And, I'll add, Drayton's been harping on "leadership", how it's one of the main qualities he's looking for out of the new GM. Haven't seen much of that out of Drayton. Lot's of lip service, though.
Is this a surprise? I remember Drayton's first moves signing Swindell and Drabek and thought, "this guy is going to be awesome". And as time passed I realized, it's all about the hometown appeal. It wasn't about baseball when they drafted Tony McKnight - it was Drayton not wanting to pony up the money to sign a better prospect. Yes Clemens and Pettite, of course both from Houston. And Biggio and Bagwell. What makes a great owner? Paying competitive salaries, hiring great people, and letting the professionals do their job. I would argue Bob McNair is a much better owner than Drayton. You think Bob McNair was the one pounding the table to draft Mario Williams when Vince Young and Reggie Bush were the better picks? He let his staff decide. Even though it may have been the wrong decsion, in the long run, it's a better philosophy.
starks is one of the best baseball columnists around. to go out and claim that he's just trying "to get attention" is horsesh!t.... he's one of the few national guys who seems to keep a close eye on the astros, and i've always respected his work. i dont agree 100% with what he wrote, but to imply that he's simlpy insinuating the situation to garner attention seems pretty far off base. this is the thinking i'm starting to fall inline with.... drayton has done a TON to help get this ballclub to where it is, but he's also done a great deal to hinder it's managing personnel to make the moves needed to get to the next level - winning a championship and ensuring that the club remains successful in the future. things like not signing our top picks to appease to bud selig is ridiculous, and our farm system has taken a considerable hit. or making the big move (ala Lee) and then not allowing the GM to make the appropriate secondary moves to really improve the clubs depth. and you've got to agree that something just doesn't add up when mclane is barking on and on and on that this current team is fully capable of winning on a consistent basis.... if this team has been assembled so well that he firmly believes we can win with what we have, then why on earth do you fire your GM?
Wow. Well, all I can say is, you are exactly the fan that McLane wants to market to. Sounds to me like you are happy with the team's 'success' over the last decade. Perhaps 'happy' is not the best word, I suppose 'satisfied' would be more appropriate. 'Just be reasonably competitive, and occasionally challenge for the title of an always-weak division, squeak into the playoffs once in a while, maybe catch lightning in a bottle, and keep counting the money.' Maybe it's different in other places, I don't know. But in this part of the country, we fans want one thing and one thing only: the championship. Whether it be the World Series, the NBA, or the Super Bowl, it doesn't matter. We may be 'happy' that our team somehow miraculously made it to the World Series, but we are not 'satisfied' that we got obliterated in an embarrassing sweep. We may be 'happy' that we managed to win this stinker division a few times, and came close a few others, but we were never satisfied by not ever having won a post-season series until we FINALLY managed to get by the Braves. What I remember about those 'successful' seasons is always a feeling of disappointment, the feeling that we SHOULD ahve accomplished more - we had the talent in Biggio and Bagwell and Cammy and some others, we were determined, especially in that Randy Johnson half-year, but instead, this 'successful' franchise managed nothing but spectacular flameouts. In my mind, this team under-achieved for most of that 'successful' period. But you never hear that from this organization. No, it's always 'We've been one of the most successful franchises for a decade', blah blah, never 'We realize we really could have had something special there, we really screwed up, and you can expect changes to get us over that hump.' Ah, I am just sick and disgusted thinking about all this. Hell, the Marlins and the freaking DIAMONDBACKS have won championships, and people think the *Astros* have been 'successful'. Just successful enough to keep people hoping each year, just enough to keep them coming to the park, but never more than that. What we have is an owner who strives to be competitive, and what we NEED is an owner who strives to win championships. Some people are satisfied with being above-average and competitive, that's what McLane banks on. I am not, because I know that with him as an owner, no World Series Trophy will ever sit in this town.
Name a team that fits the definition of what you want the Astros to be. Of course not. The difference is the reaction to that failure. No one likes to lose - but making stupid decisions because of it is what makes a franchise suck. Until this past year, the Astros tended to have the right response to thsose failures - that's what made it such a good franchise. So you admit they were extremely talented and underachieved and then blame the owner? This is the perfect example of misguided blame. The owner's job (and more directly, the GM's) is to put together a great team - you admit they did this. After that, it's on the players to do the rest. So you want to use the D-Backs or Marlins model to build your franchise? Spend tons of money, hope for a miracle and then drive your team into financial hell so you can't be competitive in the future? What happens when you do that and DON'T win the title? The best way to win a title is to put yourself in a position to compete year-in and year-out. You could go the D-Backs/Marlins route, but then you're just banking on pure luck and hoping for the best. There's no such thing. Winning championships is the result of being competitive and having some luck.
