starters...particularly among those who you say are the best starters and closers.

 

A little late but...


Four Major League Baseball fans went rock climbing:

a Yankee fan, a Red Sox fan, an Astros fan, and a Cardinals fan.


They had been arguing all the way up the mountain about who amongst them loved their team more and was the most "diehard" fan. The argument grew hotter and hotter and the
four fans grew more and more agitated. Such was the emotion that upon reaching the top
of the mountain,

the Yankee fan proclaimed loudly and earnestly
to the other three, "This is for the New York Yankees!" and without a moments
hesitation threw himself off the m! ountain. The supreme sacrifice!

Not to be outdone by a Yankee fan, the Red Sox fan jumped up and
cried out, "This is for the Boston Red Sox!" and quickly threw himself off
the mountain, also willing to sacrifice himself to prove his devotion
to his team.

Refusing to be outdone by the Yankee and Red Sox fans, the Astros
fan rose to his feet, summoned up every ounce of his courage, and yelled at the top of his
lungs,! "This is for the Houston Astros!" and without a moment's hesitation,
shoved the Cardinals fan off the mountain.

GO ASTROS!

 

Heh, we'll have to agree to disagree I guess. Plenty of starters fluctuate in ERA year to year. Look at Hampton, look at Lowe, look at Mussina, look at Lima, look at Colon. So do some closers. Look at Mesa! Look at Urbina, Koch, or Wickman. But yea, ERA is subjective with relief pitchers, especially with so few innings, and runners left on base, etc. Look to WHIP or ERC or other stats to tell a better story.

It used to be that middle relievers were the guys who sucked too much to be starters or closers, the dregs of the pitching staff. Heck, it used to be that closers didn't exist. But times have changed, and pitching staffs have become more and more specialized. Setup guys are real, not fictitious, they're not always former or soon-to-be closers, some of them are just simply good bullpen guys. If the job was as simple as converting poor starters into good middle relievers, Duckworth and Redding and Hernandez would have been on the postseason roster helping to close out the Cards. The best middle relievers, like the best closers and the best starters, are consistantly good year after year. Everyone else fluctuates.

 

If the best middle relievers are so good, why do they change teams from year to year? If they're in such high value, why would teams jump to trade any one of them if they could get a proven starter or hitter in return?

Just this past year, Dotel, F. Rodriguez, J. Tavarez, Mike Lincoln, Tom Gordon, L. Hawkins, and G. Mota all switched teams either before the season or during the season. They were all GREAT last year, but their old teams found a better opportunity elsewhere, and decided to move them. Also, none of their old teams got appreciably worse as a result... in fact, many of them got much better due to either their replacements, or the players they got in exchange for them.

Meanwhile, Joe Nathan, Brad Lidge, D. Kolb, Mike Gonazalez and A. Otsuka (all middle releivers at one point) all came out of nowhere to have better years than all the players I mentioned, and all the career journeymen you mentioned earlier. (btw, they're all affordable as well).

I don't think the Astros will have any problems with Qualls and Wheeler as their primary set-up men. Qualls was lights out in September, had somer rough spots in the playoffs, but would have been the hero of game 6 (had we won). He's got nasty stuff, and if he keeps the ball down, you can't put his sinker into play. Wheeler was okay down the stretch, but turned it up a notch in the playoffs. Harville was up and down all year... but more up than down in September, and he's got plus stuff. He'll be better than the Ricky Stone's or Kirk Bullinger's of the world.

Bottom line... middle releif is important... but its not important enough so that teams will commit big $$$ to long-term deals for these guys. That's why most of them cycle in and out year after year...

 

He should have pushed a Cub fan too.

 

Nah, cubbiefan would slip and fall off and then blame the mountain.

 

Guys, calm down...

I'm not living in a fantasy world where I expect Drayton to double the payroll of everyone else in baseball like the Yankees and Red Sox do every year.

And I completely understand that every other team in the league must operate with some measure of financial prudence. I respect Drayton as a business man and as a owner.

But...

Drayton held a possible move to Virginia over the collective head of the city of Houston for the better part of 3 years as leverage to gain the new ballpark he desparately wanted, all the while claiming it was the lack of revenues caused by playing in the dillapidated Dome as the reason for the Astros financial problems.

I'm not going to spend the next three hours searching for links to articles which support my position, but I think most would agree that Drayton made a promise to this city and its fans that if we gave him the brand-new, state-of-the-art facility he was asking for, the economic parameters under which he was operating this franchise would change. I wasn't, and still am not, expecting DRASTIC changes in the team's spending, but I feel he owes it to this city to produce some tangible, undeniable evidence that he has kept his promise to us.

Now I'm not claiming he has not expanded the budget, but if you were to compare the jump in our team payroll pre-2000 to now, it has basically increased from the $55-60M level in 98-99 to around $80M now. That is about a 33% increase over the last 5 years, assuming he doesn't drastically add more salary this winter.

While a 33% increase is comendable, I think a better indicator of how well he has lived up to his end of the bargain would be to see where the Astros rank amongst their peers in payroll then and now.

