They've also set up ridiculously high expectations for expected prolonged success... which they almost HAVE to attain now after making the fans endure this sort of suffering... and with only one similar example (the Ray's), its not going to be a sure thing. Then again, people are more than overjoyed with a 70 win team (including somewhat myself, provided they're not a laughing stock), so maybe they don't need a lot of prolonged success to make people happy... (but I doubt it).
I don't think the idea was just to get the #1 pick, it was to get the #1 pick each round, be able to trade off existing players for prospects and be able to give guys like Dallas K and McHugh a chance when they normally wouldn't get one. Concerning the #1 picks, it is too early to tell anything. Correa could never develop, Appel become mediocre and blow the #2 pick next year. Likewise, Correa could be everything the scouts think (perennial all star), Appel becomes a #1-2 and everyone will be talking about how collecting #1 picks rebuilt the Astros. Could the Astros have rebuilt without the #1 pick in each draft? Absolutely, but it would have been harder. Guys like Correa, Appel, Ruiz and others probably wouldnt be in Houston's future.
Are you the real Max?? I'm asking because the last 2 weeks or so of posts have been very unlike you. I don't mean any disrespect and I'm by no means trying to invalidate any of your opinions, but the calm, collected, patient MadMax,that I'm used to seeing around here, seems like someone pushed him over a cliff. I get your arguments, but the direction of the franchise is the same today as it was the last couple of years, and like RM95 said since May they are even better than I expected them to be at this point in the rebuild. In fact, I am way more optimistic today than I was 6 months ago. My point being, a month/month and a half ago, you were even keel, the team is making strides. The same old mostly optimistic Max. Then all of a sudden it is like someone switched your brain out with Hillboy or Granville, and Crane and company beat you up and stole your lunch money. Like I said, it is nothing against you or your opinions. I have a lot of respect for you and the posts you make. Just trying to find out the straw that broke the camel's back.
They would have had Correa/Ruiz anyways, since that #1 pick came from just being bad under the end of the Drayton/Wade era in 2011. I'm not sold that it would have been that much harder. Wasn't Luhnow running circles around the rest of the league with #20 something picks with the Cardinals? Other teams have also rebuilt (and in some metrics surpassed) the Astros farm system with lower picks. Agree its too early on Appel... but I don't think its a stretch to say that he's not a once-in-a-lifetime "true special" one that you have to have the #1 pick to get... and we knew that before he was drafted (and struggled).
Who has done it successfully from the Astros' starting point, and how long did it take? Absolutely - but this is some of that good-to-great philosophy. They are aiming for greatness, and it's being done at the expense of a higher likelihood to be good. They may absolutely fail - if the standard is only a WS title and nothing else (ie, the 2000-2006 period was considered a failure), they probably will because only 3% of franchises "succeed" in a given year.
It's been one thing after another with this franchise over the last few years...and I've stumbled over myself trying to defend them at every turn. I'm just tired of it. They're a PR disaster fielding a minor league product at major league prices. I love the franchise, but I hate what has been done to it.
I don't know who did it from where the Astros started. I don't know how to effectively compare that, and frankly I don't want to spend the time on it. I'm tired of discussions like that...more excuses. Just win something..sometime..ever. I'd like to see them win a WS sometime...before I die. But we're not talking about WS winner. We're talking about fielding a team whose only celebration is avoiding 100 losses.
Fair enough - but understand that your goal may just be unrealistic. Excuses can be silly copouts or they can be legitimate. If we don't have any examples of teams rebuilding faster than the Astros from a similar starting point, then its possible the excuses might just be legitimate. Do you consider the 1997-2006ish period a reasonable success for the Astros? From your previous post about 2 championships in 150 years, it sounds like nothing but a championship is acceptable and that run is just part of a history of suckitude for the Astros.
