Spoken like one with true knowledge of what's happening within the organization. Because if there are 10 free agents out there, any competent GM will land at least three of them. And trade for A-Rod, too. Great! When you're finished, prepare a report on how many of those were contacted by the Astros, how long the conversations lasted, and how many repeat conversations were had. Include in the report how many responses of, "Thanks, but my client just isn't interested in Houston," and "thanks for calling, but we're working on a deal to stay right where we are." Also include decisions Purpura, Garner, McLane, and the entire scouting staff made on contacting certain based on what the Astros needed. If you're looking at free agent signings and basing an opinion on a GM solely on that, you don't know a blessed thing about "his job".
But evidently not without calling names and whining. I'm sorry I used "ass" out of context. In the future I will revert to referring to it as "mindless drivel." And the gauntlet is thrown, ladies and gentlemen! Are you saying, dcfma, that you would have gotten those two signed? Or some other GM? That, to be specific, the only reason they didn't sign here was because of Tim Purpura's performance? Or that he didn't even try to sign them?
Exactly what are you doing here if none of this even matters? Are you just here to insult people? Do you even watch baseball, because either you don't seem to understand our problems or stand put that it's impossible to make trades, sign free agents, or even promote and demote from within! FYI, Management, players, their friends and family that they talk to do hear some call in sports radio shows. Heck, some players even like certain shows like Jim Rome. They don't listen like an avid fan, but they hear some remarks and aren't illiterate and do some reading, especially the Sports Section. Ever notice the interviews by certain players, coaches, GM's talk shows get often? Or the TV sports shows they go on for free? Also, don't think that people in very high places don't ever check out the internet every once in awhile to see what people other than the media say of them? Even if a GM or player has never read a board or listened to the radio, someone out of many people they know might tell them what they read/heard once in a blue moon. But don't let me inform you of this, ESPN started a story about sports radio talk shows Tuesday. Of course teams would be a fools to make their decisions based on what all the callers want. However there are callers with bright ideas sometimes. There are even callers with ideas that end up happening in the future because they we're thinking on the same page as management at the time. I guarantee you the Astros know the city is not happy right now. However, based on all your combined statements or insults to people, they completely have no idea.
Also, why don't you dcmna, and nick start your very own thread and insult each other all you want. Or share your combined wisdom with each other so the rest of us can have a conversation w/o holding you guys back. I assume most of us won't see you 3 people here posting much as soon as Rockets basketball starts again, since i assume/hope you might know something about that. Would anyone else prefer this?
Talking sports with others who like to talk sports. It matters to us, not to the Astros. Are you seriously here trying to influence the Astros or the Rockets?? I'm sorry if you feel insulted. I don't mean to insult you or anyone else. If I believe a take is stupid, I'm going to say so. I don't know you or anything about you, not even your gender--so it would be illogical for me to hurl insults at you. To think that the Astros or Rockets would be influenced by BBSs like this, IMO, is inane. I'm sorry if that opinion upsets you. Nobody (well, except maybe Cubs fan) likes losing. The Astros do not need to read Internet BBSs to gauge whether the public is happy. They have only to look at the won-loss record.
I stated that I would research all the people who were available to decide who I thought they should have attempted to sign. THAT'S IT. There are many things that go into making a good GM including people skills (such as dealing with an owner and players), negotiation skills, foresight, long-term planning ability, intelligence, perserverence, and creativity. I am not saying I am a GM. Nick asked me who they should have signed and I simply stated I would find a full list of available agents from which to choose a group of players that I believed they should have gone after. I am attempting to have a debate with Nick with points and counterpoints. In contrast, you are appear to be simply writing loud thread responses, including some cussing, simply to see your word in print. I don't hate Purpura or Garner or think they are the worst sports management ever. I simply have problems with some of the actions/inactions (though I was not in the same office as them every minute of the day) and would like Purpura to get fired. I don't Garner fired right now, though moves like putting on an attempted squeeze with runners on 2nd and 3rd and no one out are very frustrating.
You said Purpura has difficulties doing his job and making things happen. What's your benchmark for that? That's a good list. Now, where and when have you observed Tim Purpura executing these things? And what's your benchmark? Because, the contents of the current roster is all you've pointed at to accuse him of "difficulties doing his job and making things happen." Agreed! But I didn't have the gall to blast a GM with no founding facts other than easily refutable whinings about the roster. You are debating on a public message board. So am I. Now you know my motives, too? My motive is not "to see my word in print." I'm here to talk sports. I like to talk sports. I commented on your stupid take. When you post a smart one, I'll comment on that, too. If you don't like that, you might find some private bulletin board somewhere.
I guess we can agree to disagree with each other's take. I think your comments are stupid and you think mine are.
This is a variation off the recent discussion. Do y'all think either Purpura or Garner will be fired this season or during the offseason if the season continues the way it has been going? I actually think they will both survive the season. However, if things do not change, I believe Garner will be fired in the offseason. I think attendance will decrease as the season continues and this would spur Drayton's decision.
i think attendance will be fine through the summer. as school gets back in, you'll have the fall-off you typically have then. but you're still gonna draw close to 3 million fans. the ballpark itself and its location won't let attendance fall to the numbers we saw at the Dome.
I'm not sure. It's not out of the realm of possibility if the Astros tank the rest of the season, but the precedent (a team doing terribly after moderate success) is 2000--and Hunsicker and Dierker both survived that offseason, returning to the playoffs in 2001.
Fire Garner. He is an awful manager. The jury is still out on Purpura. I think the Jennings trade will turn out to be solid. Signing Carlos Lee was great. Hanging on to Lidge seems to have worked out. If Garner quits putzin with the lineup and lets Scott and Loretta play everyday, the offense is going to come around. WE ARE STILL GOING TO CONTEND THIS YEAR.
i'd guess purpura's job is in greater jeopardy than garner's, but purpura also has the added benefit of greater access to mcclane. the jennings deal may ultimately define purpura's tenure; i'm sure he had to get drayton to sign off, and i'm sure his basis was steeped in, "this is what we need to get us over the top." lee's signing likely carried the same justification. you could always fall back on players underperforming, but even if you could justify berkman being berkman would mean 9-10 more wins (which, i don't think you can - what's the VORP differiential there?), they'd still only be a .500 team. there're simply too many dead spots up and down this roster.
I seriously doubt he'd claim it would get them "over the top." It was likely a deal they had to make to remain "in contention", once Pettite had already left, and Clemens was still an unknown. The same would have been said for the Garland deal had it gone thru. Granted, .500 at this point is "in contention" in this division... but they also are relying on an above average season from either Ensberg or Scott.
I think you underestimate the impact of Berkman on the lineup. It sure seems that in the past when Berkman was hot so were the Astros. I don't have any data to back that up, it was just my perception. I think if Berkman was hitting the Astros would be winning at a .500 clip and would be in a great position for their customary late push.
I think there's more to it than VORP. When Berkman is hitting, it effects how pitchers approach the rest of the lineup. You can't measure that, not even with VORP. Baseball is more of a team game than people think (although it is admittedly not as much a team game as football). It might be an individual performance when a guy like Berkman is at the plate, but the effect on the rest of the team is more akin to a mushroom cloud than a ripple.
