Has anyone considered that maybe it is Cleveland? They have done a few deals lately and would be a big surprise. CK
i wish it were that simple Smokey...but the fact is that Drayton has 2 choices....either go bankrupt while competing with the Yankees or try to win with what he can afford. The Astros dont have the huge cable deals that the big market teams have (thats another story for another day) so its a little more complicated than just saying "ok, ill pay Mondesi or Randy Johnson etc"
I understand Drayton doesn't have money from a large cable deal, but neither does Hicks of the Rangers. Hicks is agressive on the free agent market. I'm not saying Drayton needs to be exactly like Hicks, but what I am saying is Drayton has done little to nothing to improve this team through free agency. He seems content to let it ride on what he's got (exception Johnson trade)...well it hasn't worked. The Astros achilles heel in the playoffs is hitting right? So what has Drayton done to improve the team? All he does is moan and b!tch about his losses while sitting behind homeplate for every Astros home game in a new ballpark. I don't think Drayton would go bankrupt if he went out and signed a couple of free agents. It's baseball. Drayton has to spend money to win. I guess he hasn't figured that out yet.
Well, if you could apply Hicks' spending to the teams the Astros had from 1997 through last year, it might have been a different story. He's no model owner, that's for sure, but if we'd spent the money to keep all of the free agents we've lost over the past five years, I think we'd have been better off.
Who though? Johnson wasn't going to stay. We wouldn't be better off with Alou or Castilla right now. We offered Kile basically the same deal that Colorado did. Trading Hampton got us Dotel, Ausmus and Nelson Cruz...the way Hampton's been playing, that's a great trade. Refresh my memory on other free agents we should've kept. Also, isn't Hicks richer than Drayton?
that's actually not true. hicks negotiated a major deal to buy the network that broadcasts both the stars and rangers, meaning 1) he receives every penny of advertising revenue; 2) any network that wants to partner with the rangers or stars (ie fox sports network, who partnes with both) has to pay him a fee. hicks' deal, at one time, rivaled steinbrenner's; it was an absolute cash cow. speaking of hicks, btw... i think the surprise team could be texas. d magazine recently did a "report" on tom hicks' possibly losing money hand over fist. he denied it, but there've been subtle signs he's looking to slash payroll (he won't resign pudge, may trade him; he's looking to unload, among others, kenny rogers).
Hicks, by a lot (if I'm not mistaken). But as you guys are so fond of saying when discussing tax cuts, "How rich is rich enough?" McLane could spend more than he does. Who says Johnson, Kile, Hampton, etc wouldn't have stayed if McLane had been willing to spend what it took to keep them? I said that if we'd applied Hicks' spending to our teams, we'd have been better off. Those guys left because we didn't apply his spending. I'm speaking hypothetically here-- what IF we'd have forked over the cash? You're taking about what those players DID do under the circumstances. I'm speculating about what they might have done had the circumstances been different.
If Hicks owned the Astros we'd be a much better team. Hicks hasn't made great decisions but he's not afraid to spend money. How much of the Astros success is due to Drayton and how much is due to the Astros farm system?
You can't fault McClane for offering the same deal as Colorado for Kile. Johnson made it clear he was going to Arizona regardless. Hampton isn't a loss.
Hicks has HUGE television deal...thast what enabled him to sign A Rod. Park etc...you cant compare him to Drayton
Come on, come on. I think you're arguing with me out of habit here. OK, again, I am saying "What if McLane were willing to spend the kind of money Hicks spends?" Maybe I was just implying this, but what that means is that presumably McLane would have offered Kile Colorado's deal plus enough to keep him. I need documentation of this. What is Johnson's love for Arizona, other than the contract? Would he really have left Houston if McLane had offered him another million more a year (just to name a figure)? He's not a loss, right now, but we're nearly out of contention anyway. Hampton may have made a huge difference over the last five years-- that was why I started speculating in the first place.
NJ-- I'm not advocating McLane take on any $252-million contracts, just that where applicable, he spend the money to keep players who can help us. I'm not saying he should start pretending the bottom line is no issue-- I just wish he would say "OK, if we're going to lose Player X unless I pay him a million more than Colorado, then I'll pay him a million more".
Bear in mind that McLane does pour money into the minor league system as well as their baseball academy in Venezuela. Last year the Astros were named the top organization in baseball by 3 or 4 major baseball publications. In addition, this year they have 24 minor league all stars which is more than any other organization (two teams had 19). The Astros have chosen to go that route and have been quite successful. Unfortunately, too many people equate winning the World Series with success. The Astros have had arguably the best offensive team in the playoffs in 3 of their 4 division winning teams and it has been the offense that has failed them. I fail to see where a high priced free agent would have helped them. The only "weak" offensive positions over their divison winning years were SS and Catcher and there weren't a lot of quality players available at those positions. We would all like to seem them succeed in the playoffs, but it has been the hitting that has let them down.
Well, Hampton wouldn't have made that big a difference last year as hitting again was our downfall in the playoffs. I think Johnson has family in Arizona. I remember that he had told Seattle that he was going to sign there before they traded him, and apparently we knew it as well. As for Kile...sure, if McClane would've spent Hicks like money on him, they could've kept him, but I don't think McClane could've back then. He did the best he could by offering him pretty much the same deal. Again, with Kile, he really wouldn't have helped us much in 1998, 1999 and 2001.
The problem is that losing a guy (a la Hampton, Kile, Castilla, Alou) usually comes down to a lot more than just a million bucks.
Again, none of the players we've lost would've made a difference, except maybe Johnson. But if you followed the situation at all in 1998, you know that Johnson wasn't going to stay here. I can't think of any offensive players that we've lost in the last 5 years due to McClane not paying the money that would've put us over the hump.
I understand Drayton doesn't have money from a large cable deal, but neither does Hicks of the Rangers. Hicks is agressive on the free agent market. Pricing at a 6 or 7 year old Ballpark at Arlington was also about twice the price of tickets at Enron in it's first year. If Hicks was the owner, we wouldn't have a farm system either. No Oswalts, No Millers, No Berkmans, Hernandezs, Hidalgos, Wards -- nothing. He spends on free agency. We spend on scouting, the Venezuela Academy, etc. Do we spend as much? Absolutely not. The Astros also aren't in danger of collapsing on themselves right now either. We'll see how the Rangers do in 10 years when they are paying deferred salaries like crazy for players who aren't even playing for them anymore.
