Print Page - The Curse

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Alkie on August 22, 2006, 10:08:23 pm

Quote:

That's the crazy thing. The team this year - on paper - is better than the one last year. It's maddening.

Was better. Preston Wilson has been disposed of.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HurricaneDavid on August 22, 2006, 10:10:05 pm

Quote:

That's the crazy thing. The team this year - on paper - is better than the one last year. It's maddening.

No, the team this year WAS better on paper at the BEGINNING of the year. The team right now is a poop stain on a piece of toilet paper.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 22, 2006, 10:59:56 pm

Quote:

That's the crazy thing. The team this year - on paper - is better than the one last year. It's maddening.

To date, it's been roughly the same level of offense, significantly worse starters and bullpen.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Bench on August 22, 2006, 11:17:32 pm

Quote:

Quote:

That's the crazy thing. The team this year - on paper - is better than the one last year. It's maddening.

To date, it's been roughly the same level of offense, significantly worse starters and bullpen.

I'm not talking about actual performance, I'm talking about expectations. Before the season began, we had the same the same National League Champion team coming back, except for upgrading former NL RBI leader Preston Wilson for the miasma that was left field last year (with the obvious Clemens discrepancy of a few months). If you told me that Aubrey Huff would join the sqaud mid-season, I'd think of the team as world beaters. That's what's maddening. Last year, the putative Special K and Huff were all that was missing from making the team truly great. This year, those guys are here, and we all know what's happened.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: No? in Austin on August 23, 2006, 12:12:25 am

Quote:

Quote:

He put the same cast of more experienced characters that went to the World Series last year on the field plus Preston Wilson. Is he to be blamed for their not performing well and why shouldn't he have expected them to improve as the year went on, especially based on last year's work?

"Improve the ballclub" is hyper-subjective.

it is subjective but I think it was fairly clear this team had to improve to at least keep pace ... while this was a world series team this was also a team which made the playoffs by a single game after a pretty remarkable streak ... the impressive playoff run and the world series appearance are great but this team was better suited for a series than it was for consistent regular season performance (specifically offensively) ... and even though there where areas to expect realistic improvement (having a full season of healthy Berkman) there where certain areas that a significant drop off had to be expected - for instance last season the top three starters gave us close to 680 some odd innings of 2.4 era ball (a once in a decade type of performance) ? I don?t think one could expect repeating performances or even close to it, so something more than Wilson needed to be done to off set ? could this team have done it with the team it fielded opening day ? yes (considering how weak the NL has been)? but that is taking the long odds, I think

Now this doesn?t mean we lay it on pup ? I am not sure who was available or what could have been done - maybe there wasn't anything that made sense so grading pup is difficult ? but from the above perspective it is frustrating to stand pat ? maybe that frustration is on Pupura and maybe its not ...

Impressive Clark first post! Well done!

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Limey on August 23, 2006, 12:34:02 pm

Quote:

plus, relievers are so damn unpredictable. case in point: brad lidge. case in point, #2: chad qualls.

I am as surprised as anyone that I get a sense of calm when told that Revert Miller is warming up. Relief pitchers will put us all in an early grave.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: hostros7 on August 23, 2006, 12:41:02 pm

Quote:

Quote:

That's the crazy thing. The team this year - on paper - is better than the one last year. It's maddening.

No, the team this year WAS better on paper at the BEGINNING of the year. The team right now is a poop stain on a piece of toilet paper.

Isn't that Bukowski?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 23, 2006, 12:44:46 pm

Quote:

I am as surprised as anyone that I get a sense of calm when told that Revert Miller is warming up. Relief pitchers will put us all in an early grave.

If this were a bigger media market, Garner would get asked to do Tums or Maalox commercials.

The expressions on his face as the revlievers are imploding are priceless.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Col. Sphinx Drummond on August 23, 2006, 12:48:10 pm

How the hell did Detroit get so good so fast? That's what the Astros need to do.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Limey on August 23, 2006, 12:49:45 pm

Quote:

How the hell did Detroit get so good so fast?

Steroids?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 12:54:34 pm

Quote:

To date, it's been roughly the same level of offense, significantly worse starters and bullpen.

but that's due in large part to berkman's injury and subsequent recovery period last year. a full, healthy season from lance berkman, and last year's offense would have been better.

purpura, i think, can certainly be criticized for not having any plan Bs. none of us expected the drop-offs we've experienced, but how many of us were saying back in march, "we'll be ok, if... ensberg can replicate his 2005 season; if lane can continue to build on his second half last year; if lidge is ok; if 1 or more of the rookie pitchers develop..." it wasn't rocket science. and yet, as soon as some of those areas did start to implode... the team seemed both stunned and stunted.

i think a good GM needs to be proactive; not reactive and they need to cover each and every base just in case. i think purpura had maybe too much faith in his guys and was maybe a little too close to see things a little more realistically.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 23, 2006, 01:14:10 pm

Quote:

but that's due in large part to berkman's injury and subsequent recovery period last year. a full, healthy season from lance berkman, and last year's offense would have been better.

Granted, Berkman has an effect, but you've overstated your case. The 2005 and 2006 offenses, even without counting Berkman, are still roughly the same:

Year               Avg   OBP   Slg   OPS  RC/G
----------------------------------------------
2005 w/o Berkman  .253  .316  .397  .713  4.53
2006 w/o Berkman  .249  .323  .385  .707  4.46

Astros other than Berkman were marginally better in 2005 than in 2006 -- but just marginally. Essentially, the 2005 and 2006 offenses have been almost the same, with Berkman being the difference between whether 2005 was slightly better or 2006 was slightly better. But it's not like Berkman has masked the 2006 offense being markedly worse than the 2005 offense.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 23, 2006, 01:18:51 pm

Plus, I don't understand why counting on a full season of a healthy Berkman, essentially replacing what Bagwell did with a bum shoulder and what Berkman did coming back from a bum knee, was something that the Astros shouldn't have done.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 01:47:29 pm

Quote:

arky's stats

note i also said, ?and subsequent recovery period.? all told, berkman?s injury cost the astros two months of berkman-like production.

he was back may 6; he posted a .662 OPS for the remainder of the month. so during april (when he didn?t have a single AB) and may (where he was struggling to get back into playing shape), the team averaged 3.57 runs/game with an OPS of roughly .686.

once he got back to being ?lance berkman,? starting right around june 1, the team?s offense took off. they averaged 5.39 runs/game the rest of the way with an OPS of approximately .751. in july, they were the fifth best offensive team in baseball, scoring 150 runs.

they were a markedly better offensive team last year with a healthy lance berkman in its everyday line-up.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: pravata on August 23, 2006, 01:57:08 pm

Quote:

...purpura, i think, can certainly be criticized for not having any plan Bs. none of us expected the drop-offs we've experienced, but how many of us were saying back in march, "we'll be ok, if... ensberg can replicate his 2005 season; if lane can continue to build on his second half last year; if lidge is ok; if 1 or more of the rookie pitchers develop..." ...they need to cover each and every base just in case. ...

You were expecting Purpura to have ready players on the bench or in the minors who could step in in case Ensberg, who was in the top 5 in MVP voting last season, and Jason Lane, who the Astros just wanted to be average, became offensive non-entities? How many other teams have a Plan A, much less a Plan B that doesn't include a little hope for their 4th and 5th starters? There is not one person who honestly expected the type of years, absent an injury, that Pettitte and Lidge are having. How could that be planned for? Honestly. MVP quality backup 3b, a 6th starter who can pitch like a 2, a shut down closer ready to go? How many other GMs have these sorts of plans?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: David in Jackson on August 23, 2006, 03:25:23 pm

Quote:

How the hell did Detroit get so good so fast? That's what the Astros need to do.

Yeah, it only took 19 years (since last playoff berth).

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 23, 2006, 03:44:03 pm

Quote:

note i also said, ?and subsequent recovery period.? all told, berkman?s injury cost the astros two months of berkman-like production.

he was back may 6; he posted a .662 OPS for the remainder of the month. so during april (when he didn?t have a single AB) and may (where he was struggling to get back into playing shape), the team averaged 3.57 runs/game with an OPS of roughly .686.

once he got back to being ?lance berkman,? starting right around june 1, the team?s offense took off. they averaged 5.39 runs/game the rest of the way with an OPS of approximately .751. in july, they were the fifth best offensive team in baseball, scoring 150 runs.

they were a markedly better offensive team last year with a healthy lance berkman in its everyday line-up.

This does nothing to refute the point that everybody else on the team besides Berkman has hit collectively about as well this year as last year.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 03:45:34 pm

Quote:

blah, blah, blah

yes, pravata, that?s obviously what i meant; you?ve once again brilliantly exposed a weak post by splitting hairs and keenly focusing in on its minutiae. there?s no other way to cushion the possibility of reality slapping a team in the face other than having exact replicas waiting in the wings.

it?s pretty obvious, given their pursuit of miguel tejada, that the astros identified a need to upgrade their offense this winter. but whatever additional machinations went on behind the scenes in addition to tejada (huff, maybe?), when march rolled around, they were essentially the same team with the same offensive deficiencies as 2005.

from there, did the organization have any kind of a plan for addressing what they had already assumed would be a problem? based on their first half performance, the answer is no. and that is indeed within purpura?s jurisdiction.

so yes, entering a season with an organizational plan beyond crossing your fingers is indeed something that could and should be expected of any professional general manager.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 23, 2006, 03:47:46 pm

Quote:

yes, pravata, that?s obviously what i meant; you?ve once again brilliantly exposed a weak post by splitting hairs and keenly focusing in on its minutiae. there?s no other way to cushion the possibility of reality slapping a team in the face other than having exact replicas waiting in the wings.

it?s pretty obvious, given their pursuit of miguel tejada, that the astros identified a need to upgrade their offense this winter. but whatever additional machinations went on behind the scenes in addition to tejada (huff, maybe?), when march rolled around, they were essentially the same team with the same offensive deficiencies as 2005.

from there, did the organization have any kind of a plan for addressing what they had already assumed would be a problem? based on their first half performance, the answer is no. and that is indeed within purpura?s jurisdiction.

so yes, entering a season with an organizational plan beyond crossing your fingers is indeed something that could and should be expected of any professional general manager.

The offense obviously could've been much better in 2005 and 2006. It's been toward the bottom of the league both seasons. But for all the hand-wringing that's gone on this season regarding the offense, the pitching's been the real difference that has torpedoed the 2006 Astros' chances.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 03:53:07 pm

Quote:

This does nothing to refute the point that everybody else on the team besides Berkman has hit collectively about as well this year as last year.

it's a team game, arky; you can't extrapolate a player or pretend said player doesn't have an impact on the line-up beyond just numbers, especially when said player happens to be the best hitter on the team.

the offense was better last year when berkman was berkman; much better, in fact. to the tune of nearly 2 runs a game. given a full season of berkman and all that implies, last year's offense would have been much better than this year's.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 03:56:07 pm

Quote:

The offense obviously could've been much better in 2005 and 2006. It's been toward the bottom of the league both seasons. But for all the hand-wringing that's gone on this season regarding the offense, the pitching's been the real difference that has torpedoed the 2006 Astros' chances.

absolutely, positively agree. tuesday night's game was a microcosm of the whole season; offense squeezes out just enough runs to give us a lead; we get great, but not quite enough starting pitching, and then the bullpen blows the lead.

2006 in a nutshell.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: pravata on August 23, 2006, 03:57:16 pm

Quote:

Quote:

blah, blah, blah

yes, pravata, that?s obviously what i meant; you?ve once again brilliantly exposed a weak post by splitting hairs and keenly focusing in on its minutiae. there?s no other way to cushion the possibility of reality slapping a team in the face other than having exact replicas waiting in the wings.

it?s pretty obvious, given their pursuit of miguel tejada, that the astros identified a need to upgrade their offense this winter. but whatever additional machinations went on behind the scenes in addition to tejada (huff, maybe?), when march rolled around, they were essentially the same team with the same offensive deficiencies as 2005.

from there, did the organization have any kind of a plan for addressing what they had already assumed would be a problem? based on their first half performance, the answer is no. and that is indeed within purpura?s jurisdiction.

so yes, entering a season with an organizational plan beyond crossing your fingers is indeed something that could and should be expected of any professional general manager.

Has someone nailed one of your rhetorical feet to the floor? Because you're just typing in circles. How is it minutae to point out that several assumptions that everyone, and I mean everyone had, went wrong? Are you still arguing that Plan B had anything to do with Ensberg, Pettitte and Lidge?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 23, 2006, 03:58:08 pm

Quote:

it's a team game, arky; you can't extrapolate a player or pretend said player doesn't have an impact on the line-up beyond just numbers, especially when said player happens to be the best hitter on the team.

the offense was better last year when berkman was berkman; much better, in fact. to the tune of nearly 2 runs a game. given a full season of berkman and all that implies, last year's offense would have been much better than this year's.

Right. It's a team game, and we've seen that, as a team, everybody else on the Astros (besides Berkman) hit about the same in 2005 and 2006.

