Not a good comparison at all, IMO. -We traded up for Eddie Griffin in 2001. -We acquired Yao and set the stage for him to come here, and extended young superstar in his prime Francis for the next 6 years (not comparable at all to the Berkman extension because of the length, and because we would have had Berkman under contract anyhow, just helped relations with him). From the few accounts we have, the Rockets made a choice not to make a play for Webber not of of money, but out of preference for other options. -The Rockets right now are brimming with *young* talent at every position. The Astros have major holes on the left side of the infield, a LF forced out of position (into CF), 2 underachieving corner outfielders, question marks on the staff for everyone except Miller, Oswalt, Dotel, and Wagner, and an aging though still decent right side of the infield. I'm not being negative on the Stros-I expect them to fight the Cards to the wire for the division again. But, I don't suspect anything exciting to happen. Resigning Reynolds may have been about it. Didn't the Astros decline arbitration on all of their free agents? Last year, they did the same thing out of fear that they'd accept the arbitration offers and/or didn't want to pay the picks. We haven't been real players in any of the major free agent discussions (okay, Woody Williams-who said he'd take a hometown discount, the fact we still lost out on him tells me that our offer wasn't anything near the Cardinals'). The team's just not in a mode to add any significant amount of salary. To think that Drayton would add salaries in the 6-8 million range now, let alone the money Guerrero, Vazquez, or Colon will get in 1-2 years via free agency is wishful thinking; to think the Expos would take an albatross of a contract like Hidalgo to balance the deal out is also wishful thinking. I'd love to get Vlad or Colon or Vazquez, but I just don't see it happening. I think Hunsicker is a fabulous GM with a great staff of talent scouts and developmental people in the minors. I'd love to see what he could do with a salary cap evening the playing field.
Of course, that's not a fair comparison, either, since baseball draft picks cannot be traded. It really is near-impossible to compare baseball with the other major sports leagues.
Vlad is nice, but really, really expensive. Ditto for Bartolo. Vasquez? No way they'll trade him for what he's worth. He's a superb pitcher, but it'd take a king's ransom to get him. But Jose Vidro? I'd like to get me some of that. A 28yr old middle infielder, who can hit for a decent average and power and he drew a respectable amount of walks.
Part of the story about the Expos is that they are willing to trade these guys for prospects, a little cash and a pizza to be named later.
I believe that when they negotiated the new CBA, they put a provision in there to where draft picks are now tradeable commoditites. Its very possible Im wrong on this however.
The Rockets are a better franchise thats all Im saying. The Astros are the same boring ass team every year. I like Berkman and Dotel but the Astros will not beat out the Cards if they go to Spring trainning with that same team they had last year. Thats a fact. You see the Rockets have improved a great deal from last year. Can't say the same about the Astros. You may be an Astro fan but lets be honest for a minute.
So coming in first or second in the division for 8 of the last 9 years is boring? If so, give me boring over style any day.
I have to agree with what Lil' Francis had to say and also would like to point out that the argument that a lack of a salary cap in baseball is what hurts the Astros from competing doesn't hold water. There are teams in basketball that spend to the limit and beyond (Lakers, Heat, Knicks, Blazers and Mavs) and you have lower echelon teams that keep payroll low (Clippers). The Astros can compete, but it all starts with $$$, not just signing the players, but with scouting and sound personnel moves. Lets hope the Astros make some moves to improve.
Oh, but of course the Astros have made major offseason aquisitions throughout the years. Take this year for example - getting back a healthy Shane Reynolds is "just like an aquisition" and a trimmed down Daryle Ward is like trading for a power bat.
Do you even realize how silly that sounds? There is nowhere remotely close to the payroll disparity from top to bottom in the NBA like there is in MLB. The Yankees will spend almost 4 TIMES as much as the Expos this year. That's sick. The NBA has a more tightly bunched group of guys. BOTTOM LINE: If MLB had a salary cap, free agents wouldn't be going for tens of millions a year. Many more teams would be in the running. The way things are economically in baseball...only 3 or 4 teams have a chance to land those free agents. The Astros aren't among them. In order to opine on a problem...you have to UNDERSTAND that problem first. You don't understand the problem.
Believe me I UNDERSTAND the distinction between MLB and other sports with salary caps. My point is that the Clippers' payroll is about three times less than the Blazers payroll (i.e. some owners are willing to pay more and surpass the cap threshold, but they have the burden of the luxury tax). Whereas MLB has no salary cap, therefore teams can spend whatever they want. It is the SAME to a degree in other sports, where owners can pay whatever they want, the only difference is the penalty of the luxury tax. If baseball had a salary cap and luxury tax, then outrageous contracts would stop. So if this is the point you're making then again I UNDERSTAND. The Astros in a perverse way have an advantage, if they had an owner willing to spend they could outbid another team for another players' services. Whereas in the NBA a player can make more money staying with his team. So before you tell me I don't understand, why don't you try reading the post another time to UNDERSTAND it first.
Do you want to know why the Rockets are getting substantially better and the Astros are not? It is because the Astros are have been quite good for a quite a good, long while now. They have competed in their division most seasons, and they have won their division 4 of the last 6 years. When you do that, you don't get high draft picks that can vastly improve your team (Yao Ming).
And that is a HUGE deterrent...just as Mark Cuban said on ESPN Radio last week. And the labor market would drift back toward equilibrium...and the Astros would at least be in the running for a lot of the free agents. NO owner in the same circumstances as Drayton would be willing to spend substantially more. THAT is the point. Nobody wants to lose money. The most liberal of estimates have the Astros operating with a profit of $6M. So any owner who would increase payroll by more than $6M would LOSE MONEY.
And at the same time, bringing in a player worthy of 10 million per year would raise attendance and give the Astros a legitimate chance at the championship, both of which would lead to income for Mr. Drayton. *Edit* Let me give you an example. On average, the days that Oswalt or Miller pitch generate larger crowds than when Hernandez pitches. So, bringing in Colon may cost our owner some money, but he would get it back because attendance will increase on days that he pitches. On top of that, having a 1-2-3 punch of Colon, Oswalt, and Miller would do wonders in the playoffs.
If youve got a championship calibur team, yes. We did not have that last year. We also started slow, thus ending any hope that fans would support the team like they should. Houston fans are as fair weather as it gets. Its important to start well and play well all season. If we have a very competitive team, then you should not only see a hike in attendance, but a few playoff games too. And once you are in the playoffs, a pitching staff of Colon, Oswalt, and Miller almost assures you of doing some damage.
We averaged around 30,000 a game. Another 10,000 cheap seats a game isn't going to bring those types of revenues. I hate to break it to you...but we HAD a "championship-calibur" team for a good part of the last 6 years. The Astrodome was FAR from being sold out in 1998. Why should Minute Maid be any different?
We didnt have Berkman, Oswalt, or Miller during our Dome Days. Thats a big difference and thats my point. People come out to see talent. Also, do you realize what even 5,000 extra fans per game can do? Well, good things.
In 1998 we had Bags and Bidge in their prime...a 19 game winner in Reynolds...a 16 game winner in Lima...and a 11 game winner in Hampton. It was a damned exciting team. They didn't win a championship, but they were a championship-calibur team. In 1999...they didn't sell out. Currently...the Yankees don't sell out...they don't even really come close. Why would the Astros be any different? They'd sell out for a month and then drop off again.
Well, if we dont bring in another player, we are guarenteed to not sell out. If we bring in a stud, and start winning games, at least our attendance will go up from the 30,000 per game. We may not sell out, but revenues will still go up.
