Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - HPFRic

Pages: [1]
1
Talk Zone / Re: Jennings
« on: August 18, 2007, 11:29:38 am »
Quote from: JimR
for the life of me, i do not understand why folks like this keep posting and trying to debate to a victory. the mood/sense/approach of this forum is perfectly clear.

jim, for the record, i've been posting here (off and on) as long as you have, or very nearly as long (9 years). so no need to pull rank or whatever it is you think you're doing here. i'm very much aware of the forum's dynamics; cognizant of the however many decent posters your tired, boring act has run out of here.


i'm asking a question in response to someone else's (coughcough) post; if noe doesn't want to discuss it, fine. but i'm not sure why you and your little lap dog have to jump in here and start launching petty little shit bombs.

2
Talk Zone / Re: Jennings
« on: August 18, 2007, 11:20:58 am »
Quote from: pravata
I can see why you think this is supposed to be funny.

i sincerely doubt it.

Quote from: pravata
You can whine and pitch a baby fit all you want but grownups who understand what was going on at the time, realize that the Astros had few choices.  Many teams were bidding for Jennings and the Astros did what was necessary.  Children typically don't understand reality so you go right ahead and think it's a joke.  

the grownups and children route... wow, you continue to display a deft touch with the clever rejoinders. jesus christ. isn't there a nearby off you can fuck, you weasel?

3
Talk Zone / Re: Jennings
« on: August 18, 2007, 09:56:23 am »
Quote from: JimR
the R in your name must stand for Redundant. i know the P is for Pompous.

oh yeah? well what does the J in your name stand for? “jim”? i mean, wait. uhm…. god! this is hard!!! “james”? no, dammit!

fuck it – i can’t match that kind of comedy firepower. go ahead and do the H and F and get my total and very public evisceration over with. i ask only that you take some mercy on me because as is, i'll be climbing out from under the “redundant” and “pompous” cracks for days… those were vicious little comedic hammers, you cold-hearted bastard.

Quote from: pravata
Really, I'd love to chew this over with you but, unfortunately, I'm due back on the planet Earth, so I gotta go.

zing! it's like a comedy workshop in here!!! “due back on planet earth”...? ah, man - that is ripe! btw, i bet the P in your name stands for... “pompous”! i mean: “pompous” - no, no "redundant"! shit! damn you, jim – you make it look so easy…

btw, never termed jason jennings "mediocre"; the flotsam that teams were signing (meche, lilly, et al) were mediocre. he was merely overrated by the astros... and anyone else who thought he was anything beyond a league average pitcher.

Quote from: Noe in Austin
What exactly are we discussing again because I'm lost

noe, if you care at all, i wanted to discuss this statement: Sometimes, if you get lightning in a bottle with some guys (candidates: Backe? Patton? FA?), you can afford to start a season that way and realize if you definitely need to add a solid starter at the deadline.

i agree with the sentiment completely. what i was hoping to discuss, specifically, was what, if anything, has changed? why do you consider this a viable course of action this year but term the jennings deal last year "sound”? because, imo, absolutely nothing's changed.

if you're not interested in discussing it, OK. no big deal. i just thought it was interesting.

4
Talk Zone / Re: Jennings
« on: August 18, 2007, 07:02:59 am »
bullshit. please take your pontifications to ad.com. please.

being an officious fuckstick accomplishes absolutely nothing and adds not an ounce of value to this exercise. engage, counter, debate, discuss - those would seem to serve this forum better given that it's, you know, a discussion board and all.

5
Talk Zone / Re: Jennings
« on: August 17, 2007, 05:44:05 pm »
Just say we disagree and be done with it because you're not going to be convinced by anything I say neither are you going to convince me.

i agree; i prefer not to rehash it as well (ignoring that i'm chest-deep in doing just that...) - what i really wanted to focus on was what, iyo, has changed between this winter and last winter? "Sometimes, if you get lightning in a bottle with some guys (candidates: Backe? Patton? FA?), you can afford to start a season that way and realize if you definitely need to add a solid starter at the deadline."

why is this NOW a "sound" course of action? is it because the jennings deal was such a disaster? is it because you believe this team is appreciably worse than the '06 team?........

6
Talk Zone / Re: Jennings
« on: August 17, 2007, 05:40:16 pm »
I think it was pretty reasonable to expect that a pitcher who had thrown near 200 innings almost every season, never had arm troubles, and didn't have any in 2006, could do the same in Houston.

but why, if you agree with noe's premise (and i do) that the 2008 astros might very well be OK going to florida without a jason jennings-type in their rotation, did the 2007 need a jason jennings-type in their rotation? doesn't the likelihood of losing him this winter essentially provide the same context as losing pettitte last winter?

and i'm sorry, but telling me other teams were throwing outlandish dollar totals at mediocre pitchers or that such historically astute organizations as the cubs and rangers were after jason jennings does not properly defend the deal.

they overrated their team and then overrated (compounded by overpaying for) jason jennings. frankly.

7
Talk Zone / Re: Jennings
« on: August 17, 2007, 05:14:31 pm »
i love sentences that begin with "frankly." that means the rest of them are BS.

frankly, i respect and admire your opinion and this online persona of yours, which rests comfortably between "astute" and "engaging."

8
Talk Zone / Re: Jennings
« on: August 17, 2007, 04:58:14 pm »
Willy T's performance this year and Jennings performance this year cloud the issue a bit, but at the time it was sound and not worth haggling over yet again.

i never thought it was a "sound" decision and it has nothing to do with anyone's performance this year. they overrated their 2006 team and then compounded it by overrating jason jennings. both were wildly inaccurate evaluations.

frankly, i see no difference in the team they'll take into this offseason and the team they took into last offseason. the "sound" decision, both then and now, was to not panic, not throw players away to try and mend a gaping wound, and wait to see how everything shook out. if they thought this team could win 78-82 as it was, then they, as you suggested in relation to RJ, could have made a deal for jennings last month. there was certainly no need and less justification for doing it last december.

now we're going to need a top of the rotation starter (2, actually), find a taveras-type to plug into CF and we'll be relying on a bunch of unproven young arms to fill in the back of the rotation. like i said, not much has changed.....

jim, the "$" bit was fuck!ng priceless.

