Buster Olney is smoking something, and has the Astros ranked 11th. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=olney_buster&id=2027562
My lineup would be: 1. Biggio 2. Taveras 3. Bagwell 4. Lane 5. Scott 6. Lamb 7. Everett 8. Ausmus 9. Roy O Ensberg would backup Lamb.
I almost agree with you here, but Ensberg should get the nod, IMO. And I would bat Scott at the 6 hole. 1. Biggio 2. Taveras 3. Bagwell 4. Lane 5. Ensberg 6. Scott 7. Everett 8. Ausmus 9. Oswalt
The lineup is going to change, especially with Garner as manager. Biggio and Everett are getting the nod at the top of the lineup because they are both proven players. Ausmus also showed promising times during spring and if he can hit for a decent average this season it will give us some options at the bottom of the lineup. If Taveras can show that he can get on at a good clip at the major league level he won't be batting in the bottom of the lineup for long.
That might be the worst defensive outfield in the history of baseball. Lane would be a well below average center fielder (especially at Minute Maid), and we all know what a circus it is trying to run Biggio out there.
I'd have to agree... of all of the players to insert in the outfield, Biggio should never be in the outfield and Taveras should always be in the outfield. We need Taveras out there to make up for the defensive slack that the corner positions are going to have, regardless of who is playing them.
At this point I've seen next to nothing from Lane, Taveras or Scott. So I'm guessing Garner might know a bit more about me on the subject of who should bat/field where.
Let's just hope Mclame makes some deals if the young bucks turn out to be busts. The Astros have came to far to be cellar dwellars.
Considering the Astros have finished 1st or 2nd every year since 1994 (except 2000), I assume you'll give McLane the credit for that?
The Braves are the only other National League team that have had a better run then the Astros during that span... I think he's done a damn fine job. We could have Pittsburgh or Milwaukee's front office, count your blessings.
McClane gets too much credit for Ws and too much blame for Ls. as for the run, I'd take the Marlins success over the Stros, along with the Braves, and probably the DBacks. Still, 4th best isn't bad.
The D-Backs and Marlins have both won Series, but they haven't exactly had continued success throughout. Arizona didn't even come around until 1998. The Marlins have been a horrible team for the majority of their 12 year history with the exception of their two World Series seasons. While many people would trade 10 bad years for two series rings it still doesn't take away from the success of the Astros. While I'd love to have a series win for the Astros, I wouldn't want 10 years of horrible seasons to follow.
And let me say... I wouldn't trade 11-12 good years for 2 titles and a bunch of sucky years. No thanks. To me, when the team is out of it in June, the summer freaking sucks. Give me a good race...a chance at the end...and I'm happy. Baseball, like college basketball, tends to break in flukey ways. A slap hit there, and the game changes entirely. Truly a game of inches. The Astros haven't been denied a championship because they haven't fielded a team good enough to win it. They Astros have been denied a championship because they've either not performed to their capabilities or they've just flat out been beat by another team (Braves in 97 and Cards last year).
I'm with ya Max, but the Marlins and DBacks haven't always sucked. Arizona's first year was 98, and they were +.500 in every year from 99 - 2003, and won the aforementioned title. Florida won 79+ games in 96, 97, 00, 02, 03, 04, and the two titles. In the 90s they had the title run and then rebuilt, but they've been a competitive team every year from 2000 onward (low of 76 wins in 01). I don't think either of those teams qualify for your "a bunch of sucky years and two titles" label.
from 98 (year after their first championship) through 2002, the Marlins were under .500 every year. that ain't competitive...for 5 straight seasons. no thanks. over that same period the Astros won 102 games once...they had the bad 2000 where they were a below .500 team...but were above .500 every year but that year. and have been every year since. they've been in the hunt virtually every year. i wouldn't trade that for 5 straight years of sub-.500 baseball. i wouldn't mention the D-Backs as a sucky team, anyway. and their franchise history BEGAN in 1998.