Yes, it helps to have someone like Berkman in the middle of the order, but I don't buy that it makes everybody else on the team collectively generate an extra run per game, anymore than I think the Lidge effect turns the rest of the team into Jello.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 23, 2006, 04:01:06 pm

Quote:

Quote:

This does nothing to refute the point that everybody else on the team besides Berkman has hit collectively about as well this year as last year.

it's a team game, arky; you can't extrapolate a player or pretend said player doesn't have an impact on the line-up beyond just numbers, especially when said player happens to be the best hitter on the team.

the offense was better last year when berkman was berkman; much better, in fact. to the tune of nearly 2 runs a game. given a full season of berkman and all that implies, last year's offense would have been much better than this year's.

By the way, I'm not the one extrapolating. I looked at exactly what all the Astros other than Berkman actually did as a team in 2005 and 2006.

You're the one extrapolating that a healthy Berkman would've made everybody else hit markedly better in 2005 than they actually did hit in 2005.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 23, 2006, 04:02:52 pm

Quote:

Has someone nailed one of your rhetorical feet to the floor? Because you're just typing in circles. How is it minutae to point out that several assumptions that everyone, and I mean everyone had, went wrong? Are you still arguing that Plan B had anything to do with Ensberg, Pettitte and Lidge?

I don't see how any team could realistically have a contigency plan for collapses by Lidge, Enserg, Lane, Taveras, Pettitte, much of the rest of the bullpen and the back of the rotation. Maybe a contigency plan for some of it, but not all of it.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: ValpoCory on August 23, 2006, 04:06:17 pm

I thought this thread was going to be about the Astros record since Sports Illustrated selected the Astros as their 2006 NL Wild Card team.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: S.P. Rodriguez on August 23, 2006, 04:06:39 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Has someone nailed one of your rhetorical feet to the floor? Because you're just typing in circles. How is it minutae to point out that several assumptions that everyone, and I mean everyone had, went wrong? Are you still arguing that Plan B had anything to do with Ensberg, Pettitte and Lidge?

I don't see how any team could realistically have a contigency plan for collapses by Lidge, Enserg, Lane, Taveras, Pettitte, much of the rest of the bullpen and the back of the rotation. Maybe a contigency plan for some of it, but not all of it.

Plan b is called "Plan Steinbrenner"... oh wait, the Yankees are having pitching problems too... darn...

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 04:09:05 pm

Quote:

Are you still arguing that Plan B had anything to do with Ensberg, Pettitte and Lidge?

it?s a rhetorical exercise, anyway, isn?t it, pravata - trying to establish when, or if, a general manager can be rightly blamed for his team?s failings?

to specifically address your response - there are other ways to get better beyond merely, and literally, replacing just those individuals that are failing you. ensberg?s 2006 failings, for instance, would not have been near as catastrophic if we had indeed landed tejada. etc., etc., etc.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: pravata on August 23, 2006, 04:14:58 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Are you still arguing that Plan B had anything to do with Ensberg, Pettitte and Lidge?

it?s a rhetorical exercise, anyway, isn?t it, pravata - trying to establish when, or if, a general manager can be rightly blamed for his team?s failings?

to specifically address your response - there are other ways to get better beyond merely, and literally, replacing just those individuals that are failing you. ensberg?s 2006 failings, for instance, would not have been near as catastrophic if we had indeed landed tejada. etc., etc., etc.

Why is it necessary to establish who can be "rightly blamed"? The reason for the teams record is obvious. Players did not live up to their expectations. Not some crazy plan for them to play over their heads, just expectations. The comment is often made that for a team to win several players must have career seasons. This season several Astros players have had career worst seasons. Why is it necessary to blame Purpura? Because he didn't put his "genius" on display by substantially remaking a team that went to the World Series but instead let the players play?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: pravata on August 23, 2006, 04:16:27 pm

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 04:19:34 pm

Quote:

By the way, I'm not the one extrapolating. I looked at exactly what all the Astros other than Berkman actually did as a team in 2005 and 2006.

i'm sorry, i was trying to impress you. i don't know what extrapolate means. i'll be honest, i don't think anyone knows what it means anymore. scholars maintain that the translation was lost hundreds of years ago.

Quote:

You're the one extrapolating that a healthy Berkman would've made everybody else hit markedly better in 2005 than they actually did hit in 2005.

the team did hit markedly better in 2005 when berkman was healthy; his presence had an impact. how else would you explain the jump in production from june on into the WS?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 23, 2006, 04:22:34 pm

Quote:

the team did hit markedly better in 2005 when berkman was healthy; his presence had an impact. how else would you explain the jump in production from june on into the WS?

How do you explain the team hitting so much better in May this season than the rest of the season? You can't always look at some apparent correlation and conclude that that's the reason something happened.

Players and teams just hit better sometimes than others. There doesn't have to be some rational or superstitious reason, like Lidge's troubles or Berkman's success.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 04:24:49 pm

Quote:

Why is it necessary to blame Purpura? Because he didn't put his "genius" on display by substantially remaking a team that went to the World Series but instead let the players play?

no... because alkie specifically asked us about purpura's role in all this. here, i'll copy his question for you: "I have a question for the camp in here that leans toward defending the Men In Charge, no matter who it happens to be...at what point (and I'm asking honestly here) do you say that someone in management is not very good at their job, rather than doing-the-best-they-can and just not getting the breaks."

i don't blame purpura anymore than i blame lidge, ensberg, garner, et al... ok, that's not true - i blame ensberg more than anyone else. still, it was a collective collapse from the entire organization. we're just specifically kicking around purpura's role in this particular thread. relax.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Alkie on August 23, 2006, 04:28:54 pm

And I want to thank you for keeping this up; this is pretty much what I wanted to hear from both sides.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: pravata on August 23, 2006, 04:29:17 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Why is it necessary to blame Purpura? Because he didn't put his "genius" on display by substantially remaking a team that went to the World Series but instead let the players play?

no... because alkie specifically asked us about purpura's role in all this. here, i'll copy his question for you: "I have a question for the camp in here that leans toward defending the Men In Charge, no matter who it happens to be...at what point (and I'm asking honestly here) do you say that someone in management is not very good at their job, rather than doing-the-best-they-can and just not getting the breaks."

i don't blame purpura anymore than i blame lidge, ensberg, garner, et al... ok, that's not true - i blame ensberg more than anyone else. still, it was a collective collapse from the entire organization. we're just specifically kicking around purpura's role in this particular thread. relax.

And I answered Alkie directly. My replies to you are about your "Plan B" post. If by "kicking around" you mean agree with you, don't count on it.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 04:30:04 pm

Quote:

How do you explain the team hitting so much better in May this season than the rest of the season?

but arky; i'm not looking at a relatively small sample size of a month; i'm looking at two months in which their production sucked, coinciding with berkman's injury/recovery period, and then a four-month stretch of much better production that came on the heels of berkman?s return to form.

when you consider that any team, in any professional sport, is going to inherently struggle without its best player and then see splits like these that so obviously align with that rather basic premise? it?s really hard to not draw a pretty definitive conclusion that berkman?s absence/recovery negatively impacted a team that wound up fairly productive over a four-month stretch and into a month-long playoff run.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Alkie on August 23, 2006, 04:34:25 pm

And let me say again: the question wasn't "Is Purpura the reason the Astros suck?" the question was "at what point does a General Manager get labeled (properly) as not-that-good at his job?"

Specifically Purpura. I wasn't saying he wasn't good; I'm trying to decide for myself.

I absolutely don't blame HIM for the players playing like dogshit all season. It's more I'm wondering if he should be held accountable for not making more player adjustments, or more to the point, since he didn't (except for Huff; who also managed to underperform expectations), is he actually a "good" GM because he failed to make stupid trades or is he a "not-so-good" GM who could have probably made some deal(s) at the deadline to put the team in a better position?

I think I have a tendency to wonder "WWGD?" except that I know that isn't fair, since Gerry was way, WAY above average as far as GMs go.

I think the bottom line question is: at what point does any team look at its GM and say "we can do better at THAT position to make us better on the field."?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 04:37:31 pm

Quote:

If by "kicking around" you mean agree with you, don't count on it.

this may come as a shock, but i wasn't seeking your approval, nor do i need you to validate my opinion. in fact, i wasn't even addressing you at any point in this thread until you started splitting hairs and breaking everything down to the finest of points.

your opinion is - whatever it is; i frankly didn?t bother to read it. mine is that yeah, you need to go into a season on the heels of one as off the charts as last year with something more than crossed fingers. if you disagree... ok. in the immortal words of marshal gerard, "i don't care."

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: pravata on August 23, 2006, 04:39:06 pm

Quote:

Quote:

If by "kicking around" you mean agree with you, don't count on it.

this may come as a shock, but i wasn't seeking your approval, nor do i need you to validate my opinion. in fact, i wasn't even addressing you at any point in this thread until you started splitting hairs and breaking everything down to the finest of points.

your opinion is - whatever it is; i frankly didn?t bother to read it. mine is that yeah, you need to go into a season on the heels of one as off the charts as last year with something more than crossed fingers. if you disagree... ok. in the immortal words of marshal gerard, "i don't care."

If you don't care, what bullshit game are you playing at by replying to my posts?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 23, 2006, 04:51:29 pm

Quote:

but arky; i'm not looking at a relatively small sample size of a month; i'm looking at two months in which their production sucked, coinciding with berkman's injury/recovery period, and then a four-month stretch of much better production that came on the heels of berkman?s return to form.

when you consider that any team, in any professional sport, is going to inherently struggle without its best player and then see splits like these that so obviously align with that rather basic premise? it?s really hard to not draw a pretty definitive conclusion that berkman?s absence/recovery negatively impacted a team that wound up fairly productive over a four-month stretch and into a month-long playoff run.

But you're taking a single example here and trying to make a rule. Over the course of baseball history you could find hundreds of instances when a team played like crap for a period and then got hot for a period that had absolutely no correlation or causation attributable to an individual player. That doesn't mean that it's impossible for an individual player to spark an entire team, but the weight of the empirical evidence suggests that it's quite likely that a team can swing from bad to good or vice-versa without there being any such connection.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: S.P. Rodriguez on August 23, 2006, 04:55:32 pm

Quote:

And let me say again: the question wasn't "Is Purpura the reason the Astros suck?" the question was "at what point does a General Manager get labeled (properly) as not-that-good at his job?"

Specifically Purpura. I wasn't saying he wasn't good; I'm trying to decide for myself.

I absolutely don't blame HIM for the players playing like dogshit all season. It's more I'm wondering if he should be held accountable for not making more player adjustments, or more to the point, since he didn't (except for Huff; who also managed to underperform expectations), is he actually a "good" GM because he failed to make stupid trades or is he a "not-so-good" GM who could have probably made some deal(s) at the deadline to put the team in a better position?

I think I have a tendency to wonder "WWGD?" except that I know that isn't fair, since Gerry was way, WAY above average as far as GMs go.

I think the bottom line question is: at what point does any team look at its GM and say "we can do better at THAT position to make us better on the field."?

While on the surface Huff may appear to be underperforming, his batting average betrays his actual performance. His mid to low .800 OPS is about what you get with him, at least over his career. Keep in mind, he's also adjusting to a new league. All in all, he may not balance out against a peak performing Morgan Ensberg. But at the same time, he's far more consistant, after his typical slow start.

Putting statistics aside, the guy rarely gets cheated in his at bats. He's aggressive, as a RBI producer should be, but also has decent plate discipline. He hits the ball and hits it hard. He's not going to stand there and wait for his dream pitch.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: elicash on August 23, 2006, 05:03:07 pm

Quote:

The offense obviously could've been much better in 2005 and 2006. It's been toward the bottom of the league both seasons. But for all the hand-wringing that's gone on this season regarding the offense, the pitching's been the real difference that has torpedoed the 2006 Astros' chances.

I agree ? but while the difference between the seasons is certainly the pitching (both seasons offensives have overall been similar enough to consider it a push) ? I am not sure I let the offense off the hook (that may not be what your getting at) ? I think going into this season expecting a repeat pitching performance from last season was unrealistic ? while I don?t think one could have expected such a drastic drop, I do think a team era around 4 was well more than likely (which would still be a significant drop) ? now I don?t know if this makes the offense more culpable because of the awareness that the pitching was going to come down to earth (ie not be able to bail the offense out) but I do think it has put a greater focus on the ineptitude of the offense which probably (at least for me) explains why the team this season feels like it is worse offensively - when in fact, that is probably overall not the case ? so in terms of what could be done - frankly I am not sure you could let any GM hand pick a pitching staff and expect to get the results from last season ? so with that in mind I am not sure how much you could add to the pitching staff to expect a staff 3.5 era for the season ? thus I think the offense was the easiest/most obvious place to make up or expect an offset - in essence the offense standing pat was to a degree, a regression and expecting too much with the same lineup was probably playing the long odds ?

but maybe we are presupposing there was a ready made plan B or an easy fit upgrade and I doubt that to be the case ? sometimes you just have to play with what your dealt ...