In 1999, the Astros began the year with a team payroll of $51M, which ranked 11th among all ML teams.
In 2004, the Astros began the year with a team payroll of $74M, which ranked 13th among all ML teams.

What does this mean? It means that while Drayton has increased his spending, so has the rest of the league, and over the last 4 years he has actually LOST ground on the competition when it comes to spending the big bucks for talent. Not in pure numbers, mind you, but in terms of where those numbers rank as compared to what the competition is spending.

It also means that despite reaching 3M in attendance (for the 1st time in franchise history) twice in the last five years, he has used the financial windfall from all of this increased revenue to essentially maintain the status quo as for as spending on players.

This is not what he promised us when we agreed to finance his little cash-cow also known as Enron Field (err Minute Maid Park). He promised us that times would change, and we would join, if not the Yankees, then at least the upper-echelon of teams when it comes to putting revenues earned back into the product on the field we pay so dearly to enjoy. I don't consider 13th out of 30 teams upper-echelon.

And, like I said earlier, its not as if the fans in Houston have not come out in droves to fill his new palace and, in turn, provide him with the resources needed to do so. The Astros have drawn more fans in the past five years than during any other 5-year stretch in franchise history.

So, the conclusion must be either one of two possibilities:

A. He lied to us by not fully understanding the economics of baseball. In this scenario, he truly did intend to use this new income to improve the product we pay to see, only to realize he was wrong, and ultimately, this is the best we, as Astos fans, can ever hope to expect.

What I mean by this is that he did not fully understand that the increase in revenue from the new park would still not be enough to spend the kind of $$$ needed to get, and keep, the kind of talent necessary to elevate our team from perrenially competitive ((as we were during the 90's) to real, genuine contender status year-in and year-out. If this is the case, it is still ultimately McClane's fault for making the kind of statements he did about the new park's impact on our payroll without being able to back them up.

Now don't get me wrong here; I was elated with the recent additions of Kent, Pettitte, Clemens, and Beltran. They represent a genuine effort to improve the team by adding significant payroll and talent to the roster. Game 7 of the LCS is certainly an achievement to be applauded, but if we are to maintain this level, we absolutely CANNOT lose Kent, Beltran and (possibly) Clemens without adequately replacing their production. This probably means increasing the payroll to somewhere around $90M next year. Otherwise we are still just treading water, just as we were back in the Dome days.

Or, the other possibility:

B. He lied to us by using the increased revenues to his own ends with no true intention to put the $$$ back into the team. I would like to believe this is not the case, and that Drayton is truly the lovable, honest ol' grandpa he portrays himself as to the public. But I am not naive, and I realize that a business man does not become a billionaire member of the Fortune 500 without a very good understanding of the ability to manipulate buyers into believing what HE wants them to believe.

After all, what better way to keep a packed house (and full pockets) than by CONVINCING his paying customers that he really is making an all-out effort to do everything possible to improve his team while simultaneously DOING just enough to keep the illusion of hope vivid enough that he can continue to reap the financial rewards this false hope provides?

So, as an Astros fan, your choice basically comes down to this:

1. You believe Drayton is doing everything reasonably possible to make this team as good as it can be with no regard for personal profit. In essence, he is spending every last dime available on his team while personally seeking to just break even and not lose money. In this case, winning comes first.

Or

2. You believe Drayton is a salesman, balls to bones. He says and spends what he needs to so that he can attract enough paying customers to make ownership of the Astros a viable money-making enterprise in his own personal empire. In this case, winning takes a back seat to profit.

As an Astros fan, fellow Baylor Alum and citizen of Houston, I would like to believe the first option, but I cannot honestly say I am 100% convinced this is true. Getting into, and advancing in, the Postseason is very strong evidence in support of this position.

But it is not unquestionable, bullet-proof, infallable evidence. Hell, Florida's cheapskate owner managed to luck his way into a WS ring last year while openly placing the bottom line ahead of winning in the pecking order. So it's not as if winning in the postseason has a direct correlation to the owner's desire/willingness to win above all else. I personally attribute the Astros magical ride this year to Gerry Hunsicker's executive brilliance and the player's pride and talent rather than to Drayton's "What have you done today to become a Champion" nonsense.

 

Milos --

you cite payroll changes across the league. that shouldn't be surprising, as nearly every team in MLB is playing in a brand new stadium. those that aren't are playing in mega-markets where they also control the media deal. he said he'd increase payroll if we got a new stadium. he did. in fact, he increased payroll before the new ballpark was built. that initial 98-99 number already includes a significant bump in payroll from the years before that. other teams did, too, but the astros have no control over that.

they're going to make generous offers to beltran and berkman. we'll see if both bite on those offers. if they do, then the astros will likely have a payroll around $90 million. ultimately, i could not care less what that final number is. i care about wins. this organization has fielded a team that has been more than capable of winning it all on a few occassions during the McLane era. that's all i ask for from ownership and management....the rest is on the players.