I would brace myself for 3 or 4 last place seasons...kind of like this year, but with a lot less payroll and a stronger farm system. If it doesn't work out, we're screwed. But right now, Lance, Roy and Carlos aren't getting any younger and in 3 years at this rate we are kind of screwed anyway, you know? And football is a bad comparison. That's one game. Baseball is a series, and you have to have pitching to win a series (or an amazing lineup). I get your meaning and am not disputing it, but I think it's a bad comparison. And Biggio and Bagwell were fortunate enough to end their careers on contending teams. Is it really great to have Lance and Roy end theirs on mediocre to bad teams? I love those guys and respect the hell out of them, but I know Roy is open to a trade and who knows on Lance...if he wants to stay and finish his career here then let him...he's earned it. But if he wants to play for a contender and we can get some good young talent, then trade him
why are we screwed in 3 years? again, i don't think the issue is where are they going to be in 3 years - we all know they're going to have to replenish and rebuild the farm system and that it'll hopefully start to pay some dividends by then. the question is what are you going to do in the interim? that's why i threw in the little tidbit about the cubs. but it proves the larger point: few people thought arizona even deserved to be in the playoffs, what with their 9-7 record in a remarkably bad division. they said the same thing about 8-8 san diego, too, who made it to the conference championship game. you can't assume anything once the postseason starts. ask the cavaliers about it - the idea stretches across every sport. the astros stood a chance as long as they were playing. they pay roy and lance tens of millions of dollars, so they don't really owe them much beyond that - not every player gets to go out john elway style. and they are actively trying to put a winning team together - let's not forget that. it's not like they're stuck on a team with an apathetic, cheap owner, etc. they took on salary last year to try and bolster their line-up down the stretch. the bigger issue, though - and you hit on it in your first post: drayton could probably sell prospects to you and me. but what about the fence-sitting, frontrunning fans? he can't subsist on hardcore, diehard fans alone - he has to reach out to as many people as possible - especially in a depressed economy. and dealing berkman, lee and/or oswalt essentially tells a mid-to-large segment of his fanbase: don't bother coming to any more games for several years until we get this thing fixed.
No - he's doing it while rebuilding the farm system at a slower pace. In fact, that solution is to rebuild the farm system exactly the same pace as every other team in baseball by simply using the draft. I'd prefer trying to push to do more than that. Except you have $50MM/yr to play with at that point. If you add 5 $10MM free agents or 10 $5MM free agents, you have just as much of a chance of a fluke as you do now. Keep in mind, last year's fluke run was done on the backs of players like Wigginton and Moehler and Wolf, not the stars - one of whom (Lee) wasn't even playing. But your long-term prospects are worse in your scenario. In your case, if you don't pull off a fluke win in the next 3 years, then in 2012, your franchise looks worse going forward than in my scenario. So in your case, you better win now - which is highly unlikely. My solution lets you be just as mediocre today, while having the potential to be better in 2012. If they suck for 10 years in my scenario, they were going to suck worse for 7 of them in yours. They might have pulled off a fluke in the next 2 or 3 years, but from 2012 to 2020, your team has no potential to be better than my version. It's the same team with fewer propsects and potentially less money. The Pirates are nothing like the Astros because they don't have the payroll flexibility to ever be good. The Astros, when/if things do come together, have that flexibility. I don't mind watching teams lose if they show promise. It's the ones circling the drains that are boring as hell. Pence and Bourn are fun to watch and develop, for example. Yes, because they have no avenue available to be great with those three players. No prospects, no free agents, and no trades. It sucks, but that's the reality of the situation they are in. And every year, their guys are worth less while being paid more, and the situation just gets worse. Your timeframe for being great is after these guys are no longer their best 3 players. Right now, you're stuck in solid mediocrity. You can either try your hardest to get out of that, or accept it and muddle along for the next few years. Sure - but then look at the Huff deal. That's in that category of trying to win now. Zobrist wasn't a top prospect. But you keep trading away player after player after player, and you eliminate any chance of finding a farm system gem. It's a volume game - the more fringe/decent prospects you have, the more chance you'll find functional talent and potential future quality players. The Astros consistently have traded all their potential talent, fringe as it may be, which ensures they never have anyone that might contribute. Sure - but there are also better options out there. Just because we're here doesn't mean we're stuck here. That's fine - all I'm saying is that it's not the most efficient route to long-term success and making that next wave great, and that's more important to me than watch Roy and Lance keep losing just for the sake of it.
