Which were the two "really good seasons"? He signed his contract after the 2000 season in which he hit 44 HRs with a .300+ average. The next year he dropped to 19 and .275, the next year 15 and .235. Last year was a good year and this year has been a nosedive since April. Incidentally, his contract doesn't just "go away" after this season. The Astros would have had to pay 2 million which the Mets are now going to have to pay.
Sorry for the confusion. Like pgabriel stated earlier, losing Hidalgo was the last straw. I've defended the organization for years even when I didn't agree with some of the moves that were made and laughed off a friends accusations of foul play within the organization. I can remember this friend of mine crying when we lost the Billy Hatcher game in 86 but now he is no longer a fan and actually roots against the home club because he feels that the 'stros somewhere along the line stopped wanting players of color (blacks in particular) on the team. Sadly, I can no longer argue with him. Where's Andruw or Jacque Jones, Torii Hunter, Dontrelle Willis, and Juan Pierre when we need them?
I'd say he had one great season (2000, when we had nothing to play for since we were out of it so early), one good season (2003) and two bad ones. That equals not getting value for the outrageous money that, gasp, McLane signed him for. Also, we would've had to buy out his contract after this year, I believe, so that saved us $4 million. I think you can probably count on your hands the number of people who follow baseball who think that Hidalgo was worth the money he was being paid. His production this year has been awful, save for the first two weeks of the season. Yeah, that'd probably suck. But it's more indicitive of a bad hitting coach rather than racist management.
Of course, what minorities have we gotten rid of (and the trade not end up in our favor) that match the talen of those players you just mentioned?
If you root for race over a team, you aren't a real fan to begin with. Sorry. So you feel that Hidalgo should have been kept on the team, just because of his skin color??? Regardless of his salary/performance ration??? Saying that he feels they no longer want players of color on the team is totally without base. If that was the case, there would have never been players like Everett, Alou, Hunter, etc. on the team to begin with. Seriously, someone explain that to me .......these were not home grown players, Drayton and Gerry went out and aquired these players. So if they don't want players of color on the team, how can this be explained???
man, you guys drastically overrate richard hidalgo. at $15 million, the mets were the ONLY takers of this guy. it was a bad contract for a feast or famine player. you're lamenting the loss of richard hidalgo like he was some all star...just wasn't the case. by the way..i would LOVE to have jacque jones, torii hunter juan pierre patrolling the outfield. there are 2 teams who have those 3 players, though. 2. there's 30 in all of MLB. so the astros stand convicted with the other 28 teams.
i hate the rockets because they're all black, except boki and piatkowski. the rockets clearly have it in for white guys...they don't care about them...they don't give either a real chance. i'm pissed. i hate the rockets b.s. the only color that matters is the red on their freaking jerseys. isn't that one of the points of integration...of affirmative action?? to show people that, like MLK said, it isn't the color of the skin that counts??? apparently it does.
dwil, then why'd they draft Charlton Jimmerson and Mike Rodriguez, and why did they trade JRob for Taveras? They had a huge need for young OFers and I'm sure there were some white guys available... pgabs, I understand where you're coming from but I hope you can understand why I find bull**** like the post above offensive.
And lets take into consideration whether those players are available. Its easy to say that we should have more blacks on our team. Its harder to come up with ways to get the few that are out there (the ones who are worth making deals for to help this team) on our team.
I know how this problem could be solved. The Astros could trade Jason Lane for Gary Matthews, Jr. (he of the extremely valuable foul balls). Then everyone would be happy.
What do you find offensive? Did you not see where I stated that I defended the team for years against this claim? What's my argument against him suppose to be now after the article essentially says that the organization admits to "screwing up" with regards to aquiring/developing players of color.
I don't see anywhere in the article where McLane or Hunsicker says "We screwed up". I see where the columnist says that is what they "essentially" say. The Astros may have "screwed up" by not taking a player in the draft but it's not because they are racist which your friend (and now you) apparently think they are.
I didn't say that they were racist. I called their actions fishy and stated that I no longer will defend their actions. bobrek, you are correct. They did not say that they "screwed up". That was the columnist's assertion.
Define "fishy". Obviously by saying something "fishy" is going on, you suspect there is something amiss with not having more "players of color". What is "fishy" about this?
So, since you didn't come out and say they were racist, but that their actions were "fishy" (suspect) what do you suspect them of?