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 23, 2006, 05:04:40 pm

Quote:

your opinion is - whatever it is; i frankly didn?t bother to read it. mine is that yeah, you need to go into a season on the heels of one as off the charts as last year with something more than crossed fingers.

I think there is some merit to this. The fact that the Astros made the World Series last year with the offense they had was extremely unusual -- indeed, it was the first time in more than 30 years that a team ranked so low in runs scored had won the National League pennant. I would also argue that a team that relied on a 36-10 finish in 2004 and a 74-43 finish in 2005 to win the wild card by one game would be overly optimistic to bank on such a surge again.

That being said, I don't get the impression that Purpura's attitude was, hey, we won the flag last year, let's just add Preston Wilson to the offense and see what we can do. The Astros have allegedly been close on a few blockbuster deals this season and last. This strongly suggests that Purpura recognized that something bold was necessary to improve the club's chances.

For whatever reason -- but, reportedly, most likely because of ridiculous demands by the other side -- Purpura hasn't been able to close those deals. Maybe Hunsicker would've closed those deals. Maybe not. Hunsicker's two biggest trade coups were Randy Johnson and Carlos Beltran. Miguel Tejada or Alfonso Soriano would've been at that level. But at what price to the Astros? The rumors suggest that they would've cost much more in proven talent than Johnson or Beltran did. Besides, Purpura isn't be to blame because Peter Angelos is a meddling jackass.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 23, 2006, 05:07:13 pm

Quote:

I agree ? but while the difference between the seasons is certainly the pitching (both seasons offensives have overall been similar enough to consider it a push) ? I am not sure I let the offense off the hook (that may not be what your getting at) ? I think going into this season expecting a repeat pitching performance from last season was unrealistic ? while I don?t think one could have expected such a drastic drop, I do think a team era around 4 was well more than likely (which would still be a significant drop) ? now I don?t know if this makes the offense more culpable because of the awareness that the pitching was going to come down to earth (ie not be able to bail the offense out) but I do think it has put a greater focus on the ineptitude of the offense which probably (at least for me) explains why the team this season feels like it is worse offensively - when in fact, that is probably overall not the case ? so in terms of what could be done - frankly I am not sure you could let any GM hand pick a pitching staff and expect to get the results from last season ? so with that in mind I am not sure how much you could add to the pitching staff to expect a staff 3.5 era for the season ? thus I think the offense was the easiest/most obvious place to make up or expect an offset - in essence the offense standing pat was to a degree, a regression and expecting too much with the same lineup was probably playing the long odds ?

but maybe we are presupposing there was a ready made plan B or an easy fit upgrade and I doubt that to be the case ? sometimes you just have to play with what your dealt ...

Welcome to the TZ. These are good points. See my post just above, which I think aligns with what you are saying.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 23, 2006, 05:14:46 pm

Quote:

While on the surface Huff may appear to be underperforming, his batting average betrays his actual performance. His mid to low .800 OPS is about what you get with him, at least over his career. Keep in mind, he's also adjusting to a new league. All in all, he may not balance out against a peak performing Morgan Ensberg. But at the same time, he's far more consistant, after his typical slow start.

Putting statistics aside, the guy rarely gets cheated in his at bats. He's aggressive, as a RBI producer should be, but also has decent plate discipline. He hits the ball and hits it hard. He's not going to stand there and wait for his dream pitch.

Huff was a pretty shrewd pick-up. He's a middle- to upper-middle-market acquisition and can be expected to be a much better hitter than, say, Preston Wilson. His performance with the Astros thus far is extremely similar to his career numbers:

Line       Avg   OBP   Slg
--------------------------
2006 Hou  .258  .343  .492
Career    .286  .343  .477

Huff turns 30 in December. The Devil Rays screwed around for awhile trying to find a regular place for him to play. If the Astros can find space for him in the field and sign him for decent money, I think he's definitely welcome in the Houston line-up for a few more years.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: pravata on August 23, 2006, 05:34:20 pm

Quote:

Quote:

The offense obviously could've been much better in 2005 and 2006. It's been toward the bottom of the league both seasons. But for all the hand-wringing that's gone on this season regarding the offense, the pitching's been the real difference that has torpedoed the 2006 Astros' chances.

I agree ? but while the difference between the seasons is certainly the pitching (both seasons offensives have overall been similar enough to consider it a push) ? I am not sure I let the offense off the hook (that may not be what your getting at) ? I think going into this season expecting a repeat pitching performance from last season was unrealistic ? while I don?t think one could have expected such a drastic drop, I do think a team era around 4 was well more than likely (which would still be a significant drop) ? now I don?t know if this makes the offense more culpable because of the awareness that the pitching was going to come down to earth (ie not be able to bail the offense out) but I do think it has put a greater focus on the ineptitude of the offense which probably (at least for me) explains why the team this season feels like it is worse offensively - when in fact, that is probably overall not the case ? so in terms of what could be done - frankly I am not sure you could let any GM hand pick a pitching staff and expect to get the results from last season ? so with that in mind I am not sure how much you could add to the pitching staff to expect a staff 3.5 era for the season ? thus I think the offense was the easiest/most obvious place to make up or expect an offset - in essence the offense standing pat was to a degree, a regression and expecting too much with the same lineup was probably playing the long odds ?

but maybe we are presupposing there was a ready made plan B or an easy fit upgrade and I doubt that to be the case ? sometimes you just have to play with what your dealt ...

What was Purpura's options? Have an answer for Ensberg's slump ready? The deadline trade for Huff was that move. Should he have had another average outfielder ready on the bench to back up Lane? Would Burke be that outfielder? Was Backe's injury predictable? How sure was he of Clemens? Wheeler or Qualls was certainly in the plans as an alternate to Lidge, who was offered in every trade he tried in the preseason. The prices paid for pitching in the offseason were ridiculous, and in most cases, didn't help the team that bought it. Who would suspect that out of WRodriguez, Astacio, Buchholz, Nieve, they couldn't find a serviceable 5?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 05:35:36 pm

Quote:

But you're taking a single example here and trying to make a rule.

a team struggling without its best player is not, by any stretch, a single example; in fact, it is, far more often than not, a rule.

you?re right - it could?ve been one of many things; but discounting the impact not having berkman in the line-up for two months had on that team flies in the face of easy and obvious observation culled not from numbers, per se, or even small sample sizes, but the history of sports.

good players make teams better.

Quote:

That being said, I don't get the impression that Purpura's attitude was, hey, we won the flag last year, let's just add Preston Wilson to the offense and see what we can do.

but i think it was, to an extent. remember, these are his guys. and i think his loyalty may have blinded him to at least considering that the glass might be half empty. pulling the trigger too soon on any of them, or assuming last year was a product of multiple flukes, would have completely recast the job he did in overseeing player development.

so he had to ride the horses that brung ?em and hope they validated his opinion. but i do think it?s fair to ask him why he thought jason lane could be an everyday corner OF?er; why he never noticed ensberg?s shrinking violet persona; etc.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: elicash on August 23, 2006, 05:39:30 pm

Quote:

Welcome to the TZ. These are good points. See my post just above, which I think aligns with what you are saying.

thanks ? yeah I think we are on the same page

Quote:

I think there is some merit to this. The fact that the Astros made the World Series last year with the offense they had was extremely unusual -- indeed, it was the first time in more than 30 years that a team ranked so low in runs scored had won the National League pennant. I would also argue that a team that relied on a 36-10 finish in 2004 and a 74-43 finish in 2005 to win the wild card by one game would be overly optimistic to bank on such a surge again.

That being said, I don't get the impression that Purpura's attitude was, hey, we won the flag last year, let's just add Preston Wilson to the offense and see what we can do. The Astros have allegedly been close on a few blockbuster deals this season and last. This strongly suggests that Purpura recognized that something bold was necessary to improve the club's chances.

For whatever reason -- but, reportedly, most likely because of ridiculous demands by the other side -- Purpura hasn't been able to close those deals. Maybe Hunsicker would've closed those deals. Maybe not. Hunsicker's two biggest trade coups were Randy Johnson and Carlos Beltran. Miguel Tejada or Alfonso Soriano would've been at that level. But at what price to the Astros? The rumors suggest that they would've cost much more in proven talent than Johnson or Beltran did. Besides, Purpura isn't be to blame because Peter Angelos is a meddling jackass.

Yeah that?s essentially what I am getting at ? I think it was pretty obvious pupura was trying to make a move and from reports a big one ? this to me also shows he recognized the problem and was active about it ? which, granted, may not have been that tough but these are all marks in his favor ? so the criticism if any is on him not closing deals but without knowing the specifics of any of them this doesn?t seem like a criticism I think I would fairly make ? maybe a lack of movement looking back at a career would evidence something more but without knowing the specifics of each deal it seems hard for me to criticize within a single season ?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Russ99 on August 23, 2006, 05:43:35 pm

Quote:

How the hell did Detroit get so good so fast? That's what the Astros need to do.

The Tigers did it by slowly acquiring a nice selection of solid veteran players, and fleecing other teams for their top pitching prospects. The problem is that it would be hard for the Astros to equal the method/results without the requisite multiple near-100 loss seasons that the Tigers had.

Not sure the Tigers can survive a playoff series yet - that's the big question.

I like the solid pitching prospect base for the Astros, and if Roger (and Andy?) can be replaced with another ace (Schmidt looks like the best option) and the Astros can resign Huff then ditch some of the poorly performing players, they could be well along their way back.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: jbm on August 23, 2006, 05:45:28 pm

Quote:

And let me say again: the question wasn't "Is Purpura the reason the Astros suck?" the question was "at what point does a General Manager get labeled (properly) as not-that-good at his job?"

and

Quote:

is he actually a "good" GM because he failed to make stupid trades or is he a "not-so-good" GM who could have probably made some deal(s) at the deadline to put the team in a better position?

The two most important qualities I see in a GM are:

1) Knowing what is important for a baseball team to win and properly assessing if it exists on the team he controls; and

2) Properly evaluating talent and being a good horse trader with those assessments.

This debate here has mainly focused on the first trait. Personally, I see next year as a more defining year for Purpura than this one. He can't reasonably stand pat like last offseason, and at the same time, he has more questions to address.

As for the second trait, Purpura hasn't made many trades, and he has certainly avoided any boneheaded trades, even while the press has urged him to do so. For this, I give him high marks.

I can always accept the fact that a GM's reasonable pre-season plan didn't materialize. That's the way things go sometimes. I cannot however accept someone who compounds that initial mistake/misfortune with mid-season trades that cripple the future.

In sum, I question some of his talent evaluations, but all in all, I think he is certainly competant, but we'll know much more next year.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: elicash on August 23, 2006, 05:51:23 pm

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 23, 2006, 05:58:28 pm

Quote:

a team struggling without its best player is not, by any stretch, a single example; in fact, it is, far more often than not, a rule.

you?re right - it could?ve been one of many things; but discounting the impact not having berkman in the line-up for two months had on that team flies in the face of easy and obvious observation culled not from numbers, per se, or even small sample sizes, but the history of sports.

good players make teams better.

You're missing the point here.

Obviously Berkman improves the Astros because Berkman is a great player. When Berkman plays, he makes more out of the plate appearances he gets than his replacement otherwise would. But what you're saying is that Berkman's presence in the line-up magically coincides with everyone else playing better too. While I think it's a positive for the other players to have Berkman in the line-up, because he makes the other teams change their approach and because he gives the team more confidence, I don't think that Ausmus and Biggio and Everett and Ensberg and Scott and Taveras and Huff all go from poor to mediocre or from mediocre to good or from good to great because of Lance.

Every season, most teams perform better at certain times and worse at certain times. This is almost universal. Sometimes this coincides with whether the best player is injured or is slumping. Sometimes it doesn't. Your view seems to be that this must mean that the best player is the driver of success or failure. This is a theory that is supported the times that the best player's presence or performance correlates with the rest of team's perfomance.

The only problem is that you're leaving out all the other times when the best player's presence or performance doesn't correlate with the rest of the team's performance. There's a lot more to the history of sports, or to baseball in particular, than what your selective interpretation is suggesting is a rule.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 23, 2006, 06:00:09 pm

Quote:

but i think it was, to an extent. remember, these are his guys. and i think his loyalty may have blinded him to at least considering that the glass might be half empty. pulling the trigger too soon on any of them, or assuming last year was a product of multiple flukes, would have completely recast the job he did in overseeing player development.

so he had to ride the horses that brung ?em and hope they validated his opinion. but i do think it?s fair to ask him why he thought jason lane could be an everyday corner OF?er; why he never noticed ensberg?s shrinking violet persona; etc.

Then why were the Astros trying to trade for Tejada or, reportedly, Soriano, and why did they acquire Huff?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: pravata on August 23, 2006, 06:03:22 pm

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 06:06:11 pm

Quote:

Then why were the Astros trying to trade for Tejada or, reportedly, Soriano, and why did they acquire Huff?

i'm talking about at the beginning of the 2006 season; by july, 2005 had inched even closer to fluke.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Arky Vaughan on August 23, 2006, 06:08:45 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Then why were the Astros trying to trade for Tejada or, reportedly, Soriano, and why did they acquire Huff?

i'm talking about at the beginning of the 2006 season; by july, 2005 had inched even closer to fluke.