9
Talk Zone / Re: Jennings
« on: August 17, 2007, 02:45:42 pm »
Sometimes, if you get lightning in a bottle with some guys (candidates: Backe? Patton? FA?), you can afford to start a season that way and realize if you definitely need to add a solid starter at the deadline.

if only they had dusted the sand off of this one last winter...

10
Talk Zone / Re: Burke's fielding fetish
« on: August 16, 2007, 01:47:43 pm »
i think it's rooted in his lack of comfort with the position - the throw he attemped on the double play ball while falling away from first base with a player rolling into him was, to say the least, ill-advised and would fit snugly in the "uncomfortable" theory, imo. i'd like to think, with more games under his belt, he doesn't make that toss.

11
Talk Zone / Re: Jennings
« on: August 16, 2007, 01:44:58 pm »
and you are not worth my time.

...you mean after you read my post and then respond to it twice - THEN - and only then will i not be worth your time, right?

12
Talk Zone / Re: Jennings
« on: August 16, 2007, 01:31:49 pm »
no kidding.

typically engaging response. we can add how you continually find a deeper level of insight to share with us as another item my head can't wrap itself around. you're a magician!

13
Talk Zone / Re: Jennings
« on: August 16, 2007, 01:10:50 pm »
he has been too good in the past for this to be what he is going to be. i think he's injured, also, and doing the best he can to fight through it.

i can't wrap my head around either one of these ideas. he was very good last year; he was a tick, maybe two above average his rookie year. otherwise, jason jennings has been a below average pitcher for his other three full seasons in MLB (he'll add a fourth this year) and that's after you adjust his numbers to accomodate coors field. i don't know how the astros could be "disappointed" - he's about what they should have expected.

his career road #s (ie anywhere but coors field) prior to this year: 4.36/1.43. his numbers overall this year (minus the SD shit sandwich): 5.16/1.41, which amounts to roughly one additional ER every two starts. pretty much as advertised, if you ask me.

further, why should we excuse him if he is indeed injured? this is laudable? or even acceptable? if he's injured, he needs to stop pitching, get healthy, and let someone else who's healthy take his spot. he's not doing himself or the team any favors.

14
noe, for the record, it was everett who was screaming that the astros should use the final two months of the season to evaluate what they have; that entering 2008 with more questions than answers would be a step backward. the hosts were merely along for everett's rant; they, of course, have no idea what to do.

what WAS funny was how visciously he shot down d&d's "solutions": contreas and willis. contreas is done and willis isn't going anywhere. that was entertaining.

15
Talk Zone / Re: fuck. me.
« on: August 13, 2007, 05:19:17 pm »
Ware provides information for one thing only: QB play.

i could honestly masturbate into a kleenex and find no less than a million sperm who, in their brief, millisecond-long life, would know more about football than andre ware.

he talks a lot but says nothing, sticking as close to the most obvious cliche as humanly possible. i've never heard him even drive within the same zip code of an insightful thought. the other morning, he kept praising ahman green's potential to help "a guy like matt schaub" and i kept thinking, "damn! if only the texans had a guy like matt schaub...." he's spencer tillman minus the mascara.

16
Talk Zone / Re: fuck. me.
« on: August 13, 2007, 04:10:05 pm »
He not only is unlistenable, he's pretty much useless when it comes to real information.  That guy has no opinion, he just says what he's told to say right off the teleprompter. 

you just described andre ware, who not only is paid to provide color commentary on texan games, but now hosts a drive-time morning sports talk show...

houston radio: fuck you, new york and los angeles!

17
Talk Zone / fuck. me.
« on: August 13, 2007, 11:28:39 am »
JdDO is getting his own radio show, marking the fifth member of the chronicle's talented ensemble to land his own local talk show. this is like the late 80s/early 90s all over again when NFL GMs started looting bill walsh's staff for head coaches... had, you know, the head coaches all been a rap to the head away from brain damage.

it's bad enough they have no competition from a daily paper standpoint; now they're going to be able to saturate our airwaves with their unchecked stupidity as well? god help the LCD. this city is about to get a lot dumber...

18
Talk Zone / Re: So let me pose a hypothetical
« on: August 10, 2007, 12:37:53 pm »
Yep, they would try to Illegitimatize the world Series by not nominating the Astros for any of their ESPYS  aka, the Most Contrived, Piece of Fuck, Back Patting, Circle Jerk Known to Man.

meaning oswalt would have no chance of being included in next year's "who's now NOW" segment? so maybe we're better off if they just call it a season...

if they win it, my pants will explode the same regardless of their regular season record. having said that... my blood still boils at the mere hint of "jordan was retired"... in that vein, it'd be nice to win a "legitmate" championship, if that makes any sense - one we don't have to forever excuse and/or apologize for.

