The Marlins have only made the playoffs two of their 12 seasons and the Diamondbacks have made it 3 times in their 7 year history, which isn't bad... but they were horrible last year and will be just as horrible this year and maybe even the next few years. I wouldn't exactly count those as great runs. Meanwhile the Astros have made it to the playoffs 5 of the last 8 seasons and should be in contention for at least the next two, which isn't too shabby.
Alot of Marlins fans jumped off the bandwagon in 98, and for good reason. But you can't lump 98-02 for them and say "5 seasons of suck" because they're not that easily defined. In 98 and 99 they were brutal, and I wouldn't want to endure that. But from 2000-2002 the Marlins averaged 78 wins, which isn't good, but it's hardly worse than the 83 wins the Stros averaged during those 3 years. A few games over .500, or a few under .500, is still a decent team that doesn't make the playoffs in most years. The DBacks had a better overall record than the Stros from 99 - 03. For an expansion club, they've been phenomenally successful. I'm not sure what you expect them to do. And now you're counting their future records against them? You are just guessing. Nobody predicted their brutal falloff last year. That's why they play the game.
I don't think Buster is smoking anything putting the Stros 11th. Pitching goes a long way, and if our top 3 can perform at a very high level, that'll be huge. Not even counting Backe and what we hope to get from him. By the way, I like the lineup. Everett showed major signs last year before the injury, and I think he's ready. He has solid speed and knows how to make contact. Taveras is fast as hell, but I don't know that he's proven much else. And don't you usually stick the fast guy in the 8 spot if he's not in the 1 or 2? That way he can get on base, get bunted over, and be in scoring pos. for the top of the order? I like it.
The Marlins and Diamondbacks owners have proven that they aren't dedicated to the teams for the long haul, and they will do whatever it takes to win for a season or two then dump all of the good players off. The Marlins have done that twice now, and the Diamondbacks have done it once. Meanwhile Drayton has put a team with a shot to win it nearly every year he's owned the team. The Astros didn't make it to the playoffs much during his first few years as owner because there was no wild-card and the divisions were much different then they are now (not to mention strike year). Since they realigned the leagues and added the wild card the Astros have been there nearly every season... and as a fan that is all I ask for. Hell in 2000, 2002 and 2003 they didn't make it because Drayton didn't try... they didn't make it because the team under performed. I'd rather be a fan of a team that has a shot every year, then one that tries in 2-3 year spurts. The Diamondbacks are in a "rebuild mode" only 7 years into their team's history while the Marlins have promise this season but from year to year the fans don't know which team the owners will allow to show up.
Here are the numbers: Marlins 98 - 54 wins 99 - 64 00 - 79 01 - 76 02 - 79 Astros 98 - 102 99 - 97 00 - 72 01 - 93 02 - 84 Over that period, the Marlins averaged about 70 wins per season. The Astros averaged about 90 wins. A difference of about 20 more wins per season. Sam, this isn't even a close analysis in my book. If that's the cost of one big championship run, then I'd say, "no thanks." The Astros have been consistent with that 90 win average since that time. The Marlins started playing a lot better in 2003, obviously. But if you're asking me to compare the body of work of these 2 franchises in baseball over the last 10 years or so, I'm picking the Astros. Not sure that I would do the same given comparable records in NBA teams...but in baseball, I'd pick the more consistently good team.
Probably the worst offensive lineup in 10 years for the Astros. What a horrific offseason. Oh well, at least we don't have to deal with no-trade clauses. What a relief.
When did the DBacks "dump all their good players" off? Schilling left, then they tried to compete but when their season was obviously lost they unloaded an old CF (Finley) and then an old SP (Johnson) who wouldn't be able to help in a rebuilding phase. You can justify those moves at least as much as justifying letting Kent and Beltran get away. Neither is what I consider "dumping". And the Marlins did that once - a regrettable move. But they didn't do it twice, and they've been competitive since winning title #2 and upgraded this offseason. Max, Max, Max. You insist in defining the Marlins by that 5 year span, 98-02, because it best makes your case. But all it highlights is the Marlins were horrible for two years, at the end of the 90s. Feel free to make a chart showing the latest 5 years, 01-05. Your chart will show you that the Astros averaged 85.6 wins during that span, while the Marlins averaged 81.6 wins (and won a 2nd title). I respect your right to prefer the 85.6 wins, and I'm proud myself of the Stros accomplishments, but it's my belief that the Marlins have a legitimate case that their title balances the Astros slightly superior regular season record during that span. I'd assert that the analysis, at least, is closer than you make it out to be.