Huh? 2005 was a fluke? Or just that 2006 didn't match it?

They were supposedly trying to acquire Tejada over the offseason, by the way.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 06:30:14 pm

Quote:

They were supposedly trying to acquire Tejada over the offseason, by the way.

i know, and i mentioned that earlier; shows they obviously recognized their offensive shortcomings. but, as also stated earlier, while there may have been more attempted moves behind the scenes beyond just tejada, when march rolled around, it was essentially the same team as last year.

so they knew they had a problem, even tried to address the problem during the winter, but once the season started? did they think the problem had automatically corrected itself? and if it hadn't, did they have a contingency plan? tejada was obviously their offseason plan B, but what was their in-season plan B? it took them until the all-star break to make changes.

i just don't think the organization showed any urgency in 2006 until it was too late.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 06:39:33 pm

and again, that lack of a plan B is where i think you can criticize (but not blame) purpura.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: pravata on August 23, 2006, 06:39:51 pm

Quote:

Quote:

They were supposedly trying to acquire Tejada over the offseason, by the way.

i know, and i mentioned that earlier; shows they obviously recognized their offensive shortcomings. but, as also stated earlier, while there may have been more attempted moves behind the scenes beyond just tejada, when march rolled around, it was essentially the same team as last year.

so they knew they had a problem, even tried to address the problem during the winter, but once the season started? did they think the problem had automatically corrected itself? and if it hadn't, did they have a contingency plan? tejada was obviously their offseason plan B, but what was their in-season plan B? it took them until the all-star break to make changes.

i just don't think the organization showed any urgency in 2006 until it was too late.

This is an incorrect assessment. Purpura explained several times that for a variety of reasons, the position that he decided could be upgraded for offense was left field. The attempt at Tejada was a special case. They pursued, that I'm aware of, Garciaparra, who they offered approximately the same contract as did the Dodgers. They also attempted to trade for Abreu, however the Phillies wanted the Astros to assume all of Abreu's contract as well as send players, Brad Lidge, (obviously not as prescient as Astros' fans) being one, Chris Burke another.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: elicash on August 23, 2006, 06:45:40 pm

Quote:

I think your "expecting too much" comment would be where we would have some disagreement. All they wanted from Lane was average. Ensberg they had hopes for and for good reason. After his initial rookie season false start, the only slumps he's been in were caused by injuries. Purpura has admitted that their statistical projections for Wilson were off. Also, with Oswalt, Pettitte, and he seemed pretty sure of Clemens, I don't see how any expectation of success could be "unrealistic", that looked like the best 3 in the NL. Who expected Pettitte to have his worst season?

Sorry edited my above message while this was posted ?

I think some of the hopes where fair but in total I don?t think it was likely the team from last season was going to repeat its performance ? a performance which barely got them to the playoffs ? there where areas to expect some upgrade but we likely disagree as to how much ? I think the only major area to expect significant improvement from was a full season of Berkman ? I don?t think any more could be expected from Lane, Everett, ausmus, or Biggio ? and I think most where skeptical about tavarez improving significantly and where Burke might fit in? I think some decline was probably likely for ensberg (although not this much) ? maybe the club had a different view and obviously not all of the collapses should be expected? but some should - it happens every year to someone ? overall standing pat offensively would have still been a weak offensive team (although assuming performances - better than last season) ? but in the end probably not enough to make up for what was expected drop in pitching performance ?

Clemens, Pettitte and Roy are as good a 123 as there is in the NL, and success should be expected - but its in the degree of success ? what they did last season was remarkable ? I don?t think you could pick any three pitchers in the baseball and expect to get approx 680 innings of 2.4 era from them ? so to expect it from these three, to me, was shooting to high ? in fact their performance last season was so good you could have another good season from each and still have a significant drop ? especially considering you?re are going to miss a couple of months of Clemens ? and for pettitte having his worst season Clemens hasn?t missed a step and I don?t think you could have banked on that so there is some evening out ? overall I think you had to expect a drop in pitching performance ? I just didn?t think it would this much

I am not sure if expecting more from last season is completely unrealistic (if I said that I might have overstated it a bit) but it is, at least to me, overall - unlikely ? I think something drastic needed to be done to keep this team as a likely playoff team because if you think the pitching will have a natural coming back to earth and the offense won?t improve drastically it is hard to imagine the astros significantly improving on last season where despite there WS appearance they barely made the playoffs ? its also not hard to see the potential for a significant regression ? and as I said above I think Pupura recognized this but was unable to make a move ? perhaps through no fault of his own ? if the deal isn?t there its just not there ?

Man I am way to fucking wordy today ? I apologize

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 06:54:33 pm

Quote:

This is an incorrect assessment.

these are moves they tried to make after the season started?

Quote:

Purpura explained several times that... the position he decided could be upgraded... was left field... Tejada... Garciaparra... Abreu

hmmm... kind of sounds like they tried to upgrade every position but left field considering those three have played a grand total of 0 games in LF this year. does purpura not know where LF is, or....?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: No? in Austin on August 23, 2006, 07:00:53 pm

Quote:

I think something drastic needed to be done to keep this team as a likely playoff team because if you think the pitching will have a natural coming back to earth and the offense won?t improve drastically it is hard to imagine the astros significantly improving on last season where despite there WS appearance they barely made the playoffs ? its also not hard to see the potential for a significant regression ?

I don't think "drastic" is appropriate in terms of change or improvement. I further think that "significant" in terms of regression is appropriate either. You certainly don't stand pat, no GM would do that. However in order to make changes, you evaluate your strengths and weaknesses and act accordingly.

I do not think it is very fruitful to expect one of your strengths to become a weakness. Houston's bullpen has not lived up to the expectations of the last two years. Brad Lidge is the player who makes it work. However, they shopped him this offseason because it was reasonable to them to upgrade their offense whilest not losing much in terms of the bullpen if you promote either Wheeler or Qualls. The good thing was that if they did not accomplish the upgrade on offense via the trade route (which is what happened), the fallback is that you're still *strong* in the bullpen.

That is why Preston Wilson's addition to the team was considered a good move, along with the full year they were going to get from Lance Berkman and Andy Pettitte. I don't think any GM worth his salt would be able to *predict* the injury and failure therein of three of his corner men, where his offense in terms of run support comes from. Neither a severe breakdown of his closer's ability. Add to that a lousy first half by your #2 starter and you have a receipe for a letdown from last year.

Last year was not a fluke, it was all things coming together from the talent pool that was amassed. Thinking ahead and saying to yourself that you believe five key contributors will fail is pessimism at it's greatest degree. I don't think most GM's work under such paranoya.

Fans on the other hand...

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 07:05:02 pm

Quote:

Brad Lidge is the player who makes it work. However, they shopped him this offseason because it was reasonable to them to upgrade their offense ...

but don't you think at least part of their reason for shopping him was just in case..........

if they had absolutely no doubts about lidge's ability to bounce back, i don't see how you could trade arguably the most valuable player of your two most recent playoff runs, even to signifigantly upgrade the O.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: pravata on August 23, 2006, 07:06:35 pm

Quote:

Quote:

This is an incorrect assessment.

these are moves they tried to make after the season started?

Quote:

Purpura explained several times that... the position he decided could be upgraded... was left field... Tejada... Garciaparra... Abreu

hmmm... kind of sounds like they tried to upgrade every position but left field considering those three have played a grand total of 0 games in LF this year. does purpura not know where LF is, or....?

No, these were preseason trade offers. How many games had Garciaparra played at first? Most teams that pursued him looked to play him in the outfield. Abreu, if he prefered, could have played right, Lane in left, the alignment is irrelevant. And you're missing the point about Tejada. I'm skeptical that you're trying to say anything coherent about Purpura if you are unaware of these off season attempts at trades.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: No? in Austin on August 23, 2006, 07:09:54 pm

Quote:

but don't you think at least part of their reason for shopping him was just in case..........

No.

Quote:

if they had absolutely no doubts about lidge's ability to bounce back, i don't see how you could trade arguably the most valuable player of your two most recent playoff runs, even to signifigantly upgrade the O.

Bounce back? From what!?!?

He was who the *other* teams asked about. When the Orioles lost BJ Ryan, they decided they might want Lidge in return for Tejada. In the Phillies case, they lost Billy Wagner. It is not that hard to understand *why* Lidge was asked for. But the Astros did not aggressively *shop* Lidge in order to acquire offense in case that is what it seems like to any one. You give up something to get something. Houston actually thought they had a deal in place for Abreu, but the stumbling block was not players (it was Lidge for Abreu straight up), it was the Phillies refusing to talk about picking up any of Kelly's contract.

If you want to know who the Astros aggressively shopped this offseason to try and acquire some pitching or offense, it was... ironically... Luke Scott.

No one took them seriously.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HPFRic on August 23, 2006, 07:18:08 pm

Quote:

I'm skeptical that you're trying to say anything coherent about Purpura if you are unaware of these off season attempts at trades.

i've now thrice acknowledged not only the tejada deal, but others we may not have known about. it shows the team recognized its offensive shortcomings.

so how did they address those same shortcomings once the season started? if your answer is to promote luke scott and trade for aubrey huff, fine - but those moves came on july 12 when your team had spent the first 89 games of the season confirming that yes, indeed, it needed more offense. so why did it take so long to address a problem you?d known about since 2005?

and in theory, those moves would have only addressed, specifically, the failing of jason lane and the injury/slump of morgan ensberg, meaning they really would have only served to bring the team back up to its 2005-level of production, which they had deemed, through various attempted machinations during the winter, to be unacceptable.

so my question is, once the season started, what did they do to make the team better?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: elicash on August 23, 2006, 07:18:13 pm

Quote:

Quote:

I think something drastic needed to be done to keep this team as a likely playoff team because if you think the pitching will have a natural coming back to earth and the offense won?t improve drastically it is hard to imagine the astros significantly improving on last season where despite there WS appearance they barely made the playoffs ? its also not hard to see the potential for a significant regression ?

Last year was not a fluke, it was all things coming together from the talent pool that was amassed. Thinking ahead and saying to yourself that you believe five key contributors will fail is pessimism at it's greatest degree. I don't think most GM's work under such paranoya.

Fans on the other hand...

I agree to some extent ... I certainly don't think last season was a fluke but as you said it was a coming together of the talent pool ... assuming you can get a certain range of performance from any given team I do think they got well into the upper range of this teams potential ... not to say it was a fluke but many many things went right and some more than right ... Now I don't think you could expect the team to be this bad but I think it was pretty clear without somehting more the odd where team was going to fall short at bettering last season ...

when I said significant regression its not to say that it was expected only that I am not sure the ceiling for last seasons team was all that much higher and the potential for poorer play was greater ... not expected - just potential for ...

I don't think its paranoia its just - as you said - being pro active and to pupura's credit I think he attempted to be - but the moves that made sense weren't there (I presume) ...

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: pravata on August 23, 2006, 07:24:28 pm

Quote:

Quote:

I'm skeptical that you're trying to say anything coherent about Purpura if you are unaware of these off season attempts at trades.

i've now thrice acknowledged not only the tejada deal, but others we may not have known about. it shows the team recognized its offensive shortcomings.

so how did they address those same shortcomings once the season started? if your answer is to promote luke scott and trade for aubrey huff, fine - but those moves came on july 12 when your team had spent the first 89 games of the season confirming that yes, indeed, it needed more offense. so why did it take so long to address a problem you?d known about since 2005?

and in theory, those moves would have only addressed, specifically, the failing of jason lane and the injury/slump of morgan ensberg, meaning they really would have only served to bring the team back up to its 2005-level of production, which they had deemed, through various attempted machinations during the winter, to be unacceptable.

so my question is, once the season started, what did they do to make the team better?

Which team made a significant trade before the trade deadline?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: austro on August 23, 2006, 07:24:46 pm

Quote:

so how did they address those same shortcomings once the season started? if your answer is to promote luke scott and trade for aubrey huff, fine - but those moves came on july 12 when your team had spent the first 89 games of the season confirming that yes, indeed, it needed more offense. so why did it take so long to address a problem you?d known about since 2005?

One thing that seems to be getting overlooked here is that the Astros/Purpura can't do things unilaterally. You can target certain players all you want, and even ask about them, but until the other party throws in the towel and says "yup, I guess I'm willing to give him up", no deal is going through. Once the season starts, teams are going to wait a while to see how things are shaping up. It may very well be that there simply were no available partners until 89 games into the season.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: No? in Austin on August 23, 2006, 07:24:52 pm

Quote:

so my question is, once the season started, what did they do to make the team better?

Add this to the end of your question: from last year's NL Champion and World Series squad.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: jbm on August 23, 2006, 07:26:01 pm

Quote:

so my question is, once the season started, what did they do to make the team better?

