MadMax- I understand what you are saying. But, ultimately... it's all about SCOREBOARD, wins and losses... You defend the reasoning behind the moves well. But, those moves have not worked out.
Steroids has nothing to do with this thread. Look, people pick a side and they defend their positions. That's what I am doing, that is what you are doing. Also, when did I compare Halama and Garcia to PETTITTE. (Buck, that one is for you, )
The perception of Hunsicker is built on deals that fell in his lap (Pettitte/Clemens/Kent). Without these deals, he's done a crappy job. Regardless, many people perceive that Pettitte is some legend of pitching. He's a good workmanlike pitcher, as it turns out were the guys we gave up for R. Johnson. You can't compare R. Johnson. I acknowledged from the beginning that this was a unique deal. I think (and thought at the time) neat deal, but did Hunsicker get taken to the cleaners on it? There was an impression in the prior post that these guys were worth it. Were they really? Maybe we could have traded a HOT young prospect named Tim Redding instead of even one of these guys? I'm not saying that I expect perfection, but I do dispute that Hunsicker has put high quality talent on the field (and that it is all the managers or the players fault). He's hitting .500 at best.
I sympathize entirel, but you are not correct that the bullpen was traded for Beltran. One particularly talented bullpen pitcher was traded for Beltran. He's off this year, but he'll be back. Wags probably needed to go. But, why let Stone, Linebrink, Vallone go. Our bullpen was not just about the two top stars and Lidge is certainly a capable replacement for where they were headed. But I'd much rather have those three back. We let 'em go and held onto Redding AGAIN. Lord help us if Gerry hasn't learned the Redding lesson by now. If history repeats itself, Redding will improve immensely by donning another team's uniform next year
If it's all about wins and losses then the Astros have been quite successful every season since 1994 except for 2000 and 2004. They have been in serious contention every one of those years. Based on your argument, the Astros management must be doing a great job. The downside to that is that they have had to give up young talent and haven't been able to acquire any due to being in contention year in and year out. Had they been completely out of the running for 2-3 years in a row, they would (more than likely) have an entirely different makeup.
Stone was having a subpar year with us this year. I don't remember you b****ing about it when it happened. Nor anyone when Linebrink was let go (you weren't around when that happened).
The Johnson trade was made in 1998. Redding was drafted in 1997. There is no way Seattle would have taken him over Garcia or Halama.
Bobrek, I meant championships and playoffs!!! I don't agree with being in contention year after year. But, I do understand your point.
You blamed the Astros for letting Caminiti go and him becoming good after he walked - the REASON he became good was that he took steroids - you can't blame the Astros management for letting him get go.
You're using steroids to defend your argument? So Hunsicker knew Cammy was using? Why would he not think the same about Bags or Bigg? They worked out together. They had the same trainers? I guess you think Sheffield didn't use either when he worked out with Bonds? What injury does Sheffield have now? What injury does Bags have? Time to let this one go!!
Actually I've been b****ing about the relief pitcing thought from the start. But I'm a lousy Internet poster anyway. I'd hope Gerry could do better than me. I'm just looking at his results. And his results - letting the entire bullpen go over the course of a year - seem really wacked out to me. Regardless, I understand it is revisionist history. But it is just as revisionist to say that Gerry has done a great job or PUT THE TALENT ON THE FIELD. I do think Gerry does his job about half right. He's not r****ded. But, he's certainly not beyond criticism at this point. He needs someone who is a bit wiser in spotting talent, apparently. He certainly needs to think more about team chemistry. Why in the world have we not put some speed on the basepads until recently?
Are you even reading what I'm posting? I asked - which players got better after they left the Astros? One of your replies was "cammy" - now - after he left the Astros, Ken Caminiti began using steroids, thus explaining his dramatic improvement and subsequent decline. I responded thus to point out that it's silly to list Caminiti as a Hunsicker mistake in letting a talented player go, when the reason that player performed so well after Houston was that they he used steroids in San Diego. Is that easy enough to understand?
I think a lot of disagreement here is centered around the definition of success. In baseball, that definition is different than what it is in basketball or even football or hockey. In the NBA, if you're not making the playoffs, you're just not a good team. Honestly, more teams in hoops make the playoffs than don't. In the end, we end up with some pretty average teams coming in as 7 and 8 seeds. We've seen that for years. But in baseball...very, very good teams don't make the playoffs, even in the Wild Card era. Before the Wild Card era, we had teams, like the Giants in 93, winning in excess of 100 games, and still missing the playoffs. You can't look at a 100 win season and not call that success. The regular season is the THING in baseball. They play 162 games to decide winners. The theory is, after 162 games, you should get a good clue as to who the best teams are. Now a team like the Marlins can still sneak up and bite you in the playoffs...but that doesn't mean that you didn't still have a tremendous season. I think this concept is hard for hardcore fans of other sports to grasp. The Cardinals of the mid-80's put out some kick ass teams...and didn't win a championship. The Braves, for all of their incredible teams over the past 10 or so years, have exactly ONE CHAMPIONSHIP to show for it. And those kinds of great teams dot the history of baseball...great, great teams that just never won in the playoffs. Or that never won championships. Are the Astros of the late 90's early 00's a great team?? No...I'm not saying they are. Were they EXTREMELY competitive? Absolutely. And as a fan who has had to endure summers where his team was out of the race in May, I'll tell you I'll take the playoff disappointments over that every stinking year. I'll take the fun of being in the hunt...as a fan...and then the heartbreak over being uncompetitive every year from opening day on. I would love to see the Astros win a championship. But geez, we're in a sport where there are a handful of teams that haven't won a championship since the year the Astros came in the league. The Red Sox...the Cubs...the Giants...these are three of the most storied franchises in all of sports...and they're in the same boat. This is baseball. It's just different. That shouldn't serve as excuse...but it should serve as context for criticism. If you're disappointed in the McLane era of Astros baseball, fine. But geez, you'd have been swinging from the shower rod in the years preceding him!!!
Good point. One of the problems of being a revisionist. Still a bad bad bad long-term deal. Personally, I hate the rent-a-player philosophy. I always hoped that Hunsicker had something in his back pocket to keep this guy. But I forget that his back pocket is empty (because of our owner). If the Astros don't keep Beltran, they've simply done the same crap again.
Are you freaking kidding me? You're saying the guy did not use before he left? Convenient! What about when we re-signed him? Was he using then... Are you reading what you are writing? OK. Let me figure this one out. Because Cammy admitted to using that means we can defend the people that made the moves. Even though Cammy admitted to using years later. Dude, we traded Cammy because Drayton did not want to pay to keep him. Anything to the contrary is pure speculation and in my opinion.. BS!!! When we traded him, we didn't get enough for him! That was Hunsicker's fault! Or Tal Smith? Who got the better end of that deal?