Maybe the Rays... and it took 10 years of losing nearly a 100 games... then they were good/great from 2008-2013... now they're going to possibly go through a rebuilding process again. You underestimate the "expense" of what they've done to this franchise. Yes, we all know the goal is to be "great". Some teams go from bad to great to bad again (Marlins), some teams take forever to get to that point, even with all the "right moves", but may never win it all (Rays). Some teams endure even longer streaks of ineptitude, just waiting for the right combination of prospects and acquisitions to make a run (Royals, Pirates, Orioles.... maybe Astros?). Hell, I wouldn't be surpassed if teams like the Phillies and Mets (who by all accounts have weaker farm systems and aging big league rosters) still find a way to put it together and get some great teams before the Astros do. Like Max, I could have done without the embarrassing level of sucktitude (making Astros baseball barely a blip on the Houston radar), combined with PR mishap after mishap, but continued arrogance towards anybody who questioned it. But yes, the farm system was rebuilt...
Are we really complaining because they lost 100+ games instead of 90+, because that's the general sense I'm getting. Bad is bad IMO When Crane/Luhonw took over in 2012, a complete franchise rebuild was always in the cards. 2016 was always the target year for being a playoff threat. People are acting as if this team has been on a treadmill when in fact they have stayed exactly on the promised path. Drafts take a while to make an impact, and the 2012 class hasn't even gotten here yet. Those of us who have defended this administration have done so for that exact reason, a 5 year plan to rebuild something special from the bottom up, and improvements are already showing with us playing close to .500 over the last 100 games.
There's bad... then 50 feet of crap... then where the A's were.... then 5000 feet of crap... and then the experimenting at the MLB level/minor league charging major league prices/Astros. My original point was that I'd gladly take years like this (with slight supplementation of actual MLB players/talent to go along with the young kids) over the last two years.... and its still likely going to be a 90 loss team. If we're going to applaud a 20 game improvement, and only losing 90 something games as "progress", then I guess you have your answer... there can be a significant difference between years like this and losing 110+ games. We've already gone over the benefits (or not) of having the #1 pick... which I feel was the only tangible benefit for sucking as bad as they did.
I really don't feel like I'm being unfair here, Major They've been historically bad..and the franchise has very little show for its 50 plus years of history aside from one pennant. 1997-2006 were the glory years of this franchise's existence...and it amounted to one league pennant and a sweep in the World Series. I love them to death...but that's just what they are. I can live with that fine...but what they've done on and off the field over the last few years has been like something out of a movie. It's been terrible. That's why I said earlier..after what they've put their fanbase through during that time, they better be as effing smart as they'd have us believe. And they better win.
I agree - I think the Rays would be the best example of a similar situation. And they took 10 years. We're about 3-5 years into this process depending on where you consider the starting point. I'd argue we're well ahead of the Rays, though obviously, we have no idea what the end result will be. So if we're ahead of the pace of the best example of a successful build from a similar starting point, what is the argument that the Astros are doing this wrong or that more should be expected or that they should be improving more quickly?
Who said they should be improving more quickly? Also, I would hope the expected run of success goes for a little longer than the Rays did, regardless of how long it takes. The original argument was if the biggest reason to be optimistic about this team's future is the rebuilt farm system... how much of that could have been attained without the experimentation at the MLB level (which after watching all the Trevor Crowe's, the Marc Krauses, and the Lucas Harrell's, I'm waiting for one of these experiments to work out...), and decimating the MLB brand to the point that they HAD to infuse some talent/payroll this year in order to appease MLB/MLBPA (let alone the actual fans who pay to watch these games). Just a little more balance between prospects and actual MLB talent (and still attempting to put the "best" team on the field, in terms of promotable prospects)... a little less "embarrassing"/brand-killing roster construction... and I know there's not supposed to be much difference between losing 90 games and losing 110 games, but it sure as hell feels like there is.
Considering we had a 66% payroll boost this past offseason, it is only reasonable to assume that it will take another jump this upcoming offseason. Especially with the TV issues seemingly getting closer to ending.
