Jim Crane has really pissed away any goodwill that he came into after buying the team from Drayton. I keep wanting to give him the benefit of doubt because he's supposedly a "baseball guy" but every time he opens his mouth in public, he comes across as a guy who is only concerned about the bottom-line. Instead of talking about being excited about young, exciting players for the future of this team, all he ever talks about is revenues, profits, potential investments "when the time is right". Even when he talks about the fans, it is in a cold, calculated manner about how to draw (sucker) the fans back to pay for season tickets and games to make money. 2 pieces of unsolicited advice for Mr. Crane from a long-time Houston sports fan: 1. Don't think of owning a professional sports team like you do your other businesses. Pro sports teams are really expensive toys for rich guys like you that should generate joy and pride for achievement on the field. They are not vehicles to make lots of money day-to-day (unless you're in the NFL). As you can see from Drayton's hefty little return, you are likely to make a lot of money when you sell the team one day, but until then, you should be expect to break even or make small profits. 2. Quit talking about money, revenues, profits, etc. in public. No one wants to hear you complain about how the team is financially. It's fine for you to take these things into consideration when running the team, but quit talking about the fans' beloved team in purely dollars and cents. Bob McNair and Les Alexander make business decisions all the time that affect the fans, but they rarely have support because fans believe they are doing everything they can to put a winning team on the field. Even though I agree with your decision to strip down the team and rebuild, you should talk about it as a baseball decision, not as a business decision. If this is to hard to decipher, then it's better to just shut up. There are tons of loyal fans here in town who want to believe in the team. I really hope the cynics are wrong about him and that he really is just trying to undo the damage he came into when he bought the team with the goal to make us winners again. It's just hard to beleive that right now by listening to him.
I'm not against it... I'm just saying that it doesn't make as big a difference as you think it does, and I understand why any management group would prefer to not simply spend money to give the perception that they're attempting to win games now. And, if Lance has an amazing first half... and is great to watch.... and actually does somehow affect attendance (doubtful), but the team is still awful (probable)... then the Astros HAVE to trade him. In fact, it does fans of a team a disservice if they DON'T trade him again while he can still fetch above average prospects. So, in the end, you get a half season of Lance, and then you get more prospects that take time to develop, along with the major league team that is still a truly awful product to watch.
#1 Seldom do teams consistently do well drafting and winning in the big leagues over an extended period of time. #2 Why sign players like Berkman Cabrera? So we can win 5 more games and maybe not pick first? #3 We are in an all or nothing situation... like BigTexxx says "**** or get off the pot."
I am all in the the rebuild. But, as for the benefit of signing a couple of decent players, I do think the atmosphere could get so bad that the young, legitimate prospects that are there, or arrive, could come into a situation that is not condusive to grow as a team. Being bad is one thing, this team isn't even competitive at all. They might struggle to win 40
All of that stuff you just said makes absolutely no sense. You're basically saying that since the team is losing now, the prospects that come up will be branded to a losing team, and thus the losing will infect the prospects?? Yes, the team is bad now... till the prospects that are grooming are ready to come in. Once those prospects come in, they either excel at the major league level or don't. If the prospects excel, the team will improve. That has been proven time and time again in baseball. I have never seen your scenario play out... where prospects were destined to flourish, until they came up to a bad team. That's like all those people who said the Texas Rangers will always be an elite hitting team and never be a good pitching team, thus they are doomed to mediocrity... and yet they did eventually become a good pitching team. Or all those people who said the Yankees and Red Sox will always be good, becuase they can spend more and they have a history of winning. Or all those people who said the Rays will be doormats forever and should be contracted. Baseball is cyclical...
Actually what I said makes a lot of sense, you just might not understand much about the atmosphere around a team. And to compare this to the the Rangers hitting/pitching or the Yankees and Sox success really makes no sense, the situations are totally different. Most rebuilds have prospects coming into bad situations and they need to be the ones to turn it around, that is true. What we have here might be historically bad though, 7 games and we already have players talking about not giving up! The difference in losing 95 games or losing 120 might not be a lot to fans, but to clubhouse atmosphere it could be a lot
A lot of things could have been done. This team was going to be bad notated what and that is fine. Crane totally stripped it to make a profit/pay debt. He might spend big when the time comes, I hope he does. But if anyone thinks he is setting aside money now to add to the pot later you are fooling yourselves.