19
Talk Zone / Re: My thoughts on upcoming transactions
« on: August 06, 2007, 11:52:36 am »
Could Wigginton play second base? Sure. Did they say he's going to play third base? Yes. Is us talking about it going to make that change? Are we going to start a petition? Otherwise, what's your point?

actually, arky, there never really was a "point;" this began with me asking a question: is it foregone wiggington can't play the 4? are they going to even give him a look there?

if there IS a point, i guess it's that (imo) the idea has genuine merit and shouldn't be universally dismissed by the club. he's, by your own admission, a league average third baseman; below average when your extrapolate the numbers he's actually posted as a third baseman. his career numbers moved to second base, however, are above league-average and well above league-average when you separate out what he's done specifically as a second baseman.

when you consider he's played more games at 2b than he has 3b the past two seasons, and, oh by the way, our starting 2b for the past 58 years is about to retire with a bunch of question marks following him out the door, it's not like this is some "move bagwell to third" fantasy in need of a reality check. if my lack of a petition or control over tim purpura invalidates the idea... then what are any of us doing here?

20
Talk Zone / Re: My thoughts on upcoming transactions
« on: August 03, 2007, 04:49:50 pm »
Don't let what the organization says or does unduly restrict your thinking. 

so the team must stick to what it said on july 28, 2007, regardless of what might transpire from that date forward?

we *get* what the team said in its post-trade press conference, prior to wiggington lacing up a single brick red shoelace, prior to chris burke having two months and a spring training to make the organization doubt whether he can be an adequate, everyday major league second baseman, prior to a better third baseman possibly becoming available via trade.....

as a third baseman, in every statistical measure we have, he's average. not so as a second baseman, but, damn the luck, the team filled out it's next 384 line-up cards in ink at that july 28, 2007 news conference...

21
Talk Zone / Re: My thoughts on upcoming transactions
« on: August 03, 2007, 04:41:56 pm »
The MLB average for third basemen this year is .270/.338/.437/.775.

Wigginton this season is .279/.334/.457/.791 and from 2004 to 2006 was .266/.326/.464/.790.

the majority of wiggington's ABs this year have come as a 2B.

for his career, he's .255/.316/.425/.741 (1,521 PAs) as a 3B, well below average.

as a 2B, meanwhile: .300/.339/.501/.840 (443 PAs), well above average.

22
Talk Zone / Re: My thoughts on upcoming transactions
« on: August 03, 2007, 03:55:09 pm »
Then re-sign Loretta.

or resign lamb; let him play 3B. he's been better offensively than loretta this year (isn't going to be 36 next year) and from what we've heard, doesn't seem like a dramatic drop-off, defensively, from wiggington.

i'm not really standing on either side of this; just curious if they're going to give wiggington any time at 2B given that at least you and i both (seem to) agree that burke and bruntlett don't bring a lot to the table.

23
Talk Zone / Re: My thoughts on upcoming transactions
« on: August 03, 2007, 03:36:21 pm »
But then they need a third baseman.

ok, so now they need a 2B...

i just don't share their enthusiasm for ty wiggington and his sub-.800 career OPS/sub .450 career Slg% being the power stick they needed at 3B.

nor do i share your enthusiasm for us having "multiple options" at 2B next year. i see two (burke and bruntlett) and i would rate both as question marks right now.

24
Talk Zone / Re: My thoughts on upcoming transactions
« on: August 03, 2007, 02:46:50 pm »
"We are looking forward to refilling some of our position player needs and this gives up a player in Wigginton that can play third base for us for the next several seasons,'' Houston general manager Tim Purpura said.  Link

i'm willing to not hold teams accountable for post-trade press conferences if a better alternative emerges down the road...

arky, from a purely offensive standpoint, wiggington's career .775 OPS looks a lot better at 2B than it does 3B.

25
Talk Zone / Re: best astro squads ever
« on: August 03, 2007, 02:42:25 pm »
Not me.

so you're gonna try and field a team with no pitchers or a bench?

26
Talk Zone / Re: My thoughts on upcoming transactions
« on: August 03, 2007, 02:38:09 pm »
i like the idea of bruntlett at 2nd base... assuming burke becomes the poor man's bruntlett. is it foregone wiggington can't play the 4? are they going to even give him a look there?

27
Talk Zone / Re: Further proof ESPN is bottom of the barrel crap
« on: August 03, 2007, 02:13:33 pm »
Even upon rereading I don't know that I got that.

i'm merely supposing that a decorated academic of his obvious caliber wouldn't write in that style without it having a larger point to make.

28
Talk Zone / Re: best astro squads ever
« on: August 03, 2007, 02:11:01 pm »
Sounds like a great Strat-O-Matic project for this evening.

statistically, the '98 team was slightly better:

98: .280/.351/.436/.787; 874 Rs; 3.50 team era; 1.29 whip
04: .267/.342/.436/.778; 803 Rs; 4.05 team era; 1.35 whip

the '04 team's pitching numbers, of course, would have looked better with a healthy andy pettitte for the second half.

that's about as deep as i'll wade into the statistical waters. i just think, player-for-player, you'd pick more guys from the '04 team than the '98 team.

29
Talk Zone / Re: My thoughts on upcoming transactions
« on: August 03, 2007, 01:56:15 pm »
That's an unacceptable response: you need to crab a little, tell them how they misunderstood your real point, and then change the subject. Get with the program.

nah; i'm well-aware of the team's defensive shortcomings: it's been a rallying cry of mine since 0.00000000001 seconds after they dealt taveras. so, my bad.

30
Talk Zone / Re: My thoughts on upcoming transactions
« on: August 03, 2007, 01:42:34 pm »
If you buy pitching without putting solid defense at at least 2 of those positions, you're wasting your money.

you (and MM) are right; the discussion was offensive-skewered and i looked at it exclusively from that perspective. but buried in my hope for burke's emergence and a legit leadoff hitter is that both would throw better gloves up the middle.

31
Talk Zone / Re: My thoughts on upcoming transactions
« on: August 03, 2007, 01:14:50 pm »
Unless you're looking at Pedro and Unit in their primes for the #2 and #3 starter, that is not a .500 team.

i disagree. i don't think this team needs much work offensively (assuming lamb and loretta come back). it'd be nice to add a legit top-of-the-order stick, yes - but if burke can be the guy he was in 05 and 06, that line-up right there will win 85-90 games; it's better than the 05 line-up, that's for sure.

this team needs pitching. and then some pitching. and then, for shits and giggles, some pitching. followed by pitching. with a side order of pitching. topped with pitching. michael bourn. pitching.