I agree, I agree, I agree - as I've said and said and said. However, 'stros might win a WS. It could happen. It could have happened at least three times. It has happened to others - uh, who is the reigning ring bearers? The least likely of last season's post season entrants beating perhaps the 2nd most unlikely of participants based on long limp into October.
your entire response is dripping with such blatant stupidity, that i'm responding only to tell you that i won't be responding. nor should anyone else indulge such lunacy.
you may have misinterpreted what he wanted to say. his point that even the Marlins and Diamondbacks have won the WS, for goodness sake, is valid. They have. Maybe not the model franchises, but they had success. Only 8 different cities have won WS' since the strike shortened season, and pretty much all of them seem to have had pretty high payrolls in those seasons. Spending tons of money may not guarantee success, but spending little to average money generally guarantees ultimate lack thereof. As for the Drayton good/bad thing: Drayton isn't the best or the worst owner. But in the history of all of sports, and even recent sports, there have been plenty of "worse" owners to win championships, in as complicated sports to manage. And Drayton is here to stay. I find it highly highly highly highly unlikely that Drayton is the reason the Astros have yet to win a championship. Now, that's not to say Timmy and Phil aren't good at their jobs. Maybe they are (Phil has shown some degree of success), maybe they aren't (Timmy? Phil recently?). But what is clear is that they haven't had any recent success, and given the constraints of working with Drayton, they likely won't in this organization. Drayton needs to find employees that are both a good fit for working with him and can perform effectively. No, Drayton isn't exactly Jack Welch out there, but that doesn't mean he can't and hasn't been successful working with others.
Certainly true - but if you're going to mention those two teams, you're either suggesting that we should be more like them, or you're countering your own argument by suggesting that bad franchises can win through luck. Totally agree with this - money makes it easier to win. But the Astros payroll these last few years have been amongst the top third, so that hasn't been the limiting factor.
Wasn't the Astros payroll second last year? I'm pretty sure that all of these posters bashing Drayton would only be happy with Steinbrenner.
How about we get guys that don't have Texas ties? I think there are a few players that are pretty good that have never lived in Texas. Now THAT's a thought.
It's hilarious, because at the same time there are other fans screaming because the Astros don't trade for Adam Dunn or draft the Drabek kid--they always point out the great Texas-based, and even Houston-based, talent out there in the ML and say, "Why can't the Astros get the talent that's right under their nose????"
Honestly, I can say that I don't know enough baseball as most of you guys but I can see that Drayton goes out and gets free agents that have like "hometown appeal" and that don't always translate into wins (except for Clemens and Pettite). Whether it's because they're "easier" to attract or the Astros are getting a "hometown discount", sometimes you have to look beyond the state of Texas. The only time I can remember the Astros pursuing a superstar that had zero Texas ties (or any aspirations of being a cowboy or owning cows) was with Junior Griffey years back when he wanted to leave Seattle. As for the case for Dunn...he's a nice bat but the guy isn't worth trading away prospects for. I mean...he's absolutely not on Jason Jennings' level. /sarcasm
Well, you have to broaden your scope a little beyond "superstar", because there just aren't that many and you're not going to pursue one of those every year, regardless of where he's from. Off the top of my head: Pursuits: Jon Garland Miguel Tejada Carlos Beltran ('05) Scores: Moises Alou Carl Everett Randy Johnson Carlos Beltran ('04) Carlos Lee (no, the ranch doesn't count; dude is from Panama) Jeff Kent (ditto on the ranch; dude is from SoCal) None of those guys, unless you actually buy the rhetoric about the ranch they own, is from Houston, or even Texas. (Well, not sure about Jon Garland.) And that's a casual list off the top of my head; I'm sure others will augment or correct my list.
I was just going to mention Tejada and Beltran. Beltran brings up a great point, though. The Astros, more specifically Drayton, wanted to keep him badly. But he left for, as best as I can tell, the celebrity he would get as a Met. The money difference was almost nothing, and at the time, the Mets were far from competing. But signing free agents is like recruiting in college. You have to sell to players the reasons they should join your team. Money is important. Being competitive, fitting well are also important. But teams have other things to sell as well. If the Astros can get quality players because they want to play close to home, ranch, or South Texas Deer Lease, they certainly should.
