Are the Astros about to go on the meaningless run?

No need to apologize, we're all fans here.

As for your question, of course I would enjoy it.

Even in this historically (for us) bad season, when no one expects us to win, I still yell at my tv when they screw up. I still get out of my chair and cheer when they do well.

The only thing I've said is that if we're going to continue to be a bad team this year, we at least have the first pick to look forward to.

We don't view the draft or player development differently at all. Nothing is a sure thing in baseball. I still wonder about the career Carlos Hernandez might be having for us if he hadn't hurt himself sliding into second.

I understand that pride in your (our) team forces you to root against our first 100-loss season, but at this point it's nearly unavoidable. Other teams have endured them before, and they weren't comforted by the drafting of the next Babe Ruth or Willie Mays. If you're waiting for the next Ruth or Mays, you're going to be waiting a long time.

Concerning all the names that you raised me, since '65, there have been 47 first overall picks, while there have been thousands upon thousands upon thousands (upon thousands, etc.) of non-first overall picks, so of course the odds are going to be in favor of drafting a star that didn't go first overall.

The only thing I'm saying (and will continue to say) is that it hurts us in no way to draft first.

I agree, we shouldn't tank to get there, because that's cheating the fans out of the product you're selling them. But they already knew it wasn't a quality product, so there are no surprises for them there.

As for "those other three whose careers won't live up", I dare you to tell me that right now, you wouldn't rather have Gonzalez over Lee at 1st (assuming we didn't sign him to the same stupid contact the Red Sox did), Mauer at catcher over Quintero/Corporan, or Upton in right over Michaels (ARGH!)/Bogey/Shuck.

EDIT: At the very least, we can agree that A-roid is a douchebag.

 

Precisely. The first pick is given to the team that sucks the worst because they need the most help. In and of itself it's obviously not a hurtful thing. I'd rather be in the draft position we were in between 1996 and 2006, however. Much rather. Our influx of talent, despite relatively low draft position, didn't hurt at all until right at the end of Hunsicker's reign it seems he forgot how to draft. And of course then there was Purpura, and the whole no-signing-over-slot crap.

Oh I hear you; my point is that drafting first doesn't make this level of suckage better; not nearly like drafting first in the NBA or NFL does. Those picks bring immediate hope for improvement; the MLB draft does not. I'm content with winning as many games as possible and drafting as well as you can. If you can't draft and develop well, you fire your GM (buh-bye Purpura).

If we had those guys, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now! By "those others whose careers won't live up," I don't mean that they're not better than current Astros; I mean that (by my prediction) at the end of their careers they won't fall in the same category as the others you listed. Or the second, seventh, and thirty-second rounders I listed.

Agreed! Go Astros!

 

I said pick by pick as well. I.e. the rate of success of the #1 overall pick is higher than the #2 pick higher than the #3 pick significantly higher than the #21 pick. (exponentially higher than the 32nd round).

Sure no pick is a safe bet, but you have to play the percentages. #1 overall picks have better success rates than #2 picks. (That assumes the team drafting first overall picks the best talent, not the most signable player.)

 

msn, I can't return your rep because I'm on my phone and it refuses to let me.

So I'm giving you mid-thread faux-rep.

Good talking to you.

 

These young guys, whether they ultimately win the game or not, are scaring the other team.

Right now our offense seems to be clicking but are defense and pitching are letting us down, which makes sense because we really are still waiting on the cossarts of the world to get ready.

The only really young guy that is doing well is bud norris.

 

Huh?

Norris is the only young guy doing well?

Word?

Martinez would like to talk with you.

Altuve would like to bang your wife.

Lyles will be at your door this offseason.

Paredes probably has some s*** to say, too.

Have you been watching the games, or did you scratch your prostate pulling that sentence out of your ass?

I'm sorry for being a dick, but seriously?

 

I'm talking about on the pitching side only. Not the whole team. Relax.

 

My bad, dude, I sincerely apologize.

Yeah, our pitching is terrible.

For what it's worth, I'm sure Altuve would have no chance with your wife

EDIT: I still have high hopes for Lyles.

'Stros before hoes!

 

8.5 game lead with 25 to play...

http://www.baseballamerica.com/chat/?1314803751

 

It's 4. The Twins have 59 wins right now. If we lost 4 more games and won the rest, we'd end up 58-104.

 

think of it this way... at least whichever way the meaningless run goes... it's meaningless.

 

oh look, we suck. in historical proportions.

*yay*.

 

Precisely. Because, all the evidence overwhelmingly points to bottom-feeder teams getting #1 draft pics and becoming the Yankees, while mediocre teams who actually learn to build an organization the right way, draft well, and never tolerate losing never get better. Like the 91-93 Astros, for example. Or take the Pirates, man, they're set up for... oh wait. Never mind.

 

Yeah this philosophy does not apply to baseball. Too many positions, and way too hard to project how draftees will turn out. Need years of good scouting and developmental coaches to get your entire organization competitive. Having the No. 1/No. 2 or whatever does not matter on the whole unless it is a year with Bryce Harper or what-not, even most times they are far from sure things as well.