32
Talk Zone / Re: Further proof ESPN is bottom of the barrel crap
« on: August 03, 2007, 01:10:38 pm »
i think (scratching head)... just looking at his credentials, that he's slyly skewering african-americans who back their own in any and all circumstances regardless of what the evidence might suggest (ie o.j., vick, cuba gooding, jr....)

maybe? no?.... if not, i have no idea why that was published.

33
Talk Zone / Re: best astro squads ever
« on: August 03, 2007, 01:03:54 pm »
people, please... that 2004 team would have gone all william munny in greely's on the 1998 team. that's the best astro squad i've ever seen in these here parts.

34
Talk Zone / Re: godamn it, purpura!!!!!
« on: July 31, 2007, 06:00:45 pm »
BTW - the best thing is that this sets up the offseason well.  He knows what he needs (SP and a CF/Leadoff). 

have there been any discussions 'round here about wiggington possibly being the 2b next year? he doesn't really do a lot for me as an everyday 3b, but his numbers looks fabulous for a 4. i know the company line was "third baseman for the next several years" but isn't that assuming burke is the answer at 2b?

35
i also love how the astros gearing up for another improbable late season run "may be the only thing that explains why Tim Purpura let Tuesday's trading deadline pass without making a move."

yeah, never mind the pesky logistics of trying to line up a trade partner and finding the right parts that fit your needs - nah, it's all about delusion.

36
Talk Zone / Re: godamn it, purpura!!!!!
« on: July 31, 2007, 05:52:43 pm »
To think, had they been able to pry away Michael Bourn, then Houston would've gotten an establish club-controlled 3rd baseman and a leadoff/CF almost established but major leaguer nonetheless club controlled player.

and bourn is a guy they can maybe land this winter. but yes, wiggington and bourn would have been a very nice haul.

37
Talk Zone / Re: godamn it, purpura!!!!!
« on: July 31, 2007, 05:46:39 pm »
Salty for Tex, but there were also minor leaguers involved in that one.

saltalamacchia isn't exactly "established." you could argue wiggington was perhaps the second-best position player dealt, especially given his contract status.

38
Talk Zone / godamn it, purpura!!!!!
« on: July 31, 2007, 05:38:06 pm »
the fucking devil rays turned wheeler around for... oh, wait - never mind....

btw (in anticipation of the coming tidal wave of LCD): luis castillo netted a AA prospect and a hi-A prospect; kenny lofton netted a lo-A prospect; eric gagne netted two marginal prospects and a 17-year old; and octavio dotel netted a recently demoted triple A prospect.

really, only san diego struck gold, turning linebrink into two really good prospects, both of whom are a year or two away at least.

wiggington for wheeler and holding onto lamb and loretta in lieu of dumping them for marginal and/or low-level prospects doesn't look all that awful in that context, if it really looks awful in any context.

39
Talk Zone / Re: ESPN: Ensberg to Padres
« on: July 31, 2007, 02:30:44 pm »
guy on 790 is complaining that we might not get above a AA prospect for Mo--whatever.

the mongoloids of the midday don't allow callers to have larger IQs than lopez, so you get a grab bag of boderline functioning idiots - i actually heard a guy earlier today blame purpura for signing a guy like lee, who doesn't hustle and - wait for it: as a result, breaks teammates' legs.

i swear to f'ing god, i'm not making that up.

40
Talk Zone / Re: calling anyone with inside info
« on: July 31, 2007, 01:16:45 pm »
Hmmm... wish I would've said that!

yeah, sorry, noe - i usually peter out on your posts around chapter 4...

41
Talk Zone / Re: calling anyone with inside info
« on: July 31, 2007, 11:58:33 am »
fyi--the Phils want Qualls but will not pay Houston's price
they seem to have a definite plan in place and are determined not to deviate from it: solve as many everyday needs as possible as cheaply as possible so they can focus available resources on free agent pitchers this winter. wiggington fits the bill - under contract and brings a power bat to 3B - as does bourn, who, i have to assume, is "Houston's price" - a young (read: club-controlled) CF with a glove and a top of the order stick. those 2 would solve 3 glaring problems on this team.

if you're not offering them what they want, then the astros aren't interested. and i say, "good for them!" it's a sound approach, imo. you have enough money invested in your everyday line-up - it needs "parts;" - the pitching staff, though, needs a chance to be completely overhauled and that is going to cost $$$$.

42
Talk Zone / Re: I don't see...
« on: June 27, 2007, 04:18:24 pm »
are you going to start this bullshit up again? your last effort got locked by Spack. STFU.

yes, it was my drivel that led to the other thread getting locked; not your tired jack-off routine of calling everyone stupid. or, at least, dumber than you. you remain a disgrace and a cockleak all these many years later. and you know what? i kinda love for it, big bear. keep it up! we all admire you feverishly.

pravata, if he " does not take instruction" well, isn't that a red flag? and yes, i am a second-guesser - is that really the best that you can offer in response? because, seems to me, unless we're exclusively discussing "next year" every year, we're ALL second-guessers, save for the none of us who scout players, attend organizational meetings, have unlimuted access to player files, etc.

43
Talk Zone / Re: I don't see...
« on: June 27, 2007, 03:40:27 pm »
Why no, of course, like you they are mind readers.  Ensberg wasnt "hiding behind" anything.
it doesn't require special, mystical powers to gauge a player's mental make-up, pravata. how he deals with adversity, for instance, is a quantifiable trait easily observed as a player ascends through your minor league system.

