Why on earth is this thread getting buried?
quote:
Why on earth is this thread getting buried?
quote:Hell, 5 years ago when I interned in Houston for the summer local sports radio wouldn't even acknowledge the existence of the Astros. People would call in to talk about the Astros and they'd say "I don't know what you're talking about" and then go back to reminiscing about Hakeem Olajuwon.
Local radio in Houston has stopped mentioning the standings after the Astros score. I guess they've reached acceptance.
quote:I had seen a post on the astros thread a week or so ago claiming that they were probably more talented than the Rangers. But, it's understandable when you look at a 72-50 record (2nd best in baseball) and chalk it up to luck.
Didn't the Houston newspaper post an article about how Houston was better when the lead was down to 2.5 a month ago or so?
quote:How so? They are a .500 team. They've been a .500 team.
Astros collapse is impressive even by Houston standards.
quote:This. I noticed it last year as well. After their 18-7 start (going into series w/ Rangers), they were 68-69 the rest of the way. This year, they are 61-59. That's a 129-128 record over the past 257 games.quote:How so? They are a .500 team. They've been a .500 team.
Astros collapse is impressive even by Houston standards.
quote:
Didn't the Houston newspaper post an article about how Houston was better when the lead was down to 2.5 a month ago or so?
quote:Can't disagree at all with this. I live and work in Houston so most of my coworkers are Astros fans. We have talked about this often, and my point has been the same. The Astros need 2-3 consistent veteran bats in that lineup to go w/ Correa/Altuve/Springer. Guys that hit .275 - .290. I thought someone like someone like Zobrist would have been perfect in that lineup, but with Maddon in Chicago it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that he'd end up there.
The fact is that the Astros, regardless of the success last year, are a still a developing team. The vets (Springer, Altuve, and Correa) are still very young and the supporting cast is mostly rookies. Their future depends on keeping and developing the young talent.
They're still 1-2 years out
The Rangers on the other hand are a team built to win now. Their anchors are vets with playoff experience (Beltre, Andrus, Hamels, Beltran). Their window is now and they are taking full advantage of that. Their future depends on replacing the older guys and keeping the talent coming in. I still think Daniels did a such a incredible job at the deadline not giving up Profar, Mazara, and/or Gallo. That was ridiculous.
quote:Yes, but only looking at the last 3 years ignores the fact that JD built a team that won back-to-back AL pennants. Plus they did it while going through bankruptcy proceedings.
but I'll point out that Jon Daniels was given 4 or 5 years to get the Rangers into the playoffs and that over the past 3 or so years, the Rangers have achieved nothing more in the post-season than the Astros.
quote:Agreed, but it remains to be seen if they are willing to spend the money necessary to make that happen. The Nationals have a top 10 payroll. Guys like Altuve, Correa, Springer, Keuchel, McCullers, etc will eventually start reaching their contract years, and some of those guys are going to cost a ton.
If the Astros become a more consistent Washington Nationals franchise, then look out.
quote:I don't think anyone has said they've just trotted out a bunch of rookies. Of course they've had veterans, but they are all basically journeymen and spare parts.
I do think it is disingenuous to say the Astros just trotted out a bunch of rookies. They have had some veterans have some pretty terrible seasons.
quote:I get your point, but just want to address the "example of consistency" comment. This is a franchise that has either finished 1st or 2nd in the West every year but one since 2008. That one year they didn't they were also the most injured team in the history of baseball in terms of games missed. So, over a 9 year stretch, they are looking to win their 4th division title to go along with 4 2nd place finishes. I'd say that's extremely consistent. The only thing they haven't done is win it all.
Retired,
Not ignoring the pennants, just making the point the Rangers haven't necessarily yet been that kind of dynastic all example of consistency. They're certainly a good franchise over the past 7, 8 years but the Astros still have that chance too, they're not much further into the timeline.
quote:As a fan of the game, I'm really high on the Astros future, so please don't get me wrong. I hate them, especially as a division rival, but it was obvious what they were doing and I've been a fan of how they've gone about it until this past offseason. They were really just a few parts away from having a special team this year, but they essentially stood still in the offseason and at the trade deadline. That's what would give me concern, if I were an Astros fan, about whether the organization is willing to spend.
It's getting stretched out further than the Rangers but they're obviously trying to get that core that will be there and be that consistent presence in the post season.
Obviously it totally remains to be seen if the Astros can fill in the gaps around the core and actually be that franchise.
quote:Meh, was never a fan of Rasmus at all. Gomez, on the other hand, was surprising. But none of the vets have ever been the kind that I'd want to surround my core young players with. Despite how poor his time in Texas went, by all accounts Prince was a tremendous teammate, especially with the young guys. Having guys like Choo, Fielder, Beltre, Andrus, and Hamels is invaluable. These guys aren't spare parts or journeymen.
I think they've put some decent resources and money into some of their veterans that have totally crashed and burned. They're not spending huge but you have to say it's disappointing what they've gotten from Gomez, Rasmus, et. al.
quote:And y'all better worry about Oakland.quote:Better worry about the Mariners.quote:
No runs and seven hits (4 for Beltre) over 2 games? That is some poor sequencing.
quote:
Mhayden, we can talk in circles all week about whether the Astros will spend the money necessary to turn their "window" into whatever it is that he Rangers have.
They either will, or they won't.
I think the assumption is they'll spend on their young stars when the time comes, but either they will or they won't.
Should they have splurged already on free agents? I don't know. You've said many times in the Astros defense, when it suited you to do so, that they were ahead of schedule so perhaps you personally don't think it's that time yet.
They will, or they won't. We don't know. Bottom line. We'll just have to wait and see.
quote:
Do teams low-ball at him because of his size?
quote:So you think some teams won't be apprehensive about his size before handing out a massive contract? No worries about his sustainability given his size? He's not the prototypical size and I could certainly see him not getting the same offer he would if he were 6 ft tall.quote:
Do teams low-ball at him because of his size?
Most ruhtarded thing said on this entire thread. And that's saying something.