If you didn't listen, how would you know what package they came to you with? That's the whole point of listening.
I'm not fooling myself. Wandy/Oswalt can keep us in any game. If it wasn't for Brandon Backe we never would have won in 2005 or 2004(wouldn't even have made the playoffs). Being an April contender means absolutely nothing(NY Mets this year and the last 2 years). For all you know Bud Norris will be added to the rotation and do what Backe did, or maybe Hampton will get hot. Statistically the offense is better than it was in 2005 when we went to the WS. Really the only playoff contender in the NL that has been a problem for us is the Cubs. There is zero reason to think this team can't win it all. Maybe they won't, but they certainly can.
Well "listen" to me is thinking about the package possibly counteroffering something back...not literally listening or not listening
it's not just a "bad division"; they're 3 out of the WC race. they are, right now, legitimate playoff contenders. it doesn't require "a bunch of guys" putting up career numbers. right now, they have three of the 30 or so best players in baseball (when healthy, of course) - berkman, lee and oswalt. they concurrently have three others performing at an all-star level (pence, tejada and wandy). if you don't think that's (more than) enough to win a 5- or 7-game series, you obviously just started watching baseball yesterday. this is what i've been arguing for more than a year: if you're commited (financial and otherwise) to 3 of the best players in baseball, you're much better off trying to build a competitive team around them then trying to find, sign, develop and promote the next berkman/lee/oswalt and THEN building around them. as long as they maintain their commitment to rebuild the farm, i have no problem with them trying to stay competitive on the ML level. the absolute worst-case scenario is that i get to watch berkman and oswalt finish their careers here and go down as the best and second-best players in franchise history.
they were extremely fortunate in 2003....they won 91 games that season...there were 2 team in the NL that won over 100 games that season. Bartman and the SS's error in Wrigley were crucial. they went on to beat the yankees, who were everyone's pick to win it all that season. great for them. but they make a nice example of "anything can happen in the playoffs in baseball."
They also make a nice example of trading their best guys for prospects that help them win. And some of those prospects are currently leading them to a better record than the "compete every year" Astros. There are two sides to it, you're just focusing on one. And the bottom line is WS rings, in which they have two. Just like the bottom line is the Jazz have 0. "The Rockets were extremely fortunate MJ retired" -- it's garbage. Give them credit for winning it, and stop trying to pass off their rings as completely lucky. You may disagree with their method of achieving it, but in the end they won, so it doesn't matter.
They won those titles, you're absolutely right. But any analogy to winning in the playoffs in the NBA and winning in the playoffs in MLB fails...they're such different sports. They play 162 games in MLB and have for decades because the game itself, over stretches, can be reduced to luck. And we've seen that over and over and over again over the last 10 years or so in baseball. We've seen a teams get to the WS who hadn't been in decades...we saw the 2006 Cards win it all....we see that, more often than not, a wild card team is advancing to the WS. So my point is...if you're close, you don't trade it away....because getting in is the thing in baseball. If they were out of it, I'd be right there with you saying we should be shopping these guys. But you don't trade away a shot at it for the hope that maybe someday the guys you traded for will get you a shot again. And honestly...trading away your best hitter when you're 2.5 out is a gigantic slap in the face to those who've invested a lot of money in season tickets.
Here's a good article showing that trading for prospects may not be the best idea... http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&page=starting9/090729
I have no doubt management is trying to make the franchise relevant. The deal is perfect for the club, but if the team doesn't start getting over 2 million in attendance with what is a decent club, the contract is still a good value and he is a great trading chip.
Add Scott Elarton to that list. If memory serves, we chose not to pursue Roger Clemens because they dared ask for Elarton.
It would have been Elarton and Hidalgo for Rocket...Both had great 2000 seasons but nothing much after...
Oh absolutely - he's one of the top few position players in baseball. He would fetch a fortune for the Marlins with that contract if they decided to trade him.
And because Clemens said he'd love to sign an extension and pitch for his hometown... for $27MM/yr, which Hunsicker publicly mocked ( http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/14/sports/baseball-astros-won-t-meet-clemens-s-pay-demand.html ). Funny how about 5 years later, we actually ended up paying him that. But on the flipside of that article, there are just as many examples of those trades being extremely smart and working out well. Kazmir-for-Victor Zambrano, for example. Or Hanley Ramirez for Josh Beckett. Or Bagwell for Anderson. etc. I don't think anyone has ever claimed it will always work out. But the more good prospects you have, the more likely you'll get some that work out.
That list could have included Carlos Pena up until he went to TB, but he's looked pretty bad this season. I really don't understand Matt Murton being on that list. .287Avg .353OBP .438SLG in 339 career games is pretty good, and is tearing up the minor leagues. He may not have the power people thought he would, but he still looks like a quality player.
Marlins aren't in the top 10 in Nielsen ratings this season: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/category/sports/ 1. Boston Red Sox 9.5 2 St. Louis Cardinals 7.4 3 Milwaukee Brewers 7.1 4 Minnesota Twins 6.4 5 Philadelphia Phillies 6.2 6 Detroit Tigers 6.0 7 Seattle Mariners 5.7 8 Chicago Cubs 5.2 9 New York Yankees 4.8 10 Cincinnati Reds 4.5 source: The Nielsen Company 2009 This is from an article in May 2008: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080530&content_id=2800462&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb Marlins telecasts also stack up around the middle of the pack with all of MLB television ratings. In terms of home attendance, Florida ranks last in the league. There were some other articles that suggested they draw big TV numbers when playing the Mets, Yankees or Red Sox...because there are so many transplants there. But they draw below average ratings against everyone else.
That was just stupidity on the Mets part. It would be like the Phillies offering Drabek for Doug Davis.
probably because he's 28 and only has a grand total of about 120 at bats in the past 3 seasons combined. EDIT - i misread his AB stats..they're better than that. he had 235 AB's in 2007.