44
Talk Zone / Re: I don't see...
« on: June 27, 2007, 03:13:34 pm »
After that it was difficult to tell whether the shoulder or his approach was the problem.   This season it appears to be approach, but he'll have to fix that himself, with limited pt.  He does not listen to advice from coaches.

and speaking of the aforementioned, since-closed thread, when i listed ensberg among the misses, i was referring not just to his performance, but also his mental make-up and/or approach. he did the hiding (hiding behind?) an injury routine in 2004 and again at the end of the 2005 season... so how and/or why did his injury/slump/lack of disclosure, etc., seem to catch them so off-guard last year?

when a guy's in your system for 4-5 years before getting the call-up, is it unrealistic for a team to not have a handle on the guy's mentality?

45
Talk Zone / Re: This week's Pinwheel gem
« on: June 27, 2007, 11:02:28 am »
you obviously are quite impressed with yourself. good for you.
and i guess being a cockstick is just easier. glad some things never change.

anyway, if no one at RR, as you said, "believed he would do as well as he has." - doesn't that speak to the larger point that they were wrong?

46
Talk Zone / Re: This week's Pinwheel gem
« on: June 27, 2007, 10:28:17 am »
i watch the games. as i said, your using Pence to make your point destroys it. it is the most ridiculous thing you have said.

(blushing) awww. gosh. thanks.....

i am a fan. i root for a team and whoever is on the team at any given moment.

i'm sorry, but that's a cop-out. and boring. and obvious. i readily concede it's silly to talk in knowing terms of what's really happening with any team. but why is reacting to what we see such a bad thing you feel you have to consistently comment upon, especially if the person is reasonably intelligent, open-minded and egoless enough to admit when he's wrong and not get too concerned with when he's right?

i know i, for one, am a better fan for it.

47
Talk Zone / Re: This week's Pinwheel gem
« on: June 27, 2007, 10:06:26 am »
jim, at no point did i make any claim i could do a better job, competent job, or any other job - in fact, it's a silly retort because of course it's second-guessing: the astros don't pay me to first-guess. they do, however, pay tim purpura to first-guess, and he was wrong with ensberg; wrong with lane; and has thus far been wrong on burke, scott and pence.

so let me ask you, sincerely: what's your evaluation of this team, these players, and our management?

arky, fair point; i was not a fan of the trade. i understood it, but wish they had been more hardline; ie hirsh or taveras, but not both, etc. i'm going to try not to overstate taveras' worth, but i'd hesitate to trade any 25-year old CF with a single year of AA and a history of getting OB for a FA-to-be pitcher each and every time.

48
Talk Zone / Re: This week's Pinwheel gem
« on: June 27, 2007, 09:33:31 am »
Everyone based their opinion of Pence on 1 month of ST.

who's everyone? i'm not overly concerned about the fans' evaluations; i'm concerned only with purpura's, and he's had these guys in his system for years, including pence. he should have had a MUCH better feel for them than he's shown thus far.
 
No one misevaluted Lane, when was he ever given the starting job for any length of time?  And as for Taveras, there is some selective memory going on.

huh? jason lane was the starting RF last year; he totaled 160 ABs thru may, a 485 AB pace. and no, no selective memory with taveras - he was an OB machine in the minor leagues (.402 in his ONLY year in double A; .383 in his last two seasons of A ball), and has now posted a .364 OB% since last year's ASB (covering some 400-something ABs).

they had much too short a rope on him, while they continued/continue to feed lane and scott all the rope they could ever want. i'm at a loss how purpura and/or garner determined at some point that a burke/scott/lane/lee outfield was better than a taveras/pence/lee alignment.

this is not a "fire purpura - he's fat!" thread, btw; it's more of a "this team has been poorly constructed; purpura shares in that blame; let's see how he fixes it." i'm intrigued/fascinated/excited... unless they roll out stay-the-course bullshit.

49
Talk Zone / Re: This week's Pinwheel gem
« on: June 26, 2007, 04:47:41 pm »
Is he crap?  Let's see how he gets out of this shithole.
yes, i agree. assuming they lose again in milwaukee, the next 30-40 days should prove fascinating.

50
Talk Zone / Re: This week's Pinwheel gem
« on: June 26, 2007, 04:28:57 pm »
Blaming Pupura is facile.
i disagree (sorry: late to the party). i think one could make a pretty strong argument that he's been more responsible for this team's performance than any other individual. he misevaluated taveras, scott, lane, ensberg, burke and pence - and then built a team around those misevaluations.

51
Talk Zone / Re: Astros sign Lee
« on: November 24, 2006, 04:01:04 pm »
Quote:

Dude.  You realize we're WORSE than the Cubs right now, right?  We both have one established top-of-the-rotation starter, a bunch of kids, and some good bats.



hey, alkie, here's an actual FACT - making declarative statements about the upcoming baseball season in november is asinine. the offseason's not even a month old yet. good god.

lee's a terrific hitter.

52
Talk Zone / Re: Purpura makes free-agent offers
« on: November 17, 2006, 04:51:06 pm »
Quote:

Trade... Wandy (it could happen)



fans having to temporarily shelve their disappointment/hatred for a player's performance long enough to try and pass them off as still viable commodities in order to propose outlandishly impossible trade scenarios has become one of the most enjoyable aspects of any ML offseason...

53
Talk Zone / Re: Purpura makes free-agent offers
« on: November 17, 2006, 12:11:18 pm »
Quote:

How much does Glavine want, by the way?



footer said in her latest column that glavine prefers NY or a return to ATL very nearly exclusively.

i don't like the idea of chasing 40+ year olds with the idea of them being #2 starters. i'd rather see hirsh, et al, get their shot. the exception is williams (and clemens, of course). woddy likely won't command top of the rotation money and would be a solid (and likely content) 3-4 starter.