I was making the point of those 5 years because they're the 5 years immediately following the championship run. When I hear people say they'd prefer the Marlins history over the Astros histroy, it's mostly meant to say (at least as I've understood it) to mean they'd rather have a championship and a set of down years then a team that gets close every year but doesn't win a title. In other sports, I'm more likely to agree with that. But not baseball. Not with the length of the season and the accomplishment of actually earning a playoff spot. But if we do a 10 year analysis, will that make it better? From 95-2004, the Florida Marlins have averaged 77 wins per season. Averaging 4 games under .500 for 10 years. From 95-2004, the Houston Astros have averaged 87 wins per season. 6 games over .500 for 10 years. And 10 games better each season, on average, than the Marlins. Again...not close. I just can't help but think with a few breaks going a different way against the Marlins or for the Astros this discussion would be laughable. And baseball is a game of inches, as I said. Small breaks make a huge difference. Ask Mr. Bartman.
oh..and 2000 -04, as you requested: 81.6 wins/season for the Marlins 85.6 wins/season for the Astros this, of course, accounts for the Astros abysmal 2000. and still has them as a team playing above .500...and the Marlins playing right at .500.
Tough call....we HAVE had a lot of success over the past 8-10 yrs...and im not complaining... but 2 titles sure would be nice. However, for me, I would be miserable having a meaningless Aug-Sept(like the one we are possibly staring in the face) every other year like the Marlins/D Backs seem to have.
I'm pretty sure that Berkman just got a no trade clause. If you still think that's the only reason we didn't get Beltran, then I think you sir are wrong.
I guess the upshot, numbers aside, is that the Marlins have been like the little girl with the curls - when they are good, they are very very good (two titles), when they are bad, they are awful (98, 99). The Stros have been a Prozac team - on a level field, getting neither very high or very low, but consistantly above average, making the playoffs or at least being close in most seasons. I'd personally endure a rebuilding phase if it meant two titles, but I can understand those who wouldn't.
i could endure a rebuilding phase if that's what it really was. liquidating your lineup the year after a title would be unexcusable to me, assuming those players are still relatively young and not out of their primes. but if you told me you thought youth was the answer, and you were going to build towards a team that contended year in and year out, i'd be fine with that.
It was just such a poor PR move on the Marlins' part, timing it the way they did was a brain dead blunder and it caught them. Honestly, they were rent-a-players, just for a season or two instead of mid-season pickups like Beltran. If they hadn't won a title and gotten "attached" to the players, who really would have cared that they bought and paid for players one year and then traded them away? Moises Alou was an Expo, not a Marlin. Kevin Brown was a Ranger, and then briefly an Oriole. Bobby Bo was a rent-a-player, also last with the O's. The thing was, Huizenga had made the decision that a small market baseball team could not compete year to year, and that the solution was to seize the brass ring once you were close and then rebuild (because payroll couldn't support long term all the rent-a-players his strategy involved). And the funny thing is, his strategy worked on the field. The fans could never forgive him though. That's a little too mercenary for baseball purists. Funnier still, given the mandate to move payroll, the Marlins staff made some excellent personnel moves. It was a fire sale, but they got top dollar prospects in return (although Hunsicker fleeced them with the Alou deal).
they also sent out season ticket renewal forms with pictures of those players all over the place. they set a deadline for renewal...and then started liquidating after that deadline. that's what prompted that lawsuit from season ticket holders, which i believe was pretty quickly dismissed.
Small market teams can compete on a year to year basis. Look at Oakland, Minnesota and even the Astros in years past. During the Astros 3 divisions in a row I believe their payroll was in the 50s while the Yanks were hovering close to 100. I'd much rather have a team that is in it for the long haul then buying a championship and having a fire sale like the first Marlins championship. Have the Twins or A's won a championship in the last 5 years? Nope, but they've been a hell of a lot of fun to watch... all the way through September and October.
Biggio is going to be a liability wherever he plays. I think he will cause more problems at 2nd that in left. Yes, the outfield defense will be worse but the hitting and infield defense will be improved. You have to look at this from all angles and stop throwing such outrageous comments out there Bill Walton. This season the top concern is lack of hitting and every effort should be made at getting the best offensive team out there. The pitchers should be able to do their job regardless of the defense out there. Remember, we have guys that can strike guys out when needed.
Less to cover at 2B. Less hit there than LF, as well. Biggio's position was 2B, so there is no learning curve. I can't fathom an argument that says he hurts you worse at 2B than he does in LF. I'd say by moving Biggio to 2B, you absolutely put forth the best offensive team. But that's speculation, because I don't know how the new corner outfielders or Burke will ACTUALLY perform in the bigs. Of course, if Biggio can score around 100 runs again and hit about 20 HR's from a middle-infield spot, that's more than you would expect at that position.
