Maybe... but at the same time, 1 key FA signing every 10 years (you have to go back to Drabek and Swindell) doesn't exactly exorcise all past demons. Nonetheless, I would be pleasantly shocked if we signed Kent.
he was the second best 2B of his era in the NL...only Ryne Sandberg was better. solid is stretching it?? any guy who plays rock solid defense like that and can hit at the top of the order is, at the very least, solid. he played a lot of years, derrock. agreed he's not as good as kent, bidge and morgan...but geez, who is??? the list is pretty damn short!
blah blah blah...won't spend money...blah blah blah...won't put up a winning team...blah blah blah...my blinders are on so tight they hurt my eyes.
Boston will never trade Damon. He is their 1st leadoff hitter they have had in their 100+ year history. I don't really see Boston as being a good trading partner, since they lack a farm system, as well as affordable players. There is no way we can get Nomar, Manny, Damon, or Pedro. After that, the talent drops off tremendously. I would s#it a golden brick if we could somehow trade Wagner + whatever for Nomar.
That's alright. I didn't really expect the bashers to have a full turnabout anyway, based on past records.
Wow. It's funny how SPECULATION on Kent has fooled you into thinking that McLane has done everything he can to win. At the moment, we are an 85-win team. If that's what you call winning (just having a winning record) then your expectations are lower than Steve Francis' basketball IQ.
no...i'd call 4 division championships in 6 years winning, though. are the cardinals a "winning" team?? they've been unable to have the success the astros have had in the last 6 years.
were you even alive when doran was starting at 2b for the astros?? do you have any recollection of him as a player at all??
Well they are a winning team RIGHT NOW, right? McLane didn't do anything, other than hire Hunsicker to aid in the "winning" cause. I love how you compare the Astros to just the Cards. Maybe winning a playoff series for the first time in franchise history would. Winning the worst division in baseball doesn't really do much. The Astros are consistent, but far from "winners".
Ah yes, the ultimate "grasping of straws" the old "Were you even alive???" question. Yes, I was alive to see him play. In fact, he was one of my favorite players, but just because he was the 2nd best in his league at a bad position, doesn't make him THAT good. Someone had to #2 right?
I was suprised to see that his tenure at 2B is second only to only Biggio. I don't remember his D because I was only 10 during his hey day. But he was really better than Steve Sax, Juan Samuel, and Tommy Herr at 2nd...again, defense was a foreign word to me back then...baseball cards never had statistics on defense
it's a 162 game season...i can't stress that enough...this isn't basketball where every team in the league makes it to a tournament style playoffs round...this is baseball, where the regular season actually counts. second...the NL Central is not the worst division in baseball, at all! most of those years, the worst division has been the AL West, though that's changed. The AL Central this last year was pretty weak. Nevertheless, winning a division is nothing to sneeze at. you can call them playoff chokers all you want, and i'll stand right beside you and agree...but to say mclane hasn't tried to win is nuts...he has put teams on the field that clearly were capable, if they had performed as expected (as they had in the regular season) in the playoffs, would have been, by your definition, "winners." but they didn't do that...and mclane can't help it when .300 career hitters bat .100 in the playoffs. you put your best players forward and hope they get the job done...we've clearly had enough talent, though. and i can't understand why you can't understand that...we go through this over and over and over again...and usually when i make this point you stop posting...and i don't see you again until the next thread where the issue pops up.
Yeah...you were what...6 years old when he left Houston? Yeah...mainly because we've won more games than they have 4 out of the last 6 years. It's a fair comparison. I guess he could spend as much as the Yankees. But then the credit unions will be running the team again in a couple of years...and you think we aren't competitive now.
whatever...you're right...he sucked. he wasn't solid at all. he was the 2nd best 2b of his generation...but he really wasn't any good...in fact, despite being the second best of his generation, he probably was the worst all time...and if mclane had signed him he would probably have had horns and a pitchfork.
Going back to the original point of this thread (not having to do with Doran, or McLane), I am 50/50 to signing Kent. Kent is supposedly a selfish a-hole. Would he get along well with Bagwell, Biggio, Berkman, and the others? While teamwork isn't really needed in baseball, camaraderie is valuable in a 162-game season where you play 9 out of 10 days. Also, Kent is really really inconsistent. He really thrived batting in front of Bonds. While Bagwell or Berkman would provide more than enough protection, both of them COMBINED may not provide as much as Bonds himself.
Being from the Bay Area, the consensus among Giant fans (which I am not) is that Kent was as much of the problem as Barry. He was very stubborn by refusing to believe Barry should be given any special treatment. The situation in SF just brought out the worst in him. I don't think the Astros will have such a problem because I've never heard of the Killer B's getting special treatment and Jimy Williams doesn't strike me as the type. Kent would be awesome in the Astros lineup and he's gonna want to prove that he can do it without Barry. Yes, Bags and Berkman can't provide the protection of Barry but they don't need to: Kent often batted behind Barry.
PLease tell when was the last time a guy like Wagner played for the BoSox (I mean a somewhat dominant center). Boston have lost many games late in the last 2 years and they will do whatever to rectify that. Yes it maybe easier to get a good closer but the BoSox somehow cannot figure out that puzzle (though they tried). I love the Astro and I am excited about the prospect of seeing positive changes in our team next season.
Why should we sign Urbina? he is a "dead horse" in my opinion and we don't need him unless he will sign for 500,000 USD or less. He is injury prone and he can hardly get anyone out anymore. PLease not Urbina.