54
Talk Zone / Re: Purpura makes free-agent offers
« on: November 17, 2006, 12:07:46 pm »
Quote:

Hirsh started to look much better as the year wore on, but obviously, he needs time.



this has been hirsh's MO; slow starts before going batshit great on a new league. i don't think expecting him to be a solid #3, at the very least, is outlandish.

Quote:

It would be my preference to trade Burke and Scott (say we sign Lee) to someone for a true #2 or #3 (not Jennings).  Scott and Ensberg for Peavy?  Is that enough?  Too much?



i would very nearly put burke in the untouchable camp. i sure as hell wouldn't advocate trading (based on '06) two productive bats for a pitcher.

ensberg's fair game; too widly inconsistent to be counted on. if he finds it elsewhere, so be it. i think adding/resigning lee, huff and williams would be a great offseason.

55
Talk Zone / Re: Purpura makes free-agent offers
« on: November 17, 2006, 11:41:59 am »
Quote:

No, that IS obvious (about not being punchless), the problem is we just lost 40% of our rotation, in fact 2 of the 3 GREAT pitchers we had.



by that same token, you could bring pettitte and clemens back and have... well, the 2006 astros. they HAVE to add a significant stick.

besides, the 04 astros came within a game of the world series with munro, redding, miller and duckworth+hernandez all getting at least the same # of starts as pettitte did that year.

i'm not saying pitching isn't important, just that hirsh and woody williams, while not clemens and pettitte, obviously, should be OK if we add the stick and the pen bounces back.

56
Talk Zone / Re: How much is too much?
« on: November 17, 2006, 10:51:52 am »
Quote:

like you said, it is someone else's money. your approach is irresponsible.



advocating that the team set a player's worth, as opposed to the player setting a player's worth, is irresponsible?

57
Talk Zone / Re: How much is too much?
« on: November 16, 2006, 05:08:30 pm »
Quote:

If money were no object, then true. But money is an object, and tying him up for more money than he's worth may have the consequence of not being able to keep somebody else around, or bring someone else in, down the road.



i just think people get TOO hung up on actual dollar amounts. if lee wants $20M and you can absorb that cost and STILL upgrade... what does it ultimately matter whether he's "worth" it as long as he produces?

58
Talk Zone / Re: How much is too much?
« on: November 16, 2006, 02:58:11 pm »
Quote:

You sign somebody else who isn't as good but costs less.



yep, and i think preston wilson is a free agent again...

lee isn't worth $15M in the grand context of baseball. but if a) your budget can absorb the cost and still leave $$ to make additional moves and b) you feel relatively safe he'll still be a producitve player in years 4 and/or 5 of your deal... how much he actually costs you is kind of irrelevant, no?

59
Talk Zone / Re: How much is too much?
« on: November 16, 2006, 01:34:41 pm »
Quote:

Do you think tying up $15 million in Lee or Soriano does impede other moves, though?  I think that's a lot to spend on someone who isn't a centerpiece to your organization.  I think Soriano is more likely a franchise player than Lee is.



well, i'm spending drayton's money, so, sure! why not?!!

i don't think either guy's worth $15M; i agree. they're both 30; not 25. their best years are not ahead of them and you sure as heck-fire don't want to be paying for great years someone else enjoyed.

but what's the alternative?

60
Talk Zone / Re: How much is too much?
« on: November 16, 2006, 01:27:24 pm »
Quote:

That's more than they're paying Berkman, who's easily a better player than either of them.



they paid bagwell more than berkman last year; what's the big deal as long as it doesn't directly impede your ability to make other moves?

61
Talk Zone / Re: Rocco Baldelli
« on: November 16, 2006, 11:40:16 am »
Quote:

Let's assume that Hirsh is untouchable.



why?

[from baseball-reference]
Similar Batters through Age 24
Gary Matthews
Ellis Burks
Carlos Beltran
Garry Maddox
Vernon Wells

he's 25 and so far, has grown each year as a player. why would ANY unproven prospects be untouchable to land a guy like that?

62
Talk Zone / still? really?
« on: November 03, 2006, 05:00:39 pm »
surprise! some cnnsi douchebag is masturbating at the thought of clemens and pettitte playing for "real" teams next year:
Clemens and Pettitte may re-sign with the hometown Houston Astros.  Or they just might wind up on opposite ends of baseball's biggest rivalry. Whispers around baseball suggest Clemens might consider a Red Sox revival while Pettitte might think about a return to the Bronx...

Houston has invitations out to both pitchers to return. But neither has entered into negotiations yet, spurring speculation that they may have other plans in mind?

Word is, Clemens seriously entertained a move to the Red Sox at the trade deadline before Astros owner Drayton McLane squashed the idea. Clemens has never been opposed to taking advantage of marketing opportunities, and a re-launch with the Red Sox would present plenty?.

Pettitte jumped to Houston only after the Yankees' offer three years ago wasn't what he'd hoped (wary of an elbow MRI that revealed a larger-than-expected gap, their final bid was for two years, not three). At the same time, Pettitte resisted the temptation to practically double his pay with a four-year, $54 million offer from the Red Sox because he still has an affinity for his former Yankees teammates, such as Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, Bernie Williams and Mariano Rivera, and he couldn't bear to pitch against them.


my head actually hurts at the notion of trying to dispel all the wrong-headed bullshit that permeates 9/10 of the article.

instead, my buddy works at the fort worth star telegram and clemens was apparently in town yesterday for something and he got some one-on-one time with the rocket. said there was no doubt in his mind (my buddy?s) that clemens would be back. a few of the highlights (verrrrrrrry long, but unlike the cnnsi piece, this is straight from the horse?s mouth, not conjured from thin air, baseless bullshit):

On coming back:
Right now I don?t have any thoughts on playing or not playing to be honest with you. I?ve heard comments from other teammates and I?m sure once after the new year hits I?ll start getting more emails and more pushes either way to find out what?s happening.