The Rays lost a minimum of 91 games for 10 consecutive years. And it's had zero impact on the team these past six years. The Nationals had six consecutive seasons of sub-.500 baseball, including a three-year stretch (that just ended in 2010) in which they lost 298 games, before winning 98 games last year. The Rangers were sub-.500 in 8 of the 10 years prior to their back-to-back Worl... sorry, I vomited - what was I saying? Oh, right: Clubhouse atmosphere's got nuthin' on pitching and hitting, especially pitching. As for the interim... I hear the new Home Run Alley is awesome. Amirite, people?
I hate that hunk of chunk, he couldnt even sell all of the ad space. But shame on us for complaining, it's "for the kids"...yeah right, take that crap down and don't ever mess with ballpark aesthetics again.
Astros > Phillies Entire Astros roster makes less than Hamels, Lee, & Halladay make individually. And yet the Phillies have given up the most runs in baseball.
and yet even if the Astros finish w/the 2nd worst record and the Phillies w/the worst (unlikely I know, but just to make a point)....you'll probably have a group of slightly more satisfied fans look and say "at least we made an attempt" It's a weird comparison because they brought those guys in and had success. But my point is that while I fully agree with current direction and choices, you would have a slightly more satisfied fan base if they had signed Berkman, blocked playing time from Chris Carter, and won 3 more games. I think. Or maybe more likely, we'd eventually be on pace for 54 wins instead of 51, and everyone would still be b****ing about Crane's cheapness for having a payroll of $26 mil and not signing Lohse. And Kelly Johnson. And a couple of other middling guys. Hell, bring Woody Williams in. Maybe the end result is that the people who whine about cheapness will whine unless the team is "decent". Which means on pace for 70 or so wins. Which means blocking young guys from playing and getting a lower (than top 3) pick. Which means consistent mediocrity--what the Rockets endured and got roundly criticized for. So if people are going to whine from minimum payroll up to either 50 mil or 70 wins...then f it, go with the baseball decision
Hmmm, not sure you are reading what I wrote. I am, and have always been, in full support of the rebuild. I am not, and NEVER have said we should have went out and spent big to try and win now. I fully understand that we will lose 90+ games and am ok with that, even high 90's again i'm ok with, that is just a part of it. 1) You mention Tampa, and maybe we differ here, but i'm not wanting 10 years of this kind of losing, we are in year 3 of it already and 7 more do not sound good to me. 2) If you are talking about a team that loses 90-100 games, you are talking about a team that is basically going 3-4 on a 7 game week and 2-4 on a 6 game week. Obviously there will be streaks in there both ways, but for the math that is what you are looking at. Now those teams don't go to the park thinking they are going to the playoffs, but they are winning enough to go to the park knowing they have a good chance to win that week. If we are a historically bad team and lose around 120 games, you are talking about a team that could really dread going to the park everyday. As I said earlier, we already have players talking about "we can't give up" and it is week 2! 3) If you think clubhouse atmosphere has nothing to do with development, we will just have to completely agree to disagree there. In a sport where you play a game basically everyday, clubhouse atmosphere definitely plays a role.
so you want them to sign enough guys to not lose 110, but not so many that they lose less than 90. While still keeping the appropriate slots open for young guys Just seems like a relatively tough proposition to achieve with small returns (i.e. only a few like you will appreciate). Many more either understand the reasoning for losing or are pissed that they're not at least league average
I fully want the first pick, and there was probably nothing we could have done to not end up being the worst team this year. Having said that, the baseball draft and basketball drafts can't really be compared. The Rockets have been stuck in mediocrity by drafting at the end of the lottery, basically upper part of the middle of the first round. The chances of getting a superstar at that point is extremely low. Picking 1st as opposed to 3rd in baseball though, if you go back and look at history, there isn't much of a difference in those picks. I do think next year, with Rondon, picking first is a huge advantage though. And again, personally, I am glad they have decided to completely rebuild the system. I just wish they would have at least made an attempt to be a little competitive, hopefully things will pick up at least a little. The only good thing I suppose, is that if they do lose 120 games, i'm gonna make some money off of them