Retooling on the fly is a bad way to manage a club IMO. You always pay the desperation surcharge.

Basically, you build teams before the season, not during it. If your preseason strategy fails, learn and move on. Was TP's preseason strategy flawed? Maybe, but I don't think it was as obvious as you are making it out to be. I mean, a lot have guys have had to really suck to get the Astros where they are today.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: elicash on August 23, 2006, 07:26:53 pm

Quote:

I do not think it is very fruitful to expect one of your strengths to become a weakness. Houston's bullpen has not lived up to the expectations of the last two years. Brad Lidge is the player who makes it work. However, they shopped him this offseason because it was reasonable to them to upgrade their offense whilest not losing much in terms of the bullpen if you promote either Wheeler or Qualls. The good thing was that if they did not accomplish the upgrade on offense via the trade route (which is what happened), the fallback is that you're still *strong* in the bullpen.

That is why Preston Wilson's addition to the team was considered a good move, along with the full year they were going to get from Lance Berkman and Andy Pettitte. I don't think any GM worth his salt would be able to *predict* the injury and failure therein of three of his corner men, where his offense in terms of run support comes from. Neither a severe breakdown of his closer's ability. Add to that a lousy first half by your #2 starter and you have a receipe for a letdown from last year.

I don't think you have to say you expect strengths to become weakness as much as expecting some performances just can't in all likelyhood be repeated ... recognizing a likelyhood for a drop in performance doesn't mean its a weakness just that if your getting by with performances that are rare when they drop off (from amazing to good or great) there needs to be something to pick up the slack - and thats just to stand pat ... I think the WS appearance to most (not suprisingly) made this team feel like a more solid team than it was ...

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Bench on August 23, 2006, 07:28:36 pm

Quote:

Quote:

so my question is, once the season started, what did they do to make the team better?

Retooling on the fly is a bad way to manage a club IMO. You always pay the desperation surcharge.

Basically, you build teams before the season, not during it. If your preseason strategy fails, learn and move on. Was TP's preseason strategy flawed? Maybe, but I don't think it was as obvious as you are making it out to be. I mean, a lot have guys have had to really suck to get the Astros where they are today.

It's hard to say it was flawed when 2 of you 4 all-stars from the previous year completely fell off.

Purpura's hands were largely tied, he relied on seemingly reliable guys, made the moves he could make, and it didn't work out all that great. But it's crazy to say the Purpura's December vision was fatally flawed.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: No? in Austin on August 23, 2006, 07:36:07 pm

Quote:

I don't think its paranoia its just - as you said - being pro active and to pupura's credit I think he attempted to be - but the moves that made sense weren't there (I presume) ...

Tim Purpura pretty much clued everyone in who would listen that you start with a parameter and then work from there. So he asked those who were asking what *moves* if any would he make (mostly those in the media who asked). His answer was that you need to start with *where* you need to make moves first and work from there.

So he asked the media in return: where do you think we *need* to start? Usually the answer came back that a corner outfielder position and not the one manned by Jason Lane. Third base was fine with Ensberg, right field *or left* was fine as long as Lane was the one manning it and first base was fine with Berkman. So a corner outfielder would be nice.

He agreed and went after Garciaparra in free agency, talked to several others (but not as intently as he did with Nomar). He also had a very good chance of landing Abreu. In fact, they had the deal done right before Thanksgiving. The Phillies backed away because Gillick sent the signal that after Thome, he wasn't eating any more contracts. Both Houston and Seattle backed away from Abreu at that point.

At the very end, the Astros settled on Preston Wilson. If you want a similar situation for a team, look at the St. Looie Jakes. They acquired Juan Encarnacion (to replace Larry Walker) and settled on So Taguchi/John Rodriquez to replace Sanders. So if a GM like the reknown Walt Jocketty (the GM of the *other* NLCS participant) was unable to acquire anybody that would make your head spin, how easy should it have been for Purpura as well? About the same.

Houston was actually better in the outfield situation at the time because Jim Edmonds was a question mark at the time. So while we can sit here and be the very good couch GMs, the reality is that Purpura did what was reasonable to upgrade the team because he looked at the right place to upgrade and did it. The failure of five key compenents to the team is not what you plan for.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: No? in Austin on August 23, 2006, 07:49:31 pm

Quote:

I don't think you have to say you expect strengths to become weakness

But that is the reality of what the Astros are dealing with. So you cannot plan for those things.

Quote:

as much as expecting some performances just can't in all likelyhood be repeated ...

Yes, but to *what* extend do you plan for performance drops? Significant, equal, not much, fall off the face of the earth. And how many do you plan for? One player, two players, three? four? five? 25?

Quote:

recognizing a likelyhood for a drop in performance doesn't mean its a weakness just that if your getting by with performances that are rare when they drop off (from amazing to good or great) there needs to be something to pick up the slack - and thats just to stand pat ... I think the WS appearance to most (not suprisingly) made this team feel like a more solid team than it was ...

I disgree, the 2005 World Series Houston Astros were a very solid team. People make too much of the four game sweep and do not pay attention to the talent and ability of the team itself. Injuries, inexplicable significant drops in perfromance to *key* personnel (it's different if Gallo drops in performance than Brad Lidge, hence the *key* aspect) and just non-performance to levels that are reasonable to expect from career numbers on certain players (Wilson basically lived up to his career strikeout numbers and that was it), make a GM look worse than he really is.

Also makes some question the validity of a very good team that played in the World Series last year too. It happened in 2000, so this is no different to me. When Houston lost Billy Wagner, Shane Reynolds, Billy Spiers, Craig Biggio all to injury and Mike Hampton and Carl Everett to free trades, plus significant drops in perfomance by Lima and Holt, it was a reciepe for a lost season (worse than this one). The Astros went on to win the NL Central division the following year.

The fans and media excused that team because of Enron (then nicknamed Ten Run) field. An analysis that lack substance based on how much they lost in performance and injury. There were plenty of fans and media alike who swore as long as Enron was the place the Astros played, they'd never return to being an elite team in the NL.

They won the NL Central crown the next year.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: elicash on August 23, 2006, 08:00:33 pm

Quote:

Quote:

I don't think its paranoia its just - as you said - being pro active and to pupura's credit I think he attempted to be - but the moves that made sense weren't there (I presume) ...

Tim Purpura pretty much clued everyone in who would listen that you start with a parameter and then work from there. So he asked those who were asking what *moves* if any would he make (mostly those in the media who asked). His answer was that you need to start with *where* you need to make moves first and work from there.

So he asked the media in return: where do you think we *need* to start? Usually the answer came back that a corner outfielder position and not the one manned by Jason Lane. Third base was fine with Ensberg, right field *or left* was fine as long as Lane was the one manning it and first base was fine with Berkman. So a corner outfielder would be nice.

He agreed and went after Garciaparra in free agency, talked to several others (but not as intently as he did with Nomar). He also had a very good chance of landing Abreu. In fact, they had the deal done right before Thanksgiving. The Phillies backed away because Gillick sent the signal that after Thome, he wasn't eating any more contracts. Both Houston and Seattle backed away from Abreu at that point.

At the very end, the Astros settled on Preston Wilson. If you want a similar situation for a team, look at the St. Looie Jakes. They acquired Juan Encarnacion (to replace Larry Walker) and settled on So Taguchi/John Rodriquez to replace Sanders. So if a GM like the reknown Walt Jocketty (the GM of the *other* NLCS participant) was unable to acquire anybody that would make your head spin, how easy should it have been for Purpura as well? About the same.

Houston was actually better in the outfield situation at the time because Jim Edmonds was a question mark at the time. So while we can sit here and be the very good couch GMs, the reality is that Purpura did what was reasonable to upgrade the team because he looked at the right place to upgrade and did it. The failure of five key compenents to the team is not what you plan for.

Overall we very much agree from what I am reading ? although I hope my expecting a ?natural coming down to earth? and your point on expecting failure are not being confused ? I am not talking about expecting the failed performances of everyone who has ... I have said numerous times I think pupura did what was reasonable and the bigger upgrade he wanted just was not there ... wilson made sense but I think its safe to presume he wanted to do more (in terms of a bigger player) ... my point is not blaming him - I am sure he generally recognized the same things I pointed out (its not like its rocket science) ... I agree with what your saying on improvement by position I am just speaking in general terms rather than focusing on a specific position ... I think you have to expect some let downs but it is pointless to throw darts guessing where it will be ? you can only work to strengthen what needs it ? I am not sure we disagree on that much - best I can tell

as for Jockety - I don?t think the need for a major move was near as glaring - as the cardinals where in much better shape in terms of expected regular season play ?

again I am not saying pupura should be faulted for not making a bigger deal ? if it wasn?t there it wasn?t there ? it seems silly to me to blame GM?s for not making good deals that don?t exist ? my points are not to be construed in that he should be blamed for anything or should have expected 5 key components to fail ? it seems to be he expect some regression and tried to act on it ?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: VirtualBob on August 24, 2006, 12:07:47 am

Quote:

Quote:

How the hell did Detroit get so good so fast? That's what the Astros need to do.

Yeah, it only took 19 years (since last playoff berth).

They're on a schedule (of sorts) ... 45, 68, 84, 06. They don't rebuild, they reload. Slowly.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Outlawscotty on August 24, 2006, 09:57:58 am

What if Bagwell's contract were settled through the insurance claim? Would the money freed therein allowed Purpura to pull the trigger on Abreu regardless of his contract? I think Purpura worked from within his budget, (which was expanded by some margin anyway,) and eventually got burned by some players returning to earth/getting injured. Financially speaking, it hurts when pay so much money for no output, no matter how much money you have. Nobody's fault really, as the contract was earned, but the other MLB clubs foolish enough to spend foolishly haven't made the WS in the last few years either. Huff and Wilson were good acquisitions on paper, and created a buzz of sorts among the fans. One works and one doesn't. Why should this reflect on Purpura? I guess somebody has to be the fall guy, and it ain't gonna be a player.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: No? in Austin on August 24, 2006, 11:49:36 am

Quote:

as for Jockety - I don?t think the need for a major move was near as glaring - as the cardinals where in much better shape in terms of expected regular season play ?

I know plenty of Jake fans who would disagree with you... they call him "Wait" Jocketty for a reason.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: elicash on August 24, 2006, 12:09:24 pm

Quote:

Quote:

as for Jockety - I don?t think the need for a major move was near as glaring - as the cardinals where in much better shape in terms of expected regular season play ?

I know plenty of Jake fans who would disagree with you... they call him "Wait" Jocketty for a reason.

Nick names aside - Nearly all of the st. louis fans I am friends with felt the teams weakness was in being built for series play and the need for that was someting that could be adressed during the season with a piece or two ... all felt the cards going into 2006 had a significantly higher regular season win ceiling ... and I think felt that way for good reason ...

either way its not an indictment or praise of jockety or Pupura simply that the teams where in different positions ...

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: No? in Austin on August 24, 2006, 12:25:15 pm

The ones I know felt he needed offense to replace what was going to be missing (Sanders, Walker, Grudzilanek) and he didn't address it until later... and that was with Encarnacion only.

But the point remains, if your theory of regression is true, then why did a good GM like Jocketty not see his NLCS team regression from the 2005 mean? Why did he not react? Maybe because a GM for a major league baseball team doesn't think like you and I?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: elicash on August 24, 2006, 01:14:40 pm

Quote:

The ones I know felt he needed offense to replace what was going to be missing (Sanders, Walker, Grudzilanek) and he didn't address it until later... and that was with Encarnacion only.

But the point remains, if your theory of regression is true, then why did a good GM like Jocketty not see his NLCS team regression from the 2005 mean? Why did he not react? Maybe because a GM for a major league baseball team doesn't think like you and I?

Its not really a ?theory? of regression ? its pretty obvious some players can?t perform at certain levels year in and year out (specifically the starters and to some degree the bull pen) ? st louis was in a different position - they where a 100 win team ? so I am not sure comparing the cards is all that relevant ? they had to replace Sanders, Walker, Grudzilanek ... sanders and walker where essentially one good player worth of production last season (both missing significant time and playing with injuries) juan encarnacion was a down grade but not a drastic one (thus far) ? grudz to miles has also been a down grade but also not a drastic one ? added to the fact you probably counter this with a full season of Rolen (drastic upgrade) ? st. louis had a better all around club top to bottom and had fewer holes ? and ones that where easier to fill ? they could withstand some poor play and under performance and still be a likely playoff team because frankly they are easily a more consistent team ? and they have withstood some poor performance this season ?

they may approach things somewhat differently but I would be shocked if Pupura went into the regular season expecting some of the same things to happen again ? this doesn?t mean he needed to or should have expected a complete collapse of some of these components - just that anyone can recognize its probably not realistic to expect (for instance) 680 innings of 2.4 era ball from your top three starters ? I think its evident he realized last seasons team / this seasons team had holes and had some coming back to earth and in order to repeat last season he needed to do something and perhaps something significant ? and I think its clear he tried to do something ?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: No? in Austin on August 24, 2006, 02:56:08 pm

Quote:

Its not really a ?theory? of regression ? its pretty obvious some players can?t perform at certain levels year in and year out (specifically the starters and to some degree the bull pen)

Career stats be damned.

