That is just it, on this topic i'm not even considering what the fans are going to think. I'm talking about at least putting a team on the field that has a chance to compete to win a couple of games a week. I'm talking about the makeup of the team, the atmosphere around the team and in the clubhouse, that the young guys are going to be a part of. Maybe Porter is going to be good enough to keep things positive in there and not let it completely fall apart. It is disturbing to me, that after 7 games, we are hearing comments like "we can't give up" coming from the team already. Giving up shouldn't even be going through their heads. For goodness sakes, we have 155 games left!
And yet... I just listed 3 franchises that have lost *a lot* and, wouldn't you know it, as soon as the talent in the clubhouse improved, so, too, did the team - with no ill effects from all that losing. The clubhouse atmosphere can certainly grow into an issue if a stagnant, more veteran team isn't held accountable and there are no repercussions for losing. But you rarely see it being an issue with a young team. A constant surge of young, hopefully talented players are going to keep this team on its heels. And when they finally all mature and gel and are ready to compete, whatever happened previously will be irrelevant.
Ok, it's obvious i'm wasting my time on this. I have said several times that I understand losing a LOT of games is part of the deal. They lose *a lot* as you say. What i'm talking about is being historically bad, 40-122 bad, and what kind of effect that "could" have on the clubhouse. Bringing up Tampa and Washington doesn't help here, because all of those 64-98 (win 2, lose 3) seasons don't compare with what i'm fearing this is going to become this year. I'm not talking about Tampa Bad, Washington Bad, 100 loss Bad, i'm talking about Historical bad. And Historical bad in many ways, not JUST losing. We are looking at blowing away the strikeout record. We are looking at blowing away the shutout record, heck we have been shut out 3 of 7 games and are one swing away from that being 4 shutouts in 7 games. There is a difference in winning 2 and losing 3 over and over, and what i'm talking about
So you want to know if there's a difference between bad and historically bad? I will say this... in this current system, where the #1 picking team gets the most slot money, and there's no lottery, it does pay to be historically bad vs simply just bad enough to get a top 5 pick. The team will do better once they get younger/better talent. The above team that you're talking about being historically bad will not be the core of this team when the younger guys come up. Enough teams have gone from worst to first once the talent started to show-up/gel. The key with the Astros rebuild is to accumulate enough prospects so that when they do get here, there's enough in the cupboard to keep churning out + guys for several years in a row.
Right, I understand all of this. My initial comment has led to a totally different conversation. I know this year's clubhouse won't have an effect on the clubhouse in 2015, or 2016 or whatever. My initial point was along these lines: Let's say the team IS historical bad, to where they set all kinds of futility records and the clubhouse is miserable (and i'm not saying it will be, i'm saying suppose that happens). THAT could effect a guy like JD Martinez, Matt Dominguez, Jason Castro, Chris Carter or whoever. I'm not saying those guys are going to turn out to be good players either way, but I am saying that it could have a negative effect on their ability to develop. I just wish guys like that were on a team that could at least be competitive from game to game, even while losing a lot of games. It isn't just that we have lost 6 games in a row, we have lost them by 7, 4, 5, 3, 6 and 3 runs. That is an incredibly small sample size, and hopefully it will get better. But if it doesn't get better, I fear that it will become a bad situation for the young guys. That was/is my point.
I dunno Altuve came up through a terrible farm system and he's doing fine. If these young guys can't handle a little or lot of losing then maybe they don't have the mental toughness to make it at this level. Chris Carter is not striking out at an alarming rate becausee we're losing. We're losing, in part, because he strikes out so damn much. Whatever guys can't make it at this level will be replaced in short order by players who can. We're not destined to be losers because we're incredibly awful right now.
I'd go with Old Hoss Radbourn, Walter Johnson, and Mordecai "Three-Finger" Brown. Seriously though, the key will be in the amateur market. The Astros will have the most money to spend in the draft (nearly $11.7 mil) and international free agency ($4.9 mil). That's well over $16 million to play with. I have no doubt that almost all of that will be spent, and then some. So... why spend money now just to get 4-5 extra wins?
We understand your point; we just don’t agree with it. The Nationals lost 100 games in back-to-back seasons as recently as 2009-10 – that is historically bad. And two years later, they’re now the best team in baseball. I can’t think of a clubhouse – in any sport – that derailed an infusion of new, legitimate talent by being negative. In fact, I don’t think I’ve heard of such a thing. Again, fat, lazy veteran clubhouse that’s going through the motions and not being held accountable? Sure. But a constantly changing clubhouse that’s adding youth and talent?... Plus, baseball, more than any other sport, has tremendous turnover – literally on an almost daily basis. The Astros’ roster is filled with placeholders who will be gone justlikethat (you can’t see – but I snapped my fingers) as soon as the young guys start ascending. And as for those younger guys… other than Altuve, Castro, maybe Carter – I don’t think the FO considers too many of these guys part of the nextgen. Also, keep in mind: most of the future stars are playing on winning teams in the minors. I’d be absolutely flabbergasted if Carlos Carerra arrived in 2-4 years and the team floundered because they lost a bunch of games in 2013. Seems like a total disconnect to me.
No you don't understand what I'm saying. I won't continue to type the same thing though, losing 100 games back to back is bad but not historical bad, Astros have done it now, as you yourself say Washington just did it. I was not talking about that, but no worries it is all good
Again, I understand perfectly; I just disagree. I don't think "historically" bad elevates it. Bad is bad. You can't really believe a 103-loss team is appreciably less toxic than a 120-loss team? But OK, historically bad... the Mets lost 100 games in 5 of 6 seasons, including setting the all-time mark for futility (120) as well as "historically bad" 112 and 111-loss seasons (plus a 109-loss season for good measure -- all among the 23 most losses in a single-season all-time)... and two years after that stretch, they won 100 and were World Series champions. And they'd be back in the World Series four years later. The Tigers lost 119 in 2003; were AL champions three years later. The D'Backs lost 111 and were AL West champions three years later. There're no examples of a clubhouse being adversely impacted by losing (even historical losing) - again, assuming the team is adding legitimate talent to said clubhouse and turning the roster over with youth and/or outside parts. The roster dynamics in baseball are in too much constant flux for any kind of atmosphere to really settle in. I would wager there won't be... five current Astros still on the team when they post their next winning record.
Ok, I'm just talking about the guys on the team now developing not the clubhouse now effecting the one two years from now. So that's cool. We are arguing about different things. Personally I do think there are several players on this team that could develop into regulars on a winning team. If it will help though I will say I am wrong and you are right and we can discuss something else
This thread got taken in a completely different direction that it started. If you go back to the original post and not the diversion, I would challenge anyone to bring up another owner who was such a PR disaster this quickly in his tenure.
I challenge you to name the circumstances of the first twelve months of tenure of at least four other owners. Point is: Crane is really royally screwing up as you correctly point out, but how many of us can really put it into context? What did Sterling's tenure look like first 12 months? Steinbrenner's? I do have one pretty big cluster**** for you though: Uncle JJ up in Dallas, with his historically disrespectful handling of Tom Landry. The superbowls they won on the backs of Emmit and Co. cured those ills for some, but I still have no use for that POS franchise, personally.
