The Rockies have so much talent in their farm system...and they've gone over slot once. That's all I'm saying. It's not necessary. There's plenty of talent out there to get. Identify the guys that want to play ball and will sign, and start picking.
Here's where you lose me. The novelty of the ballpark wore off by 2003. By that time, attendance went to its lowest point it's been at since they moved dowtown: 2.3 million fans. Houston has drawn over 3,000,000 fans 3 times since MMP was built. Two of those years were 2006 and 2007 (one of the awful years you cite to), when they failed to make the playoffs. 7 year old ballparks aren't drawing fans on novelty. Perspective: they only drew 2 million fans ONCE the entire decade of the 80's. That was 1980. They drew 1.1 million in 1985. Last year...as crappy as they were...they still drew 2.5 million fans. They never approached that number in the 80's. This franchise is infinitely healthier than it was in the 80's. It's had some real success in the playoffs (FINALLY!) within the last 5-6 years that has built a nice fan base. Even in the all-hallowed 1986 season, they only drew 1.7 million. I expect attendance will lag this year...as it will everywhere a team is in the cellar. That's not a Houston thing. But the Astros have outdrawn their own performance quite well over the last few years (2006 and 2007 in particular)...well after the novelty of a new ballpark wore off. From a fan experience standpoint, which I recognize is entirely subjective, I find it much more enjoyable to watch the 'stros playing somewhere other than an empty cavern. As for the 90's....it's easy to forget 91 when you were super competitive from 94 through 99. When I think of the 90's, I think of sustained exciting baseball and two guys who are likely the franchise's first Hall of Famers. That was the first time the Astros EVER looked like they were actually building a real organization. Where the good seasons weren't followed by abysmal disappointments. Where ownership dared to make trades to actually IMPROVE the team.
I disagree with this statement. I think that MMP is a phenomenal stadium and provides an excellent gameday experience. The sight lines are awesome. And yeah, I'm just relieved for the win.
Agreed entirely. You can scatter my ashes over MMP. All I said was that the novelty/newness of the ballpark isn't selling tickets anymore...and had diminished significantly by 2003, which actually was their worst year at the gate ever at MMP.
I'm pretty sure that's not true. Just last year their top pick (over a million dollars over slot) and their supplemental pick signed for overslot. Fangraph has them going over slot ($200,000 over the recommendation) twice in 08 and once in '07. They're slightly above-average in their spending. In the last five spend they spent the 13th most amount in the draft. Last year they spent the 8th highest amount in the draft.
my understanding is the team that went to the WS didn't have one player paid overslot. i don't know where i read that.
No the Rockies have gone over slot quite a few times. We just disagree about paying over slot. If the Astros want to limit themselves to players that will sign for slot thats fine, it will just take longer to rebuild the farm system. For instance, if Jameson Taillon from the Woodlands (widely considered the best prep arm in the draft) should fall like Tyler Matzek did last season and is available at #8, would you take him knowing it will require you to go above slot? Would you rather take a college pitcher who might be considered a reach, but you know will sign for slot? If the idea is to get better and introduce as much talent into your ailing farm system, then logic points to taking the most talented player.
Seems like the big problem with the Astros' farm system isn't their desire to not pay over slot, it's the drafting of players who want over-slot value and thus squandering that money when the player won't sign. If you're going to stick to a number, then you should pick a guy who will take that offer.
The Astros won more games than the Braves and Giants in '01. But that wasn't the point -- the point was they were *in* it, playing meaningful baseball games in late September. Add there were actually AIS. But how old were you? You don't have to answer if you don't want to; and again I don't ask in a combative way. If you remember it differently that's cool. The 80s were good times in a lot of ways, but attendance was very poor and the franchise just wasn't that healthy (as Max so well put it). Well, you'll note that I've compared 2006 to 1987, and it resonated with others here. The last couple of years -- especially last year -- are beginning to compare with 80s style misery: obtaining old players that don't put the team over the top, no chance to make the playoffs, etc. But there are still people attending the games, and because the Astros have very recently built one of the best organizations top-to-bottom in baseball, there is the hope that they will be able to build it *again*. The historical backdrop for the 80s was even greater sucktitude. The historical backdrop for right now is an organization that's gotten it right before and hopes to get it right again. Plus, we're in a great, great ballpark now. Yes, as Max so well spelled out for us, it was. DISAGREE. I hate, hate this sentiment. *Every* town's attendance goes up and down with winning and losing. Houston was called a "great baseball town" in the national media on more than one occasion in the late 90s. Neither sentiment is true. People simply show up to watch a winner and show up less to watch a loser. The exceptions are places like Chicago -- and it simply does not bother me that Houston is not Chicago. In every city it's the same: there is a segment of the population that rags on its city and compares it unfavorably to other so-called "good sports towns". Poppycock. How about the attendance that went up in the 90s? Max's comments here were spot-on. No, I've listed those in a long list of factors as to why that decade was, with three exceptions, miserable. Why are you cherry-picking Clancy or other personnel moves? You asked me why it was miserable. I gave you my answer. It has resonated with more than one person here. I'm certainly not expecting you to change your opinion, but you could at least try to acknowledge where we're coming from. Then you missed the beginning of the momentum. That explains a lot. Have you heard all the rhetoric lately about how the Astros should blow the thing up and rebuild? I'm not sure I agree with that, but when you *know* your team is young and entirely inexperienced, and you expect *nothing* at all from your team, then you can look at things other than being pissed off at the owner for pretending the team will be competitive having signed a 72-year-old third baseman and traded for a SS who was AL MVP back in '54. And that's what '91 was like. It sucked watching Hatcher and Doran go to the Show with the Reds, and it sucked losing those guys and Bass and Scottie and Davis -- but that team was getting old and the Astros management was not getting anything done right. So the team blew the thing up and McMullen sold. The result was a ton of young talent in '91. Yeah the team almost lost 100. But I'll tell you, watching Bagwell, Finley, Gonzalez, Cammy, Biggio, Harnish, Kile, and Reynolds as very young players and knowing the potential all those guys had was awesome. Simply awesome. You *knew* greater days were ahead. And if you *knew* greater days were ahead, you were *right*. That, my friend, is infinitely better than "Hey we signed Ken Oberkfell! Maybe that'll get us into 3rd place in the West instead of 5th!"