To stay in the same sport. The Cardinals went 83-78 in 2006 and won the World Series. We barely missed winning the division, and who knows what could have been.
Here's an example of the consequences of the all the trades the last few years - yes, it's entirely hindsight, but it's the direct result of constantly trading away younger, cheap talent. Luke Scott is a 1.000 OPS left-fielder right now, and Zobrist is a 1.000 OPS shortstop. Granted, they probably don't stay this good, but they are dirt cheap above-average players. Scott is a mid-800s guy, while Zobrist has 900 OPS potential at a offensively-challenged position (he can also play 2B, so put him wherever you don't have an alternative). That means you don't have to pay Lee $17MM and you don't have to trade a bunch of players and pay Tejada $10MM. Willy T would have been just fine instead of Bourn, meaning you don't have to trade Lidge for Bourn. You also can keep Qualls instead of Valverde, saving you another chunk of money. So now you have the current team minus Tejada, Lee, Bourn, and Valverde - plus Zobrist, Scott, Willy T, and Qualls. Offensively, you're a bit worse; pitching, you're just as good. But since you filled all those spots with cheap players, you have an extra $30MM+ to add to this team. Better yet, you could then have traded Lidge for another need and have a whole slew of fringe prospects (Buchholz, Hirsh, Patton, Burke, Albers, etc) to trade to fill other holes. If you accept mediocrity a few years ago, this team could actually be really good today. It didn't have to come to this mess, but all those desperation trades to stay mediocre resulted in the fact that we're stuck in it. And while the specific players involved weren't foreseeable, it was easy to see that constantly trading away young, cheap players for win-now players on a team that couldn't win-now was going to lead to this. Now, we're likely just repeating and extending that looking out a few more years.
To add a little more fuel to your fire... Adam Everett - 31 games, .297 average, .729 OPS (both would be career highs by far if he maintains). He's still our starting SS if the Tejada deal isn't done. Zobrist would be at 2B...especially since most in the organization thought that Zobrist would never be a major league SS.
Here's where you're wrong Ric, Jeff Bagwell wasn't a "homegrown" Astros player. He actually was proof of said deal, as he was a Red Sox prospect during which the Red Sox were desperate for pitching help for a playoff push. Boston dealt Bagwell to the Astros for pitcher Larry Anderson and we all know how that played out. I know how you keep pointing out that last year we were in contention with a "patchwork" type ball club. This year, while there is still a possibility we can make turn it around, it looks more likely we will miss the playoffs again. Each year we miss the playoffs is another year of aging for our core group of players (all in their 30's, except Pence). Not only is our core group of players old, they are commanding a TON of money. Currently we rank 8th in the league in total salary, just under 103 million. Our top five players: Berkman, Lee, Oswalt, Valverde, and Tejada accumulate for roughly 70.5 million of that for just this year. Last year we had arguably a better ball club with Wiggington and Wolf, but we are so tied up money wise we had to let them go for cheaper alternatives (Hampton, Ortiz, Aaron Boone, etc..) infact, McClane was so concerned about trimming payroll, at one point he was pretty adamant on moving Tejada or Valverde. It is risky to blow up our team and rebuild but how can we stay competitive by only signing the Mike Hampton's or the Russ Ortiz's each offseason if thats all we can afford? This is the time where your value for trading guys like Berkman or Oswalt is at its highest, what are we going to do if we keep our team together and its 4 years down the road and those guys aren't producing a damn thing but are still commanding all that money? No one is going to want them and our team may very well still be a bunch of patchwork type players. I think it's riskier to try to "hit" on some of these cheap free agents opposed to high end prospects. With the cheap free agents, there is no upside..you basically what you see is what you get. It's even more of a crap shoot with the draft if that's another suggestion of how to reload (I'm saying SOLELY relying on the draft combined with cheap free agents). The draft, you evaluate guys playing against high school and college level players, mixing in a few MLB worth opponents. When you trade for top level prospects, you have more extensive scouting on them as they have already experienced at least some levels of professional baseball against professional baseball talent. You get a better feel of their game and how it may translate to the majors, that's how teams rank their prospects. Not only will having a "fire-sale" reload our farm system with young, high potential players, it will free up massive amounts of money. Money that can be spent on better quality free agents (maybe even young guys coming off their "rookie" contracts) or money that can ensure signing all of our draft picks.
