They are trying. But they're so scared of a year or two of poor attendance that they won't build the team the right way (which would actually lower the payroll). Build up the farm system, pay your own players once they develop instead of overpaying to bring in new ones, except when the timing is right sign or trade for a big player here or there. Just look at the Phillies. Hamels, Howard, and Utley were all home-grown prospects. They signed pitching and traded for a closer when the timing was right to make a run. On the contrast, look at what the Yankees have done since they stopped paying attention to the farm system.
This is the fundamental problem with the Astros. They are stuck in limbo between truly being in position to compete (not to win a division in an off-year, but actually compete) vs. totally rebuild. So they are just stuck around 0.500. Too much payroll to rebuild; not enough talent to be elite. The problem I have with the Astros the last few years is not that they don't spend money - it's how and when they do. They seem very much into the "buy high, sell low" philosophy, both with trades and with free agent spending.
They can't be doing that on purpose, though. I also fault the merit of their efforts, but at the very least there was effort. I couldn't bear being in Pittsburgh or KC. They did, however, buy how on Hawkins and Wolf, and that worked out pretty well for them. Well, I'm not sure this is their motivation. And frankly, you can't be either, unless you've had personal conversations with them.
The problem with Pittsburgh and KC is that they don't have the money to spend even when they do have potential. So every time they get a super-prospect like a Carlos Beltran, they have to let them go. The only way they can survive is hope all their prospects become good at once, and even then, that only leaves them a short window to compete before restarting. If you took those teams and gave them the resources to build a $100MM payroll when needed, they'd be more competitive than they are. To me, Hawkins and Wolf are a perfect example of buying high, selling low. They spent $4MM for a pie-in-the-sky shot at squeaking into the playoffs. But despite both Milwaukee and the Mets completely and totally collapsing in the last month of the season, and the Astros going on a tear no one could have imagined, they still missed the playoffs by 3.5 games. Let's say the Astros felt Wigginton was worth $5MM, but were concerned he might get $8MM or $9MM in arbitration - that $4MM would come in handy now. But they spent it on a 1-in-100 risk with no long-term upside. To me, that's a bad use of money, despite the fact that it made last season more exciting (though that also required the rest of the team suddenly getting red hot as well). Their trades tend to consistently be focused on the short-term - and always to just keep the team semi-decent. I understand why they are doing it, but I just think it dooms them to being stuck being semi-decent for a long-time. They paid for Jason Jennings at peak value, and then dumped him a year later for nothing. They gave up a lot of players for Tejada, and now want to purge him for payroll reasons (and the fact that he's continuing to decline). They sold Lidge "low", though there were extenuating circumstances there. These guys they traded may have had relatively little value - but they could have been traded for flier prospects or something of the sort that might have a long-term payoff. Instead, each was traded for short-term gains. Then there's the free agent side of it. They were willing to overpay for Lee - fair enough, but they did that at basically the peak of the market. Now that the market is going to be cheaper, they are looking to sit on the sidelines from what we can tell (hopefully I'm wrong). Given that these are 4-7 year contracts, you shouldn't be making decisions based on one-year economic swings. If everyone's cutting back on payroll, now's the time to grab bargains and commit to longer term contracts because you'll get better deals. This particular problem isn't Astros specific - but a smart front office would take advantage of it and lock-in players when others aren't. We just buy when everyone else is, so we lock in expensive long-term contracts instead of better deals. Again, this isn't unique to the Astros. But if you have a generic front office that does what everyone else does, you'll end up average like everyone else. What seemed to make the Astros stand out in the past was that they seemed a step ahead of other teams, finding the free agent steals and making the smart long-term trades - being willing to deal star players like Hampton or C. Everett or Wagner because they knew the time was right to reload. Hopefully, I'm completely wrong and they do have some kind of longer term plan. But it seems to me this whole "it seems like we're spinning our wheels" feeling is going be repeated offseason after offseason until they get some kind of direction.
I see the principle of what you're saying, but their front offices have left me scratching my head at times, too (though I can't recall any specific examples) so we can't be absolutely certain they would be so were that the case. But I see what you're saying. Well stated; five stars. Good points. I think you're right.
They ARE building the farm system. They had, by most accounts, a pretty good draft. They signed those picks. They will likely do so again. It just takes time to build a farm, and you aren't going to see it pay off overnight.
Anyone can build through the draft (so long as they sign their picks). I'm talking about making trades to stock up on prospects too. Last year we added Hawkins, Wolf, and the year before Wiggington. Sure, they helped make it a little more exciting for one year, but at one long-term cost? Instead of making trades for middle-of-the-road stopgap players, trade these types of guys we already have for decent prospects at least. I'd be for trading Lee and/or Tejada at this point for prospects...too bad nobody is going to want their contracts. I just want to see the team build a true contender year in and year out, rather than piecing the team together and every 4 years squeaking in a wild card birth.
What do you consider a true contender? Since 1995, they have been in legitimate contention for a playoff spot every September except for 2000 and 2006. Very few teams can make that claim.
I don't understand what that means. They could have easily made the playoffs in either season with a break here or there. And ANY team can catch fire in the playoffs and go all the way. If you're in the playoffs, you have a legitimate shot.
Any team that has a legitimate shot to make the playoffs late in the season is a contender in that particular season. EDIT: To add to this point, for this particular football season, I'd rather be a fan of the Chargers or Broncos than the Texans, even though it is likely the Texans will have a better record than both of them.
I disagree. Mediocre-bad teams that get within sniffing distance of a playoff birth because the teams ahead of them get into a rut, collapse, get injured or are equally bad are not contenders.
Whatever. You are a contender if, during the stretch run, you are fighting for a playoff spot. To make this point easier to discuss, at that point, you are contending for a playoff spot. All feel free to continue the lunacy.
again, no business - no *successful* business, i should say - is run this way. none. every single one of them make a year-to-year budget. the past certainly impacts decisions, though its merely one of several dozen. but there's not a singular pile of money that, once its gone, is gone. spending $4M on wolf/hawkins *last year* does not perclude him from spending $4M on wiggington *this year* (assuming its in the budget).
you don't have to suck to rebuild. as long as he doesn't cut corners in player development/scouting, there's no harm in trying to field a winning team while you reconstruct your farm. its a whole heck of a lot harder to find the next berkman, lee and oswalt than it is to build around berkman, lee and oswalt.
