Wow, I do not understand the hate for Berkman. He appears to be hitting the ball well, he is hustling and making key plays. He says what is on his mind and you people dont like it. If he was spouting off cliches I guess yall would think he was a great person even if he was lying. On the Astros as a whole, I think they have a lot of ifs, but I see many positives so far. This homestand could bring them together, hopefully.
I don't think this has to do with his annoying habit of constantly questioning management in the media. I hate that, but love him all the same. He had one down year for his standards, I don't think that's going to be the trend.
your #3 starter will log 25-30 starts/year and should be expected to finish near league average (if you plan on being competitive). if you're building a staff, he's an integral part of it, more so when your #2 is unreliable (health-wise) and more or less unproven.
Before I respond, can you actually stick with one argument? Actually, nevermind...I just don't have the energy.. A) I don't believe that Berkman, Lee or Oswalt are on a rapidly downward trend (you're the one who said one to two seasons). B) I don't believe Wandy is completely worthless, nor do I believe that he's who we should build a rotation around. I do wish we had a more consistent third starter, but his home numbers last year show potential. C) Unless I read wrong, Tejada has two seasons left on his contract, so we shouldn't be stuck with him paying him tens of millions of dollars while he's not producing. D) Based on what we had to work with, I think our offseason was about as good as could be expected. E) We're seven games into the season and the current GM's tenure. Off to MMP.
This is all pretty decent analysis. Most of those problems were created for us by Purpura and to a lesser extent Hunsicker (and McLane, of course). I don't see this at all. Maybe you say this just because of the salary issue (which Tejada won't be a part of), or maybe you were just being dramatic--but the statement just comes off as melodramatic. Points to consider concerning "hope for tomorrow": New management has shown no qualms about cutting ties with tenured players. In the unlikely event that Berkman, for example, begin to become dead weight, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for this management to trade him some July for some pretty nice prospects. The farm system indeed is barren, but the draft is coming. Let's at least give Ed Wade one draft (and wasn't he kinda touted for building up a good farm in Philly?)--before we declare the future to be without hope. With one offseason under our belts, the new management has traded away a couple of decent prospects and a bunch of filler. It's not like they came in and traded Garcia *and* (well, I forgot the other kid's name, but he was good). I mean, the Brewers contended last year. The Titans went to a Superbowl. The freaking Hornets have led the West most of the year. "No hope for tomorrow." Pshaw.
^ Agreed on most...There are somethings we can over come and it's only 2 series into the season, but this isn't where I thought we'd be...Fock!!!
huh? i don't believe i've ever deviated from my larger point: this team is horribly constructed. wandy rodriguez is a microcosm of the bigger picture. where did i go off course? ok. but i disagree. berkman and oswalt played well below expectations last year. and they're both now in their 30s (though oswalt may still be 29 - not sure). if they can rebound this year, great - but i think it's naive to just dismiss it out of hand as a fluke. he's 29, not 22 - you haven't grown tired of the late 20's/early 30's astro prospects who, i swear, will hit 50 HRs/win 20 games? you either have it by now or you're jason lane. re, the second point: they have oswalt, backe and rodriguez slotted to make 80+ starts this year - that's how they've built their rotation. if you don't think he should be getting 25+ starts, what is wandy rodriguez's worth? do you think his 15 home starts last year trump his 63 other, mostly mediocre starts? that's the exact kind of thinking that's gotten us to this point, imo. "let's build around these statistical flukes and anamolies.... and ignore reality." i'd argue he's already on the decline, RM95; on the decline, off the juice and facing a possible federal investigation - do you think he's worth $13M/year? i wouldn't necessarily disagree - they turned a lot of flotsam into slightly better flotsam... but it's still flotsam. imo, there was no cohesive plan to it. they started by dealing for a young, unproven prospect... then opened the floodgates to acquire older, more established players, draining what little resources they had left on the farm. it reminds me a lot of the texans after the '04 season. but its been, more or less, the same problems since after the 2005 season. look, i wouldn't trade 2005 for anything - but they should have recognized what a fluke it was and reacted accordingly. they should have known oswalt was peaking; that clemens was an anomaly. they should have been cautious with morgan ensberg (proven inconsistency) and recognized the limitations of everett, lane, burke, not to mention backe, rodriguez, lamb, et al. they should have taken a good, long look at their farm and determined it was in disrepair and needed significant upgrades. and they did exactly... none of that. it's a bad team today and it'll be a bad team tomorrow.
who's gonna give us pretty nice prospects for "dead weight"? you're assuming we'll sign our picks... even if they have a good draft, those players are a solid 3-4 years away from contributing. what will the team look like in the interim? what if mcclane continues to insist of not rebuilding and we tie up more money in older, expensive players that block his great draft picks....? my "tomorrow" is more literal - the next 2-5 years. wade may have laid the foundation for a good team in philly, but they were 643-652 during his tenure. these things can take awhile.... [*]With one offseason under our belts, the new management has traded away a couple of decent prospects and a bunch of filler. It's not like they came in and traded Garcia *and* (well, I forgot the other kid's name, but he was good).[/QUOTE] carlos guillen. and i don't necessarily disagree. the problem is that i think they turned filler into... older, more expensive, slightly better filler.
sorry; i mangled that last quote: carlos guillen. and i don't necessarily disagree. the problem is that i think they turned filler into... older, more expensive, slightly better filler.
No, Ric, I don't believe you have. And I'm sure you won't mention it weekly for the next 5 months & beyond. I've seen hamster wheels that are less repetitive.
Ric, can you call out our players like that again? Say more things like "Wandy is worthless." And how Tejada, Lee and Berkman are washed up!! They really seem to respond to that. If you could direct some ire at Valverde, that would be helpful. Oh, and each day's starting pitcher. Thanks in advance!!!
A team looking to "win now". Seriously--we're discussing one such deal in this very conversation. Even in light of what happened last year, I don't see that as an unreasonable assumption--at least that we'll sign *more* of our picks. That whole debacle was the main reason Purp was unceremoniously canned; as such it's perfectly reasonable to expect that drafting the right guys and then actually signing them is a keen focus of current management. Ah--I was indeed looking farther ahead. I don't mind rebuilding (and you make a good point that McLane has been averse to rebuilding). One of my favorite rebuilding times *ever* began in 1991. There were some absolutely abysmal losing seasons, but I loved watching that team--and two hall-of-famers--develop. You have to put *something* on the field. I was hoping the Astros would go more with a youth movement kind of thing and not spend a lot of money on older guys, but when you think about it: what youth?? It's been noted several times that the farm has *nothing*. So, with nothing to promote, the Astros had to bring in something. And, they had to bring it in using the resources they had--a little FA money, and the same nothing-laden farm. So they turned "filler" into older, more expensive guys who can actually start at the ML level and at least compete. To me, these contracts (except Lee's and Berkman's), are short-lived, short enough to give the farm a little time to develop. But yeah, if your "tomorrow" is 2 or 3 years from now, I don't think they'll be the Yankees, yet.
figures, huh? lol. hey, if wandy can pitch like that (or even close to that) consistently, i'll gladly print out this entire thread and eat it. it'd be worth it. i guess i need to start a thread on how worthless velvarde is, huh? see if it gets him on track...? maybe hunter pence? small clarification, though an important one (imo) - i never used the term "washed up" for any of the current astros. that's not my opinion at all. tejada IS declining; he's no longer an mvp-level talent (more words i hope to one day eat), but that doesn't mean he won't still be productive, especially given our last SS - but i do worry about the PEDs with him, which, until he proves otherwise, is (imo) a legitimate concern. with berkman, i'm merely concerned last year wasn't automatically a fluke, which seems to be a foregone conclusion. he was really bad for too long to just outright dismiss it. lee seems remarkably consistent - i'm not as worried about him (though he's a terrible defender). i think the team will hit; i don't think it'll pitch and i think the defense will be astrocious. and where will they be in 1-3 years as these older sluggers do start their inevitable decline?
How will Towles and Pence look by then? Berkman may be in decline; he may (as many sluggers do) remain decently productive into his late 30s. One thing's for sure: we'll all be here watching, and complaining!
