In the 90s they had 2 seasons worse than any season in the 80s. In this past decade they had 3 seasons worse. The 0-9 season you cite, they won 85 games. NLCS 2 times. I still don't see what was so bad about the 80s, when you look at the history of the franchise. Not to mention the uniforms were 100x better.
Dude, when were you born? Please believe that I am not asking this in a combative sense at all -- your numbers are accurate and we all have *good* memories of the 80s. But if you were conscious enough of baseball to know what was going on at the time, as opposed to 3 or 4 years old or unborn, odds are you remember that every year outside of 80, 81, and 86 were flat-out miserable--and not because of the W/L record. ESPECIALLY '87 and '82. You'd remember the 'Dome looking like Montreal ca 2002 with the horrible attendance, and the way Houston was looked upon accordingly. You'd remember hearing Nolie was leaving and not believing it, and you'd remember that sick feeling in your stomach seeing him with ridiculous gay-looking "T" logo on his hat pitching for the Rangers. You'd remember Jim Clancy, a Cy Young winner for Toronto (IIRC) coming here and sucking huge donkey balls. And I'm sorry, but '91 and '92 were infinitely better to watch and experience than '82, '83, '84, '85, '87, '88, '89, and '90. Because we had young studs and we knew the Astros were building something. They were getting better every year. Our 'veteran' was an All-Star catcher in his early 20s, and we had a ROY slugging 1B and some great young bats in the outfield. We had pitching prospects all over the place. I still remember the "young guns of the west" advertising the marketing department was doing. Yeah, the 90s were infinitely better than the 80s. You can say they didn't make the LCS, but they made the playoffs *more* than in the 80s, they were close to the playoffs WAY more than in the 80s, and they didn't fall off the face of the earth every other year. No contest. Now, the 80s were better than the 70s and 60s; I'll give you that.
Deciding to draft just according to signability of a player limits the return you get on players. Tampa actually gave out one of the biggest bonuses (David Price) a few years ago and the Rockies went slightly over slot to sign Tyler Matzek last season. The Astros and the Mets are the teams that routinely do not go above slot, they would rather draft a guy who will accept slot. What I find overrated is paying Brandon Lyons $15 million over three years or picking up Brian Moehler's option when you could take some of that money and apply it to the draft and player development. Its the penny-pinching that the Astros have done with the draft and player development that has them in the situation they are in today. There is nothing wrong with going over slot for a player or players you feel could contribute better than others. Imagine if the Astros had gone slightly over slot to sign players from their 2007 Draft class. With no first or second round pick, the Astros picked Derek Dietrich in the third, Brett Eibner in the fourth, Chad Bettis in the eighth and Chad Jones in the thirteenth (although it was a huge long shot that he'd sign). Every single one of those players is considered a first day talent. Imagine what the farm system would look like if these guys were in the system. The problem with that draft was not identifying talent (as all four players have had productive college careers) it was failure to spend money on the draft. So I will gladly disagree that paying over slot is overrated.
Mike Ivie Rick Monday summed it up best when he said, "Mike Ivie is a forty-million-dollar airport with a thirty-dollar control tower."
Bud looked good. Carlos Lee's error made him pitch an extra 13 pitches that inning, so he could easily have gone for six innings.
Two other things to note - there were only 12 teams in the NL at the time, and you automatically made the NLCS because there was no wildcard. So, they never won a playoff series and they faced fewer teams to make the playoffs (though with fewer playoff spots).
The only reason the Astros even made the playoffs in the 90s was the adding of a new division. They would not have made the playoffs otherwise, b/c the Braves and/or Giants always had better records than they did.
Whats funny about that is that the orioles is composed of alot of our old guys. Scott, Tejada, Wiggington, Lugo, Albers. So its basically a match of futility. Who's worse.... former astros or current astros
I don't remember it being miserable. Why was it so much worse than 2007, 2009, or RIGHT NOW? I don't think the attendance was as bad as you make it out to be, but even so, Houston is not a good sports town. That is well-established. Attendance going up because of a new ballpark doesn't really matter to me. Because they're in a new park, that makes those recent terrible years better? I don't see it. You're taking single personnel moves like Clancy and trying to define the decade with them. I'll admit I lost interest in the 90s, and if you liked that better then great. But you're going to tell me that winning 65 games in '91 was "infinitely better" than almost all of the 80s? Sorry but I can't buy that. Also, 1990 isn't part of the 80s, so don't try to use it to bolster your case.
this is his first year of arbitration. they did well to make him prove that it wasn't a fluke. If he has another great year or improves...yeah, they should probably lock him up. But another 1 year deal/arbitration wouldn't be the worst thing in the world