Quote:

? st louis was in a different position - they where a 100 win team ? so I am not sure comparing the cards is all that relevant

Comparing the *actions* of the GM is relevant. Regression will happen if I take what you're saying at face value. By contrast, then *other* teams will improve as well (see: Reds, Cincy) because sometimes career years happen, the planet align, etc. So wouldn't a smart GM look at his good team, put his thinking cap on and say "Hey, even if we regress a little, that's too much because they're going to catch up to us... we go down a little, the come up a little... holy crap, I better get on the phone!". It's what we're discussing in theory of what is an expectation of the GM, in our skewed viewpoint!

Quote:

? they had to replace Sanders, Walker, Grudzilanek ... sanders and walker where essentially one good player worth of production last season (both missing significant time and playing with injuries) juan encarnacion was a down grade but not a drastic one (thus far) ? grudz to miles has also been a down grade but also not a drastic one ? added to the fact you probably counter this with a full season of Rolen (drastic upgrade)

But Rolen hasn't played a full season and Pujols has had the plantar facitis (sp?) problem, so aren't you just asking for trouble if you're a GM and make little to no moves to continue to improve your team? [sarcasm)Instead you think it's okay for Jocketty to literally stand pat and take his chances that Rolen (injured in the past), Edmonds (older, injured in the past) and Pujols (foot ouchy!) will stay healthy? No! He should've known and gone out and done something about it damnit! (/sarcasm)

Quote:

? st. louis had a better all around club top to bottom and had fewer holes ? and ones that where easier to fill ? they could withstand some poor play and under performance and still be a likely playoff team because frankly they are easily a more consistent team ? and they have withstood some poor performance this season ?

See above. They have nothing locked up in terms of playoffs and they, just like the Astros, might be watching the playoffs from their living room couch just as easily. They're not a great team as in the past! No way, no how!

Quote:

they may approach things somewhat differently but I would be shocked if Pupura went into the regular season expecting some of the same things to happen again ? this doesn?t mean he needed to or should have expected a complete collapse of some of these components - just that anyone can recognize its probably not realistic to expect (for instance) 680 innings of 2.4 era ball from your top three starters ? I think its evident he realized last seasons team / this seasons team had holes and had some coming back to earth and in order to repeat last season he needed to do something and perhaps something significant ? and I think its clear he tried to do something ?

But that's not what is in question here, what has been said to date in indirect or direct terms is he (Purpura) is incompenent in evaluating the team's chances and acting accordingly. It takes quite a stretch to get to there from here, but may as well say it out loud just to be sure we're not dancing around the real rant that is underlying this whole discussion.

I disagree too. He knows his team, he set reasonable expectations for Lane, Ensberg, Wilson, Biggio and the bullpen. They didn't live up to those expectations. It is not that he had a skewed or incorrect expectation at all. It is that the players failed to live up to what they were reasonably expected to do.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: elicash on August 24, 2006, 04:15:49 pm

Quote:

Quote:

Its not really a ?theory? of regression ? its pretty obvious some players can?t perform at certain levels year in and year out (specifically the starters and to some degree the bull pen)

Career stats be damned.

Career stats would bear this all out ?
3 starters all relatively healthy having not good years but cy young conternder type years ?this is rare for anyone even this group ? you can?t count on that - and I don?t think pupura did ?

Do you think it was reasonable to expect that kind of production again ? especially considering Clemens early absence ?

Quote:

Quote:

? st louis was in a different position - they where a 100 win team ? so I am not sure comparing the cards is all that relevant

Comparing the *actions* of the GM is relevant. Regression will happen if I take what you're saying at face value. By contrast, then *other* teams will improve as well (see: Reds, Cincy) because sometimes career years happen, the planet align, etc. So wouldn't a smart GM look at his good team, put his thinking cap on and say "Hey, even if we regress a little, that's too much because they're going to catch up to us... we go down a little, the come up a little... holy crap, I better get on the phone!". It's what we're discussing in theory of what is an expectation of the GM, in our skewed viewpoint!

No - I am discussing what I presume went into Pupura?s discussion making ? I am not saying ?I don?t think he took this into account? ? because it is frankly too obvious not to ? I pointed this out to add why I think pupura was rightfully trying to make a bigger move and such a move wasn?t completely reactionary to failed expectations ? I think he saw there was greater potential to fall back than there was to improve from this cast ?

Regression will happen usually when there is potential for it ? I am not just throwing regression out there as something that just happens for no reason ? my example here for instance (the top 3 starters) even though have had amazing careers you can?t expect what they gave you last season year in and year out ? this does not mean Pupra goes into a panic over what his likely reasonable expectation is - it just means he (presumably) acknowledges it ? and factors it in ? and I think he did that ?

I also don't think you can factor in a weakened NL or a weakened division too much ... it has happened this season and it has helped make some teams look better than they are but thats not a likely occurance I would factor heavily in ... I don't think Pupura did either ...

Quote:

Quote:

? they had to replace Sanders, Walker, Grudzilanek ... sanders and walker where essentially one good player worth of production last season (both missing significant time and playing with injuries) juan encarnacion was a down grade but not a drastic one (thus far) ? grudz to miles has also been a down grade but also not a drastic one ? added to the fact you probably counter this with a full season of Rolen (drastic upgrade)

But Rolen hasn't played a full season and Pujols has had the plantar facitis (sp?) problem, so aren't you just asking for trouble if you're a GM and make little to no moves to continue to improve your team? [sarcasm)Instead you think it's okay for Jocketty to literally stand pat and take his chances that Rolen (injured in the past), Edmonds (older, injured in the past) and Pujols (foot ouchy!) will stay healthy? No! He should've known and gone out and done something about it damnit! (/sarcasm)

Rolen has played pretty close to a full season and surely met expectations ? the same with Pujols ? Edmunds performance has dipped and he?s missed some time (as he does every year) but I am sure this was expected to a degree (although the drop in performance is maybe more than you would think) ? the situation with these three doesn?t create a sense of urgency ? so I don?t see the need for moves that your presuming this situation would seem to sarcastically present ? again I don?t think jockety was in a similar position ? he was dealing with a better more consistent team and frankly more successful team that hadn?t relied on too many career performances to get to the playoffs ? that?s why I don?t think he felt the need to make a big move ? I think pupura felt the need to but the deal that made sense was not there so as I have said I don?t think you can put it on him ? you can only deal with what?s likely - the above situation with Pujols/rolen/Edmunds is not all that likely ? plus its not really something that can be fully dealt with should it happen anyway ?

You could have said a risk existed with Berkman?s injury but this doesn?t mean pupura should go out and deal with something that hasn?t happened or isn?t likely to happen ? those things you have to deal with on the fly ?

Quote:

Quote:

? st. louis had a better all around club top to bottom and had fewer holes ? and ones that where easier to fill ? they could withstand some poor play and under performance and still be a likely playoff team because frankly they are easily a more consistent team ? and they have withstood some poor performance this season ?

See above. They have nothing locked up in terms of playoffs and they, just like the Astros, might be watching the playoffs from their living room couch just as easily. They're not a great team as in the past! No way, no how!

St. louis has suffered from some similar short comings in performance and they are by no means automatic but they seem VERY likely to still make the playoffs because they where a better team to begin with and had more of a margin for error ? the astros didn?t have the luxury of starting the season with 100 win caliber team and the team from last season likely overachieved to a degree to get to 89 wins so I don?t think it had NEAR the margin for error st louis did ? it was probably much less ? Again I think pupura recognized this ? this is not an indictment of his performance ?

Quote:

Quote:

they may approach things somewhat differently but I would be shocked if Pupura went into the regular season expecting some of the same things to happen again ? this doesn?t mean he needed to or should have expected a complete collapse of some of these components - just that anyone can recognize its probably not realistic to expect (for instance) 680 innings of 2.4 era ball from your top three starters ? I think its evident he realized last seasons team / this seasons team had holes and had some coming back to earth and in order to repeat last season he needed to do something and perhaps something significant ? and I think its clear he tried to do something ?

But that's not what is in question here, what has been said to date in indirect or direct terms is he (Purpura) is incompenent in evaluating the team's chances and acting accordingly. It takes quite a stretch to get to there from here, but may as well say it out loud just to be sure we're not dancing around the real rant that is underlying this whole discussion.

I disagree too. He knows his team, he set reasonable expectations for Lane, Ensberg, Wilson, Biggio and the bullpen. They didn't live up to those expectations. It is not that he had a skewed or incorrect expectation at all. It is that the players failed to live up to what they were reasonably expected to do.

I have never said Purpura is incompetent in evaluating the team's chances ? in fact I have said the opposite ? I have not said Pupura has skewed expectations ? in fact I have said the opposite ? I think pupura wanted to do more beyond what was done but the deal wasn?t there ?

I am pointing these things out not damning Pupura but to point out what I think factored into his motives ? of course other than hearsay I have no idea if they did or not ? but the point remains I think he recognized last seasons team overachieving to a degree and wanted to make a bigger move to bolster the team not only to maintain the performance and success of last season but to hopefully improve on it ? I don?t think a big move that made sense was out there ? and as I have said it seems silly to me to try and blame GM?s for not making deals that don?t exist ?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: No? in Austin on August 24, 2006, 04:50:02 pm

Quote:

Career stats would bear this all out ?
3 starters all relatively healthy having not good years but cy young conternder type years ?this is rare for anyone even this group ? you can?t count on that - and I don?t think pupura did ?

You can count on some semblence of productivity at or near the career stats and yes, you don't go into a season with pessimism. If you do, you'll show the players they are not trusted to do their job. You approach it just the opposite, you expect them to perform and adjust as you go along. That is why the Memorial Day evaluation of the team is very important for a GM.

They rarely overreact during the offseason and spring. But during the first two months, they pay attention to team trends and by Memorial Day, they have a keen idea of what they need to target to improve via trades in the coming month or two.

Quote:

Do you think it was reasonable to expect that kind of production again ? especially considering Clemens early absence ?

It is unreasonable to be pessimistic given the marathon that is a season.

Quote:

No - I am discussing what I presume went into Pupura?s discussion making ? I am not saying ?I don?t think he took this into account? ? because it is frankly too obvious not to ? I pointed this out to add why I think pupura was rightfully trying to make a bigger move and such a move wasn?t completely reactionary to failed expectations ? I think he saw there was greater potential to fall back than there was to improve from this cast ?

"greater"? You tend to overstate things, doncha?

Quote:

Regression will happen usually when there is potential for it ? I am not just throwing regression out there as something that just happens for no reason ? my example here for instance (the top 3 starters) even though have had amazing careers you can?t expect what they gave you last season year in and year out ?

And I will say it again, over stating this regression at the offseason and spring training is dangerous for a GM because the Memorial Day evaulation will tell him *more* about a the *team* he's built or stayed with. Not some magical "I think we shall regress, so I shall change it!" esoteric evaluation.

Quote:

this does not mean Pupra goes into a panic over what his likely reasonable expectation is - it just means he (presumably) acknowledges it ? and factors it in ? and I think he did that ?

He did all that and ate potato chips too!

Quote:

I also don't think you can factor in a weakened NL or a weakened division too much ... it has happened this season and it has helped make some teams look better than they are but thats not a likely occurance I would factor heavily in ... I don't think Pupura did either ...

To keep it simple for you, Tim Purpura believed in his players and they didn't deliver. He did nothing wrong by that, in fact, he did something admirable for the players. If you come off a season like Ensberg just did, but your GM says to you "Hey, I think we want to go in a different direction and so we've traded you away and we're going to go find a free agent third baseman...", he'd be marked a lousy GM by the players. And it's the players who matter most in the equation, not you and I as Joe Fan... or the media. It's different letting go of Tim Redding last spring and saying adios to Morgan Ensberg this spring. The message would've been totally different for the players and made more problems for a *team* (because it is *TEAM* that wins, not individuals).

Quote:

Rolen has played pretty close to a full season and surely met expectations ?

Gosh, you mean Jocketty didn't panic and get rid of the third baseman who had his shoulder ripped out it's socket in 2005!?!? Wow, he *stuck* with his guy? Imagine that!

Quote:

the same with Pujols ?

See above. Either you believe in your players or you don't. If you don't then you make a move. If you do, you let them create their own destiny and you react accordingly. The mark of a good GM, IMHO of course.

Quote:

Edmunds performance has dipped and he?s missed some time (as he does every year) but I am sure this was expected to a degree (although the drop in performance is maybe more than you would think) ?

Gosh, you're making my argument for me. Thanks!

Quote:

the situation with these three doesn?t create a sense of urgency ?

See above.

Quote:

so I don?t see the need for moves that your presuming this situation would seem to sarcastically present ? again I don?t think jockety was in a similar position ? he was dealing with a better more consistent team and frankly more successful team that hadn?t relied on too many career performances to get to the playoffs ?

