Brewers didnt get better. Claudio Vargas? Please...I know hes been good but hes a journeyman. And you could argue the Cubs got better but theyre chasing guys off Pittsburgh's roster. Really?! Cubs have underachieved and will always underachieve/choke. The Reds got Rolen but theyre not even in the race! 6 games back or something? (Not sure on how many games back) Astros didnt do nothing but then again, our move will be releasing Ortiz, getting Norris, and getting Oswalt, Berkman, and Erstad back. Pirates sold everyone and are fielding an AAA team. Cardinals, IMO, are the only team that has gotten significantly better. Derosa, Lugo, and Holliday.
So most of you are cool with 81-81 for the next few years correct because thats where were headed...I believe If we rebuild right it can be done in 1-2 years Max 3 years look at the the early 90's Stros teams...we rebuilt and took 91,92 and 93(.500 team) and Bam in contention in 94 and the streak began!
actually, the streak continued - the streak of no playoff appearences. it would eventually total 9 years, and five of those (with '94 not counting) were after bagwell joined biggio on the major league roster. (psst and the astros don't have another bagwell or biggio on their farm, let alone one of each. so 1-2 years? 3 years MAX? you're naive.)
If you can't offer specifics, your criticisms don't have a leg on which to stand. Do you want to know what the Astros had to offer? Jack ****. If Rosenthal is correct in his quote above, perhaps they could have offered Bazardo and some AAAA outfielder for Davis or Garland. Do you *really* think that would have gotten it done? If it were that easy to land one of those guys, wouldn't the market have been something other than "remarkably silent"?
One should know my stance I would of been selling like crazy today, luckily, Im not the GM or the owner. Tejada would of been gone, either Boston or Minnesota. Pick up one of Boston' young good pitchers or Minnesotas. Valverde would've easily been gone. Many teams looking for relief pitchers including Angels and Dodgers. Heck even throw Florida in there. Then others that would be considered to be moved: Hawkins, Pudge(though he probably would of never been brought in in the first place), Matsui and maybe a Berkman and Oswalt. {I'm sure theyre tired of losing}
Nope. Disagreeing over what it will take to get better does *not* constitute "being cool with 81-81." Please make a note of that. We *all* want the same thing--please don't accuse anyone of being happy with mediocrity. It's simply not automatic like that in baseball. Dude, I'm sort of with you here, too--I *loved* watching the young guys during that rebuild that began in '91. Good times. They looked good in '94, but they didn't really become the NLC juggernaut until '97. A fantastic discussion on this very thing happened earlier this season. My opinion was right where yours is today; Ric's take on it moved me over a bit. There was some outstanding discussion back then. Good stuff.
As was this one...thanks guys for the Convo need to take off but everyone has a different view point on this issue but one thing is for sure we want the Stros to win and if there mindset of bringing up Norris and Bazardo to do it works il be the first to tip my hat and nothing would make me happier!
I'm sure they hated being on the only 2 teams in franchise history to win a playoff series. Berkman's been on two losing teams, and Oswalt only one. They must really hate their teams having a .527 winning percentage since they've both been here.
Agree to write the checks and then you get to b**** about Drayton. I love it when people who have no clue about the economics of baseball want to spend like the Yankees. If you spend more than you take in, then you go bust. It happened to the Astros in the 1980s, and I can remember how bad it was when the credit unions ran the team. Do you really want to go back to that?
It's not quite that clear yet. Albers is a functional reliever (3.5 ERA) and could have been in the backend of the rotation this year as opposed to Ortiz, for example. Troy Patton, after his arm surgery last year, has a 1.99 ERA in AA, so he still might have some type of MLB future.
Why don't you have another look at last year. It's not really that hard to find out what their record was in 2008 when they had the 5th best record in the NL and were probably a hurricane away from making the playoffs.
So you'd be willing to still have Everett (or someone like him) at shortstop instead of the guy leading the league in hits so that we could keep a serviceable reliever (we have 5 relievers currently on the roster with a sub-3.5 ERA) and a guy doing well in AA?
Well, if we hadn't made the Wigginton trade, we could have a 0.980 OPS guy at Shortstop having a much better season than Tejada... but that said, yes, if the goal is to compete in the long-term rather than the short term, I'd much rather have Scott, Everett, Albers, Qualls, Patton, Burke, Zobrist, Taveras, Hirsh, Buchhoz, etc + lots of payroll flexibility. You could trade any of those guys to fill needs and/or use the extra money to fill holes, and release the rest. Trading multiple major leaguers that can legitimately fill roster spots for 5 years for cheap for one or two guys that you have for 1-2 years and must pay (Jennings, Valverde, Tejada) generally isn't ideal unless your team is aiming to go from good to great. It's not as useful to take a team from bad to mediocre because it gets you stuck at mediocre (which is where we are now) Keep in mind - in my mind, it's not any one trade that's the big problem. It's the accumulation of all of them together - a philosophy of always trying to be OK has delayed the ability to be really really good.
Everything starts and ends with pitching.....Nobody is asking them to splurge on a pitcher, just make an effort to acquire one who is consistent, and not garbage alas russ ortiz, mike hampton
I definitely understand where you are coming from. I'm just saying, that team you named would not be any better (probably much worse) than the one we are fielding now. So, with that team and the payroll flexibility you mentioned, wouldn't an ideal situation be to trade a backup outfielder, a decent reliever, and a couple of run of the mill minor leaguers for one of the top shortstops in the game? If we were in that situation I am sure everyone would want us to pull that trigger. I see what you are saying in that these big trades were not a good long term decision. The thing is, though, nobody besides Zobrist has turned out to be a huge loss... and he never showed any signs of becoming the stud he has become while he was here. I really think we were screwed either way, and I feel that bringing in Tejada, Valverde, etc. at least kept things interesting until our new regime of draft picks make it up here. Can you honestly imagine cheering for the team you mentioned? I think that would be brutal...
Name me everyday, All-Star calibur outfielders and starting pitchers that could have been had at the time for significantly less? We signed Lee on the heels of losing Beltran. Roy signed his deal as a Cy Young candidate. Letting Roy walk would have been a PR disaster. You probably would have been complaining the loudest. Besides...if we had made a trade for a SP...how much less would he make than Roy? Garland makes $6.25 million a year, and he is on the low side of established pitchers that could be had via trade.
If it's black and white and the alternative was having tradeable assets and [most likely] being piss poor, then what we currently have is better. After the run in '05, it was a transition and rebuilding wasn't considered, so it went from having great pitching and no hitting, to today's crap pitching (outside of Oswalt, Wandy, and Valverde) and great (on paper) hitting. With Ed Wade's track record, the concern is mediocrity. I don't think it's wise to patch this current roster with have-but-never-really-were-beens. If it's a black or white issue and the choices are the Rebuild Roster (Burke, Everett, Taveras, etc.) or the 2009 2-Man Rotation, yeah we'd take the current version. But to me, that's like choosing between the Pittsburgh Pirates or the Cincinnati Reds. Either way it's depressing to think about.
The astros have great hitting? Even on paper? There are a ton of holes on the team, but the main problem is the offense.