Last year it played a big part in it... I?m easily motivated.

On his current health:
I feel great. If we had been able to sneak in the side door, or whatever you want to call it, into the playoffs this year, physically I would have been much stronger, there?s no question about that. Mentally, I was not fatigued as I was in 2005. That season I was spent after the first part of June because I had to go a lot harder than I expected just to keep games close and it cost me July in the weight room. I really had to alter my schedule. It caught up with me at the end of the season. But this year, I felt great.

On 2007 expectations:
I?d like to see (the Astros) go out and get the best players they can? There?s no secret we need some bats. There?s some weakness in our lineup there. When it comes down to it, for me, it?s about pitching and when you have somebody like Roy Oswalt and Andy Pettitte, they?re not getting any younger, and you?re wasting those opportunities where you have two guys who I feel can go 15-5. There?s your 20 games over .500 and the rest of the team can be .500.

On 2006:
The end of this season was special just for the fact that St. Louis was wetting the bed and giving us a chance, bottom line. We started playing well, we had that little run, it was just too late.

On the World Series:
I picked the Cardinals. I told Brad Ausmus when we were finally eliminated in Atlanta I said I thought they?d take a deep breath and collect themselves. They went rolling from there. They were able to get it together.

On expectations for himself:
I expect to perform. I?m not worried about whether I can perform at that level but in the same sense it is my biggest concern. Each year as I get older I know I have the will power to do the work and then you get out there and you start doing it and you tear a calf muscle or something because you?re pushing yourself like you did when you were 30. Do I need to back off? It?s a really touchy subject with me because I?m a power pitcher and I?m asking my body to do things that I wouldn?t have to do if I was a control, finesse-type guy. I came in as a power pitcher and I?m going to go out as one. That?s my biggest concern.

Once all of you all leave my house when I do these come out of retirement deals and everybody is gone except maybe a few family members at the house and I sit down, finally, and I kind of wonder what I got myself into again. Can I do it again? I have the same questions you all have. That?s the last thing I want to see is somebody on TV telling me, ?Hey you should have left last year,? or something like that. A lot of the guys in the media now doing this stuff have played so they know a little bit about the game, but that?s the last thing you want someone to do when you are your own hardest critic. Especially people who don?t know you or they?ve never seen the work that goes into it and how much work is involved. Those are my biggest concerns. The people closest to me, Alan and Randy Hendricks, have seen the work that goes into it. I value their opinions the most.

On Bagwell:
For me, it?s more than a formality because of what he has meant to the city and what he has meant to the Astros? organization. I think we knew it was coming. I see Jeff working out almost every other day. He?s doing cardio; it?s incredible. He?s in that mode, like we all do at our age, (trying to) keep father time off of us. He works out extremely hard but from what I understand, the shoulder is just not going to allow him to play. He hasn?t officially retired. It?s going to be an unbelievable day when they have his special day for him with the organization. They?re going to do it up right and they should. When you think of the Houston Astros, I think of Jeff Bagwell. I watched him from afar even before I came down here and then to get to be his teammate was incredible ... he was one of the guys I respect the most. He played the game right. He was obviously one of the reasons why I?ve enjoyed these past three years, I thought it was going to be one year and it turned into three.

On Pettitte:
I?ve enjoyed working with him because I know I can win when I?m playing with another winner; it gives you a lot of confidence. Andy is not only the best lefthander I?ve ever had the opportunity to work with in my career - and I?ve played with the some great left-handed pitchers - but probably in the top 5 of pitchers who knows how to go and do his work when most guys would shut it down on you.
I know he?s tired and beat up and fatigued. Mentally, it?s draining. There?s a lot of pressure on our pitching staff to perform in Houston. We took those challenges head on and we put up some incredible numbers as a 1-2-3 starter the last two or three years, especially in that ballpark that is so hitter friendly.

On where he might play next year:
Every time I travel, I hear from the Red Sox fans, I hear from the Yankee point-of-view and obviously I know my hometown situation and everybody has great points because I have poured my heart out in every one of those cities I?ve played in so I?m really happy I?m associated with those teams because I felt I pushed myself hard and kept my end of the deal and it was great playing for those historic franchises. [Note: Poor Toronto? what a weird two years?]

I hear about Cy Young and how I?m tied with him in victories and one more victory, I?d pass him. Well, maybe I enjoy being tied with him and having my name linked with that man. It?s pretty special. I would never assumed this 23 years ago. The two rings, the Cy Young, the world series....I don?t see myself going outside that situation.

63
Talk Zone / Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
« on: November 03, 2006, 12:12:27 pm »
Quote:

Among contemporaries, Thomas, McGriff, Palmeiro, McGwire, and Thome??? Who else?



i'd throw helton in there, as well as will clark, off the top of my head.

bagwell is the greatest 1b in NL history; i've said this for years. he deserves to go into the HoF five years from the date of his retirement.

btw, in "the new bill james historical baseball abstract," in which james lists the 100 best players overall, bagwell ranks 45th (4th all-time among 1b). biggio ranks 35th (5th among 2b).

64
Talk Zone / Re: Molony on Clemens/Pettitte
« on: November 02, 2006, 02:01:32 pm »
a rather pointed question from deadspin; not entirely dismissable:

This leads, of course, to the other question that, strangely, isn't be asked: The reason Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte are considering retirement wouldn't happen to have anything to do with steroids, would it? Despite the recent revelations -- disputed, but not disproven -- that Clemens and Pettite are in the Jason Grimsley HGH report -- it seems odd that most stories about the duo's "indecision" don't mention the steroid business, but they don't. Personally, we can't imagine why either pitcher, at the tail ends of their careers and so much more to lose than to gain, would put themselves in the sniper's scope one more season, but we don't know why Barry Bonds is coming back either.