Your concept of *team* is skewed if you believe what you just wrote. One man's "more successful" is another man's "Whaaa?"

Quote:

that?s why I don?t think he felt the need to make a big move ? I think pupura felt the need to but the deal that made sense was not there so as I have said I don?t think you can put it on him ? you can only deal with what?s likely - the above situation with Pujols/rolen/Edmunds is not all that likely ? plus its not really something that can be fully dealt with should it happen anyway ?

Tim Purpura made the appropriate designation for improvement: corner outfielder. Tejada notwithstanding because he wasn't even on the market until the Orioles put it out that they may just want to trade him... and Houston was a team they were wanting to talk to if Lidge were made available (because they had just lost BJ Ryan). Don't for a minute think Purpura didn't know how to evaluate Morgan Ensberg or Jason Lane. That they didn't perform along with Preston Wilson is not an indictment against him nor his evaluation methods. It is what it is: failure to live up to expectations by the players.

End of story.

Quote:

I have never said Purpura is incompetent in evaluating the team's chances ? in fact I have said the opposite ? I have not said Pupura has skewed expectations ? in fact I have said the opposite ? I think pupura wanted to do more beyond what was done but the deal wasn?t there ?

How can you say two things at one time, that's pretty good! He did what he thought was filling a need: corner outfielder. He went to battle with those men and waited, like all good GMs do (like Walt Jocketty too) to adjust after the Memorial Day evaluation. Remember, GM Gerry Hunsicker put together his team in the same manner in 2004 and the team proceeded to fail to meet expectations (Biggio in centerfield?). Hunsicker adjusted accordingly and went out and got Beltran, inserted Lidge into the closer role and the *team* performed better... all the way into the NLCS.

Why is this so hard to understand about a good GM?

Quote:

I am pointing these things out not damning Pupura but to point out what I think factored into his motives ? of course other than hearsay I have no idea if they did or not ? but the point remains I think he recognized last seasons team overachieving to a degree and wanted to make a bigger move to bolster the team not only to maintain the performance and success of last season but to hopefully improve on it ?

Not even close to the truth. He believes in Jason Lane, He believes in Morgan Ensberg... he didn't think these guys were flukes nor overachievers! He also believes in Brad Lidge too, and his mention in trade rumors was not reactionary nor induced by an evaluation that he believed Lidge would regress to lower than a snakes belly as a closer. It was because the *other* teams asked about him and like a good GM is prone to do (see: Dotel in 2004 and the Beltran deal), he considered it because he also believes in Wheeler and Qualls.

Quote:

I don?t think a big move that made sense was out there ? and as I have said it seems silly to me to try and blame GM?s for not making deals that don?t exist ?

Your whole point has been that he did not properly evaluate the team because he was blinded by their overachievement in 2005. I call bullshit on that one. It's just too simplistic to say at this hindsight time.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: elicash on August 24, 2006, 06:56:08 pm

Quote:

You can count on some semblence of productivity at or near the career stats and yes, you don't go into a season with pessimism. If you do, you'll show the players they are not trusted to do their job. You approach it just the opposite, you expect them to perform and adjust as you go along. That is why the Memorial Day evaluation of the team is very important for a GM.

They rarely overreact during the offseason and spring. But during the first two months, they pay attention to team trends and by Memorial Day, they have a keen idea of what they need to target to improve via trades in the coming month or two.

That?s all fine and good but I am not talking about overeacting or whatever drastic it is that you are infering

all that would be ideal if we had a better team on day one but that wasn?t the case ? your expectations should be reasonable (and I think pupura?s where) ? you have to be pro active when it is called for ? I think Pupura attempted to be but Wilson was all that was reasonably available ? so while this team under performed (and that can?t be fully expected) I don?t think it was reasonable to expect this team to be world beaters ? and I don?t think pupura did ? I think he knew what he had to start the year - even though it has gone further south than could be expected ?

Quote:

It is unreasonable to be pessimistic given the marathon that is a season.

It is ?unreasonable? to have ?unreasonable? expectations - I am not talking about pessimism I am talking about realistic expectations ?

Quote:

No - I am discussing what I presume went into Pupura?s discussion making ? I am not saying ?I don?t think he took this into account? ? because it is frankly too obvious not to ? I pointed this out to add why I think pupura was rightfully trying to make a bigger move and such a move wasn?t completely reactionary to failed expectations ? I think he saw there was greater potential to fall back than there was to improve from this cast ?

Quote:

"greater"? You tend to overstate things, doncha?

I don?t think so - I think it was pretty clear the team last season on the whole performed above there likely potential ? hence the potential to improve was less than the potential to maintain or fall back ? ie last seasons team overachieved a bit ? greater = more likely than ? at the end of the day you need to evaluate what kind of team you have ? perhaps the easiest measure is had by comparing it to last season ? are you suggesting a GM should ignore what kind of team he has or that a GM should not make that evaluation ?

Quote:

And I will say it again, over stating this regression at the offseason and spring training is dangerous for a GM because the Memorial Day evaulation will tell him *more* about a the *team* he's built or stayed with. Not some magical "I think we shall regress, so I shall change it!" esoteric evaluation.

what are you talking about? ? do you think I am suggesting he makes some grand pronouncement? Its not advertising anything - it is a factor to consider (one of many) in a fair evaluation ? one that shouldn?t be ignored ? it is nothing more than having realistic expectations ? at the end of the day you have to grade what kind of ball club you have and determine where it will likely get you and where you want to be ? these need to be realistsic expectations

to oversimplify it - if you think players X, Y, and Z gave you 10 last season and players A, B, and C gave you 4 and that got you to 14 - and that this season, players X, Y, and Z are likely to give you 7 and players A, B, and C are still likely to give you 4 again ? then you have to recognize there is a likelihood of a difference in performance ? and how great you perceive that deficit to be determines what needs to be done ?

Quote:

To keep it simple for you, Tim Purpura believed in his players and they didn't deliver. He did nothing wrong by that, in fact, he did something admirable for the players. If you come off a season like Ensberg just did, but your GM says to you "Hey, I think we want to go in a different direction and so we've traded you away and we're going to go find a free agent third baseman...", he'd be marked a lousy GM by the players. And it's the players who matter most in the equation, not you and I as Joe Fan... or the media. It's different letting go of Tim Redding last spring and saying adios to Morgan Ensberg this spring. The message would've been totally different for the players and made more problems for a *team* (because it is *TEAM* that wins, not individuals).

Be fore you keep it simple for me ? you need to either do some rereading or editing ? when in gods name did I suggest he should have gotten rid of Morgan Ensberg ? frankly that would have been moronic ? you are taking what I type and some how infering this extreme position that is just not there ? and frankly are inferring I am advocating positions I am not ?

realizing Morgan might likely hit .280 and have an ops in the high .800?s (an over simplification / and a drop in performance from last season but still good) that doesn?t mean you should dump him and it doesn?t mean you don?t believe in him ? in fact it means you DO believe in him - you believe he will hit .280 and have an ops in the high .800?s ? that?s good ? recognizing this is having a realistic expectation ? and even though it means acknowledging some fall back in play it is in no way (that I can perceive) being pessimistic ? and I think pupura had a realistic view of his players ?

Note: I am not dealing with the fact Morgan has performed less than that this year ? or in ANYWAY saying he should have been dumped or it should have been recognized ? some drop was probably likely but not near this much ?

Quote:

Gosh, you mean Jocketty didn't panic and get rid of the third baseman who had his shoulder ripped out it's socket in 2005!?!? Wow, he *stuck* with his guy? Imagine that!

Did I suggest he should get rid of him ??

Quote:

(Pujols) See above. Either you believe in your players or you don't. If you don't then you make a move. If you do, you let them create their own destiny and you react accordingly.

Its not all bubblegum, destiny, and warm fuzzies - believing in your players also means having realistic expectations ? and preparing for likely scenarios ? The mark of a good GM, IMHO.

Quote:

Edmunds - Gosh, you're making my argument for me. Thanks! ?

how am I making your point ? unless our points are similar or non conflicting (which I suspect they may be) -

Quote:

so I don?t see the need for moves that your presuming this situation would seem to sarcastically present ? again I don?t think jockety was in a similar position ? he was dealing with a better more consistent team and frankly more successful team that hadn?t relied on too many career performances to get to the playoffs ?

Quote:

Your concept of *team* is skewed if you believe what you just wrote. One man's "more successful" is another man's "Whaaa?"

What are you talking about? My concept of team? I *am* talking about teams. One is and was a safer bet to make the playoffs again because they where a better team ? Do you think the astros where a better / more consistent team and thus safer bet to perform as well and reach the playoffs as the cardinals ? if so you are in an extreme minority

Quote:

Tim Purpura made the appropriate designation for improvement: corner outfielder. Tejada notwithstanding because he wasn't even on the market until the Orioles put it out that they may just want to trade him... and Houston was a team they were wanting to talk to if Lidge were made available (because they had just lost BJ Ryan). Don't for a minute think Purpura didn't know how to evaluate Morgan Ensberg or Jason Lane. That they didn't perform along with Preston Wilson is not an indictment against him nor his evaluation methods. It is what it is: failure to live up to expectations by the players.

End of story.

Again - am I disagreeing with you? ?

However, I do think Pupura wanted to do more than Preston Wilson and likely felt he needed to but I don?t think the move that made sense was out there ? not his fault and also not a failure in evaluations ?

Quote:

I have never said Purpura is incompetent in evaluating the team's chances ? in fact I have said the opposite ? I have not said Pupura has skewed expectations ? in fact I have said the opposite ? I think pupura wanted to do more beyond what was done but the deal wasn?t there ?

Quote:

How can you say two things at one time, that's pretty good! He did what he thought was filling a need: corner outfielder. He went to battle with those men and waited, like all good GMs do (like Walt Jocketty too) to adjust after the Memorial Day evaluation. Remember, GM Gerry Hunsicker put together his team in the same manner in 2004 and the team proceeded to fail to meet expectations (Biggio in centerfield?). Hunsicker adjusted accordingly and went out and got Beltran, inserted Lidge into the closer role and the *team* performed better... all the way into the NLCS.

Why is this so hard to understand about a good GM?

Why are my posts so hard for you to understand ? stop inferring something that isn?t there ? I am not saying two things at once ? he went to battle with what he could do which I presume is the best he could do ? this doesn?t mean he didn't feel more was needed ? it simply means the deal or signing that made sense wasn?t out there ? I think he settled for Wilson ?

Quote:

I am pointing these things out not damning Pupura but to point out what I think factored into his motives ? of course other than hearsay I have no idea if they did or not ? but the point remains I think he recognized last seasons team overachieving to a degree and wanted to make a bigger move to bolster the team not only to maintain the performance and success of last season but to hopefully improve on it ?

Quote:

Not even close to the truth. He believes in Jason Lane, He believes in Morgan Ensberg... he didn't think these guys were flukes nor overachievers! He also believes in Brad Lidge too, and his mention in trade rumors was not reactionary nor induced by an evaluation that he believed Lidge would regress to lower than a snakes belly as a closer. It was because the *other* teams asked about him and like a good GM is prone to do (see: Dotel in 2004 and the Beltran deal), he considered it because he also believes in Wheeler and Qualls.

Seriously are you reading my posts ? I didn?t say he thought they where flukes ? I didn?t say he didn?t or shouldn?t have believed in them ? where are you getting this? ? just because I don?t think he thought Morgan Ensberg was going to have a potential MVP type of season year in and year out doesn?t mean he thought something drastic was going to happen ? because he might have recognized that ensberg may not quite do what he did last season doesn?t mean he doesn?t believe in him ? I am sure Pupura had and has reasonable expectations for Lane ? that doesn?t mean he expects Lane to challenge for an MVP ? you seem to be confusing realistic expectations with pessimism and the expectation of failure ? overachieving to a degree doesn?t mean you think you have a bunch of bums

Quote:

I don?t think a big move that made sense was out there ? and as I have said it seems silly to me to try and blame GM?s for not making deals that don?t exist ?

Quote:

Your whole point has been that he did not properly evaluate the team because he was blinded by their overachievement in 2005. I call bullshit on that one. It's just too simplistic to say at this hindsight time.

Then if that?s what you think you are arguing with a voice in your head ?

I have said numerous times on this thread THE EXACT OPPOSITE ? I think he did properly evaluate the team and I think he tried to make a bigger move ?

I have not said pupura didn?t properly evaluate the team and I am not saying pupura is responsible for players underperforming ? if I have please point it out to me so I can clarify or correct ?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: austro on August 24, 2006, 07:08:14 pm

I'm a little concerned that Noe and elicash may have stumbled across the caffeine motherlode.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: Bench on August 24, 2006, 07:11:53 pm

Quote:

Then if that?s what you think you are arguing with a voice in your head ?

I have said numerous times on this thread THE EXACT OPPOSITE ? I think he did properly evaluate the team and I think he tried to make a bigger move ?

I have not said pupura didn?t properly evaluate the team and I am not saying pupura is responsible for players underperforming ? if I have please point it out to me so I can clarify or correct ?

As the posts got longer, my attention span grew increasingly shorter. However, I still understand what Noe is saying. So, please, can you give us a short and plain statement telling us exactly what it is you are saying, rather than repetitively telling us what is is that you aren't saying? You do realize that you're not going to wear down Noe by posting longer and longer posts. In fact, it probably feeds his fire.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: pravata on August 24, 2006, 07:15:54 pm

Quote:

Quote:

You can count on some semblence of productivity at or near the career stats and yes, you don't go into a season with pessimism. If you do, you'll show the players they are not trusted to do their job. You approach it just the opposite, you expect them to perform and adjust as you go along. That is why the Memorial Day evaluation of the team is very important for a GM.

They rarely overreact during the offseason and spring. But during the first two months, they pay attention to team trends and by Memorial Day, they have a keen idea of what they need to target to improve via trades in the coming month or two.

That?s all fine and good but I am not talking about overeacting or whatever drastic it is that you are infering

all that would be ideal if we had a better team on day one but that wasn?t the case ? your expectations should be reasonable (and I think pupura?s where) ? you have to be pro active when it is called for ? I think Pupura attempted to be but Wilson was all that was reasonably available ? so while this team under performed (and that can?t be fully expected) I don?t think it was reasonable to expect this team to be world beaters ? and I don?t think pupura did ? I think he knew what he had to start the year - even though it has gone further south than could be expected ?

Quote:

It is unreasonable to be pessimistic given the marathon that is a season.

It is ?unreasonable? to have ?unreasonable? expectations - I am not talking about pessimism I am talking about realistic expectations ?

Quote:

No - I am discussing what I presume went into Pupura?s discussion making ? I am not saying ?I don?t think he took this into account? ? because it is frankly too obvious not to ? I pointed this out to add why I think pupura was rightfully trying to make a bigger move and such a move wasn?t completely reactionary to failed expectations ? I think he saw there was greater potential to fall back than there was to improve from this cast ?

Quote:

"greater"? You tend to overstate things, doncha?

I don?t think so - I think it was pretty clear the team last season on the whole performed above there likely potential ? hence the potential to improve was less than the potential to maintain or fall back ? ie last seasons team overachieved a bit ? greater = more likely than ? at the end of the day you need to evaluate what kind of team you have ? perhaps the easiest measure is had by comparing it to last season ? are you suggesting a GM should ignore what kind of team he has or that a GM should not make that evaluation ?

Quote:

And I will say it again, over stating this regression at the offseason and spring training is dangerous for a GM because the Memorial Day evaulation will tell him *more* about a the *team* he's built or stayed with. Not some magical "I think we shall regress, so I shall change it!" esoteric evaluation.

what are you talking about? ? do you think I am suggesting he makes some grand pronouncement? Its not advertising anything - it is a factor to consider (one of many) in a fair evaluation ? one that shouldn?t be ignored ? it is nothing more than having realistic expectations ? at the end of the day you have to grade what kind of ball club you have and determine where it will likely get you and where you want to be ? these need to be realistsic expectations

to oversimplify it - if you think players X, Y, and Z gave you 10 last season and players A, B, and C gave you 4 and that got you to 14 - and that this season, players X, Y, and Z are likely to give you 7 and players A, B, and C are still likely to give you 4 again ? then you have to recognize there is a likelihood of a difference in performance ? and how great you perceive that deficit to be determines what needs to be done ?

Quote:

To keep it simple for you, Tim Purpura believed in his players and they didn't deliver. He did nothing wrong by that, in fact, he did something admirable for the players. If you come off a season like Ensberg just did, but your GM says to you "Hey, I think we want to go in a different direction and so we've traded you away and we're going to go find a free agent third baseman...", he'd be marked a lousy GM by the players. And it's the players who matter most in the equation, not you and I as Joe Fan... or the media. It's different letting go of Tim Redding last spring and saying adios to Morgan Ensberg this spring. The message would've been totally different for the players and made more problems for a *team* (because it is *TEAM* that wins, not individuals).

Be fore you keep it simple for me ? you need to either do some rereading or editing ? when in gods name did I suggest he should have gotten rid of Morgan Ensberg ? frankly that would have been moronic ? you are taking what I type and some how infering this extreme position that is just not there ? and frankly are inferring I am advocating positions I am not ?

realizing Morgan might likely hit .280 and have an ops in the high .800?s (an over simplification / and a drop in performance from last season but still good) that doesn?t mean you should dump him and it doesn?t mean you don?t believe in him ? in fact it means you DO believe in him - you believe he will hit .280 and have an ops in the high .800?s ? that?s good ? recognizing this is having a realistic expectation ? and even though it means acknowledging some fall back in play it is in no way (that I can perceive) being pessimistic ? and I think pupura had a realistic view of his players ?

Note: I am not dealing with the fact Morgan has performed less than that this year ? or in ANYWAY saying he should have been dumped or it should have been recognized ? some drop was probably likely but not near this much ?

Quote:

Gosh, you mean Jocketty didn't panic and get rid of the third baseman who had his shoulder ripped out it's socket in 2005!?!? Wow, he *stuck* with his guy? Imagine that!

Did I suggest he should get rid of him ??

Quote:

(Pujols) See above. Either you believe in your players or you don't. If you don't then you make a move. If you do, you let them create their own destiny and you react accordingly.

Its not all bubblegum, destiny, and warm fuzzies - believing in your players also means having realistic expectations ? and preparing for likely scenarios ? The mark of a good GM, IMHO.

Quote:

Edmunds - Gosh, you're making my argument for me. Thanks! ?

how am I making your point ? unless our points are similar or non conflicting (which I suspect they may be) -

Quote:

so I don?t see the need for moves that your presuming this situation would seem to sarcastically present ? again I don?t think jockety was in a similar position ? he was dealing with a better more consistent team and frankly more successful team that hadn?t relied on too many career performances to get to the playoffs ?

Quote:

Your concept of *team* is skewed if you believe what you just wrote. One man's "more successful" is another man's "Whaaa?"

What are you talking about? My concept of team? I *am* talking about teams. One is and was a safer bet to make the playoffs again because they where a better team ? Do you think the astros where a better / more consistent team and thus safer bet to perform as well and reach the playoffs as the cardinals ? if so you are in an extreme minority

Quote:

Tim Purpura made the appropriate designation for improvement: corner outfielder. Tejada notwithstanding because he wasn't even on the market until the Orioles put it out that they may just want to trade him... and Houston was a team they were wanting to talk to if Lidge were made available (because they had just lost BJ Ryan). Don't for a minute think Purpura didn't know how to evaluate Morgan Ensberg or Jason Lane. That they didn't perform along with Preston Wilson is not an indictment against him nor his evaluation methods. It is what it is: failure to live up to expectations by the players.

End of story.

Again - am I disagreeing with you? ?

However, I do think Pupura wanted to do more than Preston Wilson and likely felt he needed to but I don?t think the move that made sense was out there ? not his fault and also not a failure in evaluations ?

Quote:

I have never said Purpura is incompetent in evaluating the team's chances ? in fact I have said the opposite ? I have not said Pupura has skewed expectations ? in fact I have said the opposite ? I think pupura wanted to do more beyond what was done but the deal wasn?t there ?

Quote:

How can you say two things at one time, that's pretty good! He did what he thought was filling a need: corner outfielder. He went to battle with those men and waited, like all good GMs do (like Walt Jocketty too) to adjust after the Memorial Day evaluation. Remember, GM Gerry Hunsicker put together his team in the same manner in 2004 and the team proceeded to fail to meet expectations (Biggio in centerfield?). Hunsicker adjusted accordingly and went out and got Beltran, inserted Lidge into the closer role and the *team* performed better... all the way into the NLCS.

Why is this so hard to understand about a good GM?

Why are my posts so hard for you to understand ? stop inferring something that isn?t there ? I am not saying two things at once ? he went to battle with what he could do which I presume is the best he could do ? this doesn?t mean he felt more was needed ? it simply means the deal or signing that made sense wasn?t out there ? I think he settle for Wilson ?

Quote:

I am pointing these things out not damning Pupura but to point out what I think factored into his motives ? of course other than hearsay I have no idea if they did or not ? but the point remains I think he recognized last seasons team overachieving to a degree and wanted to make a bigger move to bolster the team not only to maintain the performance and success of last season but to hopefully improve on it ?

Quote:

Not even close to the truth. He believes in Jason Lane, He believes in Morgan Ensberg... he didn't think these guys were flukes nor overachievers! He also believes in Brad Lidge too, and his mention in trade rumors was not reactionary nor induced by an evaluation that he believed Lidge would regress to lower than a snakes belly as a closer. It was because the *other* teams asked about him and like a good GM is prone to do (see: Dotel in 2004 and the Beltran deal), he considered it because he also believes in Wheeler and Qualls.

Seriously are you reading my posts ? I didn?t say he thought they where flukes ? I didn?t say he didn?t or shouldn?t have believed in them ? where are you getting this? ? just because I don?t think he thought Morgan Ensberg was going to have a potential MVP type of season year in and year out doesn?t mean he thought something drastic was going to happen ? because he might have recognized that ensberg may not quite do what he did last season doesn?t mean he doesn?t believe in him ? I am sure Pupura had and has reasonable expectations for Lane ? that doesn?t mean he expects Lane to challenge for an MVP ? you seem to be confusing realistic expectations with pessimism and the expectation of failure ? overachieving to a degree doesn?t mean you think you have a bunch of bums

Quote:

I don?t think a big move that made sense was out there ? and as I have said it seems silly to me to try and blame GM?s for not making deals that don?t exist ?

Quote:

Your whole point has been that he did not properly evaluate the team because he was blinded by their overachievement in 2005. I call bullshit on that one. It's just too simplistic to say at this hindsight time.

Then if that?s what you think you are arguing with a voice in your head ?

I have said numerous times on this thread THE EXACT OPPOSITE ? I think he did properly evaluate the team and I think he tried to make a bigger move ?

I have not said pupura didn?t properly evaluate the team and I am not saying pupura is responsible for players underperforming ? if I have please point it out to me so I can clarify or correct ?

In 3 sentences, what ARE you saying?

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: MusicMan on August 24, 2006, 07:21:18 pm

I think Noe went to the store to get more verbs.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: pravata on August 24, 2006, 07:26:01 pm

Quote:

I think Noe went to the store to get more verbs.

From the discount store? They might be slightly irregular.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: MusicMan on August 24, 2006, 07:40:23 pm

Quote:

Quote:

I think Noe went to the store to get more verbs.

From the discount store? They might be slightly irregular.

Yeah, but if you send Alkie, he ends up conjugating all of them.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: EasTexAstro on August 24, 2006, 08:34:55 pm

Quote:

I'm a little concerned that Noe and elicash may have stumbled across the caffeine motherlode.

That was my first thought. I wish Eli could spell and punctuate better, but the text is still compelling. We knew Noe could explain avacado in more than 500 words, but to see him in a discussion with someone who can describe avvvicadddooe........ in 500 words in response is almost hypnotizing.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: No? in Austin on August 24, 2006, 10:09:29 pm

Quote:

Then if that?s what you think you are arguing with a voice in your head ?

Ahum...no, I'm not. I'm talking to you.

Quote:

I have said numerous times on this thread THE EXACT OPPOSITE ? I think he did properly evaluate the team and I think he tried to make a bigger move ?

No. YOu've said repeatly that the team that went to the World Series the year prior was flawed because it overachieved. And that Tim Purpura should've known that a regression was going to happen (you used words like "great" to accent the point too... you've repeatedly said they were going to fall hard, my words not yours). And he didn't make a deal because he just couldn't find a buyer/seller. All three points are bullshit.

Clear enough?

Here is my counter point so it's crystal clear:

Purpura did not think the team was flawed nor overachieved.
Purpura made an evaluation of where he wanted to improve the team: outfield/middle of the lineup hitter. He did it with the acquisition of Wilson.
Purpura was not involved in trades with Philly and Baltimore as a beggar nor initiator... he was involved because the deals offered were something to seriously consider. None of those deals were a result of his evaluation that the team was flawed and had overachieved. You keep suggesting that and with no basis whatsoever. I keep telling you it's not true with some sound basis of information gleemed from talking to people and for Purpura's own mouth.

Quote:

I have not said pupura didn?t properly evaluate the team

Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then. So you're saying Tim Purpura thought this offseason that the team that went to the World Series last year was flawed and, in your words not mine, due for a *great* regression? And you admit you have no inside knowledge of it besides your own mind? Want to tell me about voices in the head again, because I want to know if that's what I'm hearing correctly in my mind... besides what I *DO KNOW* (not speculate).

Quote:

and I am not saying pupura is responsible for players underperforming ?

Never said that.

Quote:

if I have please point it out to me so I can clarify or correct ?

Sarcasm is lost to some.

Title: Re: The Curse
Post by: HudsonHawk on August 24, 2006, 10:19:43 pm

OrangeWhoopass.com Forums

General Discussion => Talk Zone => Topic started by: Alkie on August 22, 2006, 04:16:56 pm