Are the Astros about to go on the meaningless run?

This brings up an important point...I'd like to restate that I really hope the Pirates aren't the model of what we want to be when we grow up. I know everyone got all loopy when they were ONE GAME OVER .500 for the first time in 427 years....but turns out, they still suck. They just don't suck as bad as we do.

 

Yep. As I said in an earlier post, the only thing I want the Astros to emulate the Pirates doing is to sign the consensus number one pick in the draft.

 

And I only want 1 of them. Don't want multiple #1's in a short period of time. Might work out nicely for the Nats, but it only means we're the worst team in baseball more than once.

 

I don't think there is a consensus No. 1 pick in the draft next year.

 

T-Slack, it's called hyperbole. Look it up.

"Get it through your thick head that we have to fall on hard times to get where we were in the mid 2000's." Do you realize you're talking to someone who followed the Astros through the 70s and 80s?

Here are some things for you to try and absorb through your own thick head:
* The baseball draft ain't like the others. No Strasburg or Harper this year, baby. Who's the obvious #1? Who's going to be the Astros' savior? You know how much difference there will be between any of the top 10 picks? Not much. You know how many lower round picks will also perform just as well? 4 or 5. How about your team manage the *entire* draft well rather than SUCK HISTORICALLY hoping to land a Bryce Harper that DOESN"T EXIST next year. Do you get it yet, thickhead?

* You really want to be the Tigers? Awesome. In the last twenty years, how often have they been relevant. Oh, and "in the last six years" guess who else has been to the world series. 2005 was a good year.

* If I'm an Orioles fan, I'm hoping Angelos sells the team. He could draft Babe Ruth and still manage to screw things up. In the meantime, I enjoy some decent baseball for the three weeks they managed to do it.

* Check out the Nationals in four years. You know who we're going to be talking about in the NL East? Unless they make organizational changes, we'll still be talkign about the Braves and Phillies. Because #1 picks don't save bad organizations.

The only thing I got "served" was another boatload of drivel from another guy who thinks MLB is just like his fantasy league.

Losing is for losers. Celebrating losing is also for losers.

 

The point: the Astros have built winners three times in their history, all without being the losingest team in the league and all without the mythical saving "first pick!!!!!1".

Most teams who draft first remain losers. You know why? Because losing is for losers.

Fearing getting "mired in mediocrity" is an interesting thought: do you not fear getting mired in Royal-dom or Pirate-ness?

And, I'm sorry I returned your whole "thick head" schtick. I really disagree with your perspective, but it doesn't make you thick-headed or stupid. Even if you don't realize the converse is also true.

 

By the time the season ends there may be. My point is, I don't want them to settle for a signable pick as they did with Nevin. If there are 3 'consensus' picks, I'd prefer them to sign one of them rather than the 4th or 5th guy because he'll take less money.

 

True, but they went after Springer this year in the 1st round and did a good job of signing nearly all the high ceiling draftees this year. I would think they would continue to do that.

Where is everyone getting the idea that the Astros are "destined" to an extended period of bad baseball? Yes, they spend 3-4 years of signing over-the-hill MLB's instead of continuing to the build their minors. Yes, now that they have realized their mistake they seem to be focusing on building the minors and not wasting money on unnecessary free agents. But I just don't see why you are all so certain that the Astros are looking at being the Pirates for the next 15 years?