65
Talk Zone / Re: Aramis Ramirez
« on: November 02, 2006, 01:56:03 pm »
Quote:

He's got a knock of being lazy, takes games off, plays for his numbers, and couldn't lead the team when Lee went down. Just the kind of guy you don't want to give 15+ mil a year to.



interesting... your personal observations of ramirez sound eerily similar to gregg couch's ... probably just a coincidence.

here, btw,  is a rather extensive dissertation on how to completely obliterate a lazy, disinterested, uniformly stupid sportswriter (like, say... oh, i don't know: gregg couch).

66
Talk Zone / Re: John P. Lopez, dumbass
« on: October 30, 2006, 12:25:44 pm »
the real culprit is the editor; i honestly and sincerely don't think the chornicle employs any.

case in point - sunday, a guy named steve campbell wrote an article about how, if the texans were to beat the titans, it would mark only the second time in franchise history they had strung together back-to-back wins, the first coming in late september/early october of 2004.

problem is they actually did it twice more that same season. so not only did he have the last occurance wrong, the entire foundation of his article was wrong.

how in fuck's sake did that get published? campbell may indeed but a fucktard, but his editor deserves far more of our scorn.

67
Talk Zone / Re: Coming Around
« on: October 27, 2006, 11:26:11 am »
Quote:

I just don't think Lee is an elite player and financially smart teams should not pay non-elite players that kind of money.



the years, more than the money, are what concern me. which isn't to say i think lee's worth $12-15M, but i sure as hell don't want to owe him that much when he's 35 (his age when a 4-year deal would end). his body type... he has "break down" written all over him.

if i'm drayton, i try to maximize my roi with a firm 2-year, $28M offer; take it or leave it.

68
Talk Zone / Re: footer: dunn and his drool
« on: October 26, 2006, 03:27:11 pm »
Quote:

Very nearly.  I hope the Reds don't try it.



lucky for us, hirsh, buchholz and qualls are not frontline starters. so their search would continue on w/o dunn in their everyday line-up; i think the astros come out ahead in that deal.

69
Talk Zone / Re: footer: dunn and his drool
« on: October 26, 2006, 03:24:39 pm »
Quote:

Dunn would cost alot in proven pitchers (in the ML or in the minors).



no minor leaguer is "proven."

Quote:

I am not sure I can swallow that much for the benefits Dunn gives you over Lee or Soriano.



fair enough; but i think you're a) overvaluing potential (not to mention, middle relievers) and b) not accounting for the $$ savings.

i have NO idea what lee is willing to take, but we know he turned down 4/$48M from the beers, and we know dunn is set to make $24M the next two years. my guess is lee wouldn;t be a penny cheaper and that, as one of 2 really good FAs available, is likely to get offered something closer to the $15M range.

so not only could you potentially save $$ over the next two years (to be used to land arms), but you're not locked in to paying a 35-year old $12-15M as he (potentially) deteriorates 3-4 years from now.

70
Talk Zone / Re: footer: dunn and his drool
« on: October 26, 2006, 03:18:01 pm »
Quote:

Yet they had Adam Dunn.



and the astros had lance berkman and ranked 25th... my guess is that removing berkman from the astros' line-up for pitching would probably - pure speculation on my part - make the offense worse.

Quote:

The Reds have begun to get a clue.  Their pitching kept them in it for as long as it lasted.



maybe they should pay three frontline starters; that seems to be a guarantee of success.

71
Talk Zone / Re: footer: dunn and his drool
« on: October 26, 2006, 02:39:55 pm »
Quote:

I never said either was a better option.  I just said they are an option.



right; so let's take the older, more expensive, less productive option... sound.  

Quote:

Cincy will be able to score runs.  They would still have a pretty good lineup.  Some good pitching (especially relief) would probably put them over the top.



cincinnati was 22nd last year in runs scored and now they may move their top run producer... not generally a sound idea.

Quote:

My vote is to wait the two years and then snag him.



interesting, so you're suggesting we DON'T get him when he's in his prime, but instead wait for him to get older and pay him a lot more money. brilliant!

if that's the plan, might as well get carlos lee this year.

72
Talk Zone / Re: footer: dunn and his drool
« on: October 26, 2006, 01:17:08 pm »
Quote:

Helping a division rival fix their biggest weakness (pitching) seems asinine when you can fix your weakness (run producing) elsewhere.



cincinnati would be correcting one flaw while creating another; trading dunn would be asinine.

and carlos lee (especially at $13-15M/year) is NOT a better option. neither is soriano.

career ops:
ad: .893
cl/as: .835

2007 ages:
ad: 27
cl: 31
as: 31

2007 salary:
ad: $11M
cl/as: more than $11M

73
Talk Zone / Re: footer: dunn and his drool
« on: October 26, 2006, 01:11:34 pm »
Quote:

You'd give them Qualls, Hirsh, and Buchholz for Adam Dunn?



yes, i would. dunn is a *premiere* power hitter in this league. i'd give up a top prospect, mid-level prospect and middle reliever any day to get a guy like dunn.

again, he's 27 and signed thru 2008. and, per footer, "salivating' at the chance to come home.

74
Talk Zone / Re: footer: dunn and his drool
« on: October 26, 2006, 12:52:40 pm »
Quote:

Did you not read her entire statement on Dunn?



yes; and it ended with her "yikes"ing at his BA after she essentially conceded that she had never bothered to pull up his ESPN player page and look at tired, useless stats like homer runs, walