Who exactly on this team was overachieving the last few years? And if anything, Carlos Lee would be in the overachieving rather than underachieving category since he's had the best years of his career in Houston.
True, but with the amount we paid Carlos he's have to be an MVP candidate each year to overachieve (when referring to his contract anyway). I guess I should have said that the team as a whole has been overachieving, particularly the pitching. Moehler and Wolf last year is a good example. Outside of Roy and Wandy at home, our pitching staff has been sub-par. The main point I was trying to make is that the number of wins we've had each season since 2005 has been over what you could expect from them as an owner/GM. You can't count on them to repeat that production and not improve the team and build the farm system. I won't even respond to Aceshigh, other than to say that it's obvious he's still clouded by what the Texans previous regime did, much like many other average football fans.
The Astros really do not have any trade assets that would get top prospects in return, since Drayton is not going to trade Oswalt or Berkman. The question I ask myself is which of the current Astros will be on the team in two years. Most of the win-now veterans may not be, like Backe, Byrdak, Hampton, Hawkins, Moehler, Ortiz, Sampson, Ivan Rodriguez, Blum, Matsui, Tejada, Erstad, and Michaels. The Astros certainly can not release/trade them all, since the farm teams lack MLB ready prospects. But I see no reason why the Astros should not promote what few propects they have now and give them PT over the win-now veterans. The Astros might be able to land a near-top prospect for one of their win-now veterans, close to the trade deadline with a desperate playoff bubble team.
i think you do exactly what they've done and hope you get lucky with some youngsters, cast-offs and underachievers - like you did last year, which, imo, is far more likely than finding, signing, developing, promoting and then successfully building around berkman, lee, oswalt 2.0. that could take.... well, i don't know how long: let's ask the rays, royals, pirates, reds........... it's not ideal but as you mentioned: its their reality. and while you're trying to piece together your patchwork major league team, hopefully you're working like heck to rebuild your farm so that when the berkman, lee, oswalt era is over, you have reenforcements ready to go. that's exactly what the astros did in the late 80s. they had a stable of decent players - davis, scott, ryan - that they tried to stick band-aids around (remember buddy bell and players of that ilk?). meanwhile, they were developing caminiti, then biggio, finally bagwell - they had one really awful year of rebuilding but within 3 years, they were a legitimate playoff contender. drayton believes - and i don't have a problem with it, and really: no fan should - that he owes it to us to try and always build a competitive team. it amazes me people rag on this; that they would prefer a firesale, watching great, lifelong astros go elsewhere so they can roll the dice on a long, arduous and risky rebuilding project. i'd rather have a year like last year than a year like 1991.
oh boy........... how did carr's extension set the team back? they gave a second chance to a former first overall pick who had shown some promise. and then they quickly and decisively cut the cord as soon as they knew it wasn't going to work. i didn't have a problem with either decision - extending him or jettisoning him: it was a gamble worth taking and it cost them nothing in the long-term and very little in the short term. and it's easy to cherry pick the busts; easier when you don't apparently have a grasp of the team's philosophy. chris brown is a low cost-low risk investment - when you're a marginal team, not bad but not quite close to contending, it's far smarter to take fliers on the chris brown's of the world than it is to sink a boatlod of cash on a high risk, high-reward type like michael turner. that's a smart, efficient way to run a franchise. every team is going to miss on FAs and draft picks. but this regime has been about as good as humanly possible. they haven't reeled in a big-time, big impact FA yet (and, frankly, they really haven't LOOKED for one much, either), but they've filled the roster with wonderful pick-ups and their draft record has been absolutely wonderful. to complain about this team still in those terms is to reveal you've never quite forgiven (or moved on from) the mistakes of the past. i'm gonna guess you weren't a fan of mario williams (or reggie bush) 3 years ago..............
I didn't pay attention in the late 1980's, but were any of Davis, Scott, or Ryan on the teams that finally got good in the mid-1990's? Assuming not, how much better could they have been had they traded those three and just had even more prospects to mix in with the Biggio/Bagwell/Cami/Kile/etc army that came up in the 90's. Keep in mind - right now, we have the worst farm system in all of baseball. That may change over time, but Oswalt/Berkman/Lee are likely to be gone or in serious decline by the time that next wave of prospects is ready. The more top tier prospects you have, the more likely you're going to be to find star MLB talent. Trying to do it halfway just means you're more likely to be mediocre now and 5 years from now, instead of being more mediocre now and having a higher likelihood of success 5 years from now. That's great that he believes - but I think reality suggests otherwise. Each year, this team just keeps getting worse. The payroll gets more bloated, the talent level drops, and the tradable commodities decline. It's not a competitive team, and there isn't the money in the system to make it a competitive team in the short-term. I agreed with the trade for Huff (though I wish they had signed him to that cheap 3 year deal), but how nice would it be to have Ben Zobrist right now? A 0.900 OPS player (1.000+ OPS right now, with 8 HRs in just over 100 ABs, after hitting 12 in 200 ABs last year - he's better than anyone besides Berkman/Lee on this team) that plays every position on the field except for catcher. Even trading all these fringe guys to stay sorta-competitive means you just have less and less likelihood of striking gold.
they did trade davis - for schilling (who was eventually dealt for jason grimsley after relatively busting here); finley (who was dealt with caminiti for derek bell) and harnisch, who was a decent ML starter but not a part of the playoff teams. but i don't know how to answer that question - too many variables. we can't just assume they would have dealt scott and/or ryan for additional biggio/caminiti/bagwell types, which is exactly what you're doing to justify the action. what if they landed manuel barrios, oscar henriquez and mark johnson types (the three guys the marlins got from us for moises alou)? there's no guarantee that trading berkman, lee and/or oswalt would change that. no one is arguing berkman, lee and oswalt are going to be a part of the next great wave of astros; it's what's going to happen in the interim. if you trade those three (or just one of them), you're removing one (or three) of the... 30-ish best players in baseball: how do you fill that void? here's where the opinions likely split - i'm guessing your answer is going to be along the lines of, "who cares? they're going to suck regardless" right? probably, except... they didn't suck last year. they won 86 games and were in contention in the season's final week. you're telling me that possibility is a worse course of action than trading two franchise icons and a top-tier hitter and hoping you hit the prospect jackpot? again, you're assuming all prospects are biggio/bagwell types. what's a worse-case scenario?: putting band-aids around berkman, lee and oswalt or trotting out an even more mediocre team with the same barren farm system because the guys you got back in trades for berkman, lee and oswalt all flamed out? i just think the probability of pulling off a season like last year is far more likely than landing berkman, lee and oswalt 2.0 *and then successfully building around them*. to rebuild, you have no margin of error; your timing has to pinpoint, and you need a lot of luck. and even then, there're no guarantees. major, they won 86 games last year! they were in contention until the season's final week! again: this was last year. look, it's not ideal but this is where we are, in large part, because of their "win now" approach during the bagwell/biggio era, which none of us - even retroactively - would rip them for. trying to restock is going to take time. every team has a list of guys they gave away... look, they've mismanaged the team these past 3 years. i didn't like the signing of carlos lee, i didn't like the jennings deal, i didn't like the tejada deal... but what's done is done; as long as they don't continue to gut what little system they have left and continue to commit to its resurrection - i'm ok with them trying to patch together a team around berkman, lee and oswalt.
Drayton McLane, Jr. is a heavy handed owner. Worse, he's shortsighted. To him, a 500 ball club, that sells out every weekend, is better than three losing seasons, followed by a dynasty, because that means three seasons of lower attendance. This is why I've given up on the Astros. No team, in no sport, can overcome a bad owner.
I don't know if I really agree about Drayton trying to keep the team competitive because he feels he "owes it to the fans". I think he is more concerned with keeping attendance up. If he trades away Berkman, Lee, and Roy-O, it tells us that we are rebuilding, and less people want to go watch the team. Having B, L and RO gives the fans someone to really cheer for, and makes it seem like we have a chance every game. I'm kind of on the go ahead and trade them side at this point. I understand that we won 86 last year, but we had no real chance to contend in the playoffs. As much as I love Lance and Roy, I would rather trade them for prospects (Roy for sure, I feel like we should give Lance a choice). I hate to see two guys who have given so much to this club and MLB (not cheating, working hard, etc...) have to spend the last remaining productive years they have wallowing in mediocrity. Sadly, I think we've reached the point where we just have to rebuild, and it's going to take trading for prospects (who I understand have a high risk of not panning out) because our farm system is wiped out. It's a horrible situation to be in, but I doubt Drayton will go for it.
followed by a dynasty, huh?.... what if its followed by 10 years of mediocrity? what if we become the next pittsburgh pirates? i think it's interesting that tearing something apart is viewed as nothing short of a sure thing. in reality, rebuilding is very, very hard and comes with no guarantees.
Yeah, but what's more likely, a farm system eventually producing the players every team needs to fill out their contending roster, are a team that routinely harvest their prospects in order to acquire older veteran players, so they can continue to tread water, at the expense of never developing a solid foundation of young talent?
fair enough... so which is it - is he a greedy owner trying to fleece our hard-earned cash or an owner trying to build a team that gives its fans hope?...... i can promise you we have a better chance of competing in the playoffs if we're actually in the playoffs. year after year, teams with no chance of competing surprise people - like, you know - the 2005 astros, for a totally random example. the bagwell/biggio era is proof you can build a really good team through the draft. none of those players were a product of some desperate, blockbuster deal.
You're putting words into my mouth here, Ric. My thinking is that Drayton probably realizes that we are not a contending team anymore. I don't think he's greedy...he is a team owner, and their goal is to make money (and win). Keeping a mediocre team with some likeable big name players is more profitable than admitting defeat and trying to start over. It doesn't make him greedy, it makes him a business man. I also realize how much better of an owner he is than someone like McMullen...it isn't as if he isn't willing to spend some money and he deserves some credit for the amazing run the team had I understand that and I remember the dark ages post-1986. It isn't fun But did you really believe last year that if we made it into the playoffs we had a legit shot at winning? With our lineup and pitching staff and no Carlos Lee? I get your point, but I would rather risk it and try to rebuild instead of treading water I understand that, but our farm system is awful. We don't have enough good young players to come up in the next few years. Why not trade our stars to get MORE young talent to add to our draft picks and hope that we get it right? And we got Bagwell via trade, though I think it was for Larry Anderson so it wasn't like trading Roy.
Here's where we're just philosophically different. Last year was a complete fluke to me. We went on an incredible run that our talent didn't suggest, 3 separate teams had total and complete September collapses, and we still ended the season 4 games out of the playoffs. I don't think that's a model to duplicate. But philosophically, your goal seems to be to ensure the worst-case scenario is as good as possible, at the expense of the best case scenario. Mine is the opposite - I'm OK with utter failure if we're aiming for greatness. I don't like when the target is just to be OK. That's a franchise that's not going anywhere, in my opinion. I would rather give my franchise the best opportunity to be great - and right now, that means collecting as many prospects as possible. They don't have to turn into Biggio or Bagwell. They need to fill a position with above average performance. You need the Bourns and Pences and Qualls of the world so you can fill a lot of your 25 man roster with quality, cheap players. Then you hope you have one great player and can get free agents to fill the voids. If you really feel like you need to stay competitive in the interim, take the $50MM you saved by trading Roy/Lee/Berkman and go out and get 5 $10MM free agents. That way, you can maintain the interim mediocrity with the random shot at the playoffs. But you now have more prospects to work with and more future potential.
fair enough. nah... we probably had as much of a shot as those 9-7 arizona cardinals... i mean, look - by every statistical measure, the cubs were far and away the best team in the NL last year - and they were promptly swept out of the playoffs while being outscored 20-6. ANYTHING can happen in the postseason. and i can promise you - the astros jumping up and surprising everyone in october is more likely than successfully and quickly rebuilding a farm system that's been barren for quite some time. i recognize that; but latroy hawkins isn't going to fetch us another hall of famer. and there's no guarantee berkman, lee and/or oswalt would, either. but here's the bigger issue, imo: what do you do in the interim? you're advocating trading 3 of baseball's better players - how do you replace them? are you going to rush these new prized prospects and potentially ruin them? are you content to field a team of AAAA all-stars and never-weres? and what if, after 1-3 years of that, these new prized prospects don't work out - then what? are you going to be ok with 1-3 MORE years of losing with a bunch of nobodies? drayton is taking the path of least resistance, hoping he gets lucky while giving the fans a chance to watch certainly two of the greatest astros in franchise history - something that's evidently important to a lot of people based on how many came out for the numerous biggio good-byes.
of course it was; though... it marks the second complete fluke in the past three years - they almost did the same damn thing in 2006, too. that's the gamble drayton is taking - can he band-aid enough of a team together to stumble upon the occassional fluke WHILE, this is the important part, rebuilding the system. they have to do something in the interim; they have to play 162 games a year. if you're going to suck regardless, drayton would rather suck with berkman, lee and oswalt - good players (in the case of berkman and oswalt, all-time great astros) who at least give you a foundation to maybe, possibly do something special. a team full of jason lane-types (and that's what you'd have) offers the fans absolutely nothing to cheer for now, no chance of anything special happening, and reduces an already slim margin of error to practically nothing inthe rebuilding process - because if you ask fans to endure 1-3 years of losing... you better not screw up the rebuilding. don't you mean if they *achieve* greatness? because i'm guessing you're not going to hand a 10-year free pass to the astros if they trade their 3 stars, botch the prospects they get back in some form and turn into the pittsburgh pirates. by trading it's far and away three best players?... i don't disagree they need an influx of prospects; i didn't like the jennings, tejada or valverde deals. at the same time, i don't think we'll look back at those deals and bemoan losing any of those players - they were largely mediocre, an indictment of our failing system and wade wanted to clean it out & start fresh. makes sense. look, they're on pace to win 65 games this year. assuming that holds (history suggests it won't), they'll be averaging 77 wins/year these past 4. given the go-for-broke mentality of the late 90s/early 00s, we knew this day would come, and frankly, it's not as bad as it could be. i'm fine riding out the storm, watching two of the franchise's best-ever players wrap up their careers and looking forward to seeing the next wave. and, occassionally, stumbling onto a fluke or two in the interim.
perhaps one of the reasons people seem more willing to part with Berkman and Oswalt is this year (and parts of last year) they were more like Ward and Redding than Berkman and Oswalt.