He has barely played SS this season. Look at his numbers the previous 3 years. If we kept him during that time, you guys would be demanding we get rid of him every year. Lets wait for the season to end and see if homeostasis sets in for him, Scott, and Everett.
That's primarily because they have another fantastic SS (Bartlett - also with a 1.000 OPS right now). But he's started there to rest him, and now that Bartlett is DLed, he'll be playing more there and at 2B (where Akinora is also DLed). I'm not saying he's a great defensive SS - but he's no worse than Tejada in that regard and we're OK with that. Zobrist was great last year as well - 12 HRs in less than 200 ABs (that's a 30+ HR pace) and a 0.850 OPS. The previous two years, he wasn't MLB ready - he was only there because he was in Tampa Bay.
We agree! The problem is the owner. His priority isn't winning a WS. His priority is ticket sales. Those two goals might seem mutually compatible, but only if you're thinking long term.
we're not talking about dealing easily replacable, aging middle relievers. if i thought they could fetch a future hall of famer by shopping latroy hawkins, i'd be all over it and so would they. but bagwell was a once-in-a-lifetime deal, not by any means a standard - i've mentioned that repeatedly. any notion another jeff bagwell is hanging out there for us to pluck is - while not impossible - certainly not probable. so he isn't proof of anything (except that maybe god was an astro fan in 1990). the bulk of that team, and various parts they let slip away or traded for other parts, was acquired via the draft. there's no risk is signing cheap free agents, assuming you don't overpay/commit. look at what they did last year with hawkins and wolf, two deals that had very nearly every astro fan apoplectic. quick: w/o looking it up, name the two prospects they dealt.... and again - they're not *building* with cheap free agents; they're trying to stop the bleeding. are you willing to sacrifice the present for the future? if we had JUST berkman, or JUST lee, or JUST oswalt and we were just as bad, bloated, barren, etc., i'd be ALL over shopping them. and i'm not necessarily opposed to dealing them, anyway. i'm just pleading drayton's case. he thinks (or wants to believe - whatever) that he can have his cake and eat it, too; that he can win right now AND build for the future. and when you have a foundation of berkman, lee and oswalt, i think it's a very easily justifiable course. as a fan, i appreciate that approach as long as he's not delusional about it (any more). don't kid yourself: it's ALL a crapshoot. "experienced" prospects might be *less* of a crapshoot... but they're still a crapshoot. and that money gets eaten up quickly by an eroding fanbase that no longer wants to support a team of nobodies, has-beens and never-weres.
Cooper on firm ground Firing manager not on McLane's radar as Astros perform nose dive Although his team is mired in a seven-game losing streak and last place in the National League Central, Astros owner Drayton McLane says “firing the manager is not in the cards.” http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/6445950.html
True. I was just posting it for what it's worth. I personally don't think a new manager will make that much of a difference though. I would be more concerned if we were supposed to be contenders. I think the best manager in the history of baseball may make a difference of a couple of games over Cooper between now and the end of the season. Do you think a couple of games will make a difference or do you think a new manager would make a bigger difference than that this season?
Are all the injuries Cooper's fault? I know there are questions about his bullpen management but it's not just pitchers going down and it seems a little early in the season to blame the injuries to Valverde, Brocail and Geary on Cooper. Does Cooper deserve any credit for us overachieving in terms of wins last season? If so, isn't it too early to blame him for the poor start to this season? If not, why blame him for our current struggles if he doesn't get credit for our past success?
major, i've never defended the astros' delusion. i was with you arguing the stupidity of the jennings deal. i didn't like the signing of lee, hated the tejada trade, thought they should have kept lidge and qualls and was calling for burke to be the everyday 2B while they continued to let biggio lead-off with a sub.300 OB%. i would never, ever, ever argue that this team has been well-managed the past three years because it has not. *understanding* mclane's POV should not be confused with agreeing with mclane's POV. having said that, what's done is done. we can't go back and undo any of those moves. as i said in another post, mclane now wants to have his cake and eat it, too. he wants to field a competitive team AND rebuild the farm system. he's proven it can be done through the draft and he now seems committed to trying it again. it's a good start. that, to me, is his only priority. i almost don't care about the major league team right now - as long as he's officially stopped ripping his system apart to add another past-his-prime, overpaid player to it, i'm good and content. and i do admire his commitment to winning - however you want to spin his motivation: he's proven he wants to win. plus, and this is really my bottom line: he's not going to trade berkman or oswalt and lee has indicated he won't waive his NTC - so while it's fun to debate and speculate... i long ago accpeted it's likely never gonna happen no matter what i think might be the best thing for the team. sure, on paper - trading one or two or all 3 of those guys likely speeds things up. but it could just as easily derail them completely. i'm inclined to lean to the latter - i don't think 30-ish-year old players making $15+M (and that's especially true of lee) are going to fetch us our next caminiti or biggio or bagwell, and i get he thinks he can win with that foundation - hell, he SHOULD be able to compete with a team featuring those 3.
There actually is a risk...you risk not fielding a competitive ball club (this year is a solid example). Sure you don't risk anything money wise but in turn you waste another year of utilizing the talent of your aging core. Why waste those years when you can get something for them? The bleeding will never stop! This team has way too many holes to fix with cheap stop-gap signings. To compete you need pitching, right now we have 2 dependable starters and one of them seems to be losing a little bit (Oswalt). I've read reports from scouts about Roy isn't the same Roy he use to be, maybe it's just a fluke year but do you think his velocity is going to keep climbing these next couple of years? Aside from those 2 pitchers we have a bunch of patchwork veterans that can't make it to the 5th inning. The bullpen, which was suppose to be our strength, has not lived up to that and I'm pretty sure their arms are all going to fall off before the end of the season do to how much they are used. With our massive payroll, do you think we can afford to keep Valverde when he's a free agent after this year? Do you really want to risk losing him for nothing? If our core was collectively 3 or 4 years younger, than NO WAY would i say deal them. But they aren't, and that's what worries me...how good are they going to be years down the road when guys in our system are ready to come up and contribute and how much will they have left by that time?
give up on the astros allready, they have no pitching and they don't go after good players and to top that their farm system is a joke. they had one year to win it all and got swept by the white sox. the astros are a joke this year and firing the manager isn't going to do anything, just face it the astros suck this year.
Don't hold back, why don't you tell us how you really feel. This is the type of season when you find out who the real fans are. All teams have a couple of seasons where they don't make the playoffs and aren't in contention. The Astros do have some talent in the minors, albeit in low A-ball, but the cupboard isn't completely bare. The FO's tactics are definitely questionable, but the team will make some moves (hopefully trading Valverde and Tejada) and getting what they can for these impending free agents. As well as drafting well next week adding to some of the talent they took last year.
The smart thing to do is trade the veterans for prospects. I like Lance and Roy, but I don't put them in the same category as Earl, or Dream, or Craig. It won't kill me to see them wearing another tea's uniform. In fact, I'd be happy to see them have a chance to win a World Series. It's so obvious what this team needs to do, but we're got an arrogant meddling owner, who cynically fields average teams, with fan favorites, in order to sell tickets. I honestly don't think a World Series means anything to him other than a chance to make more money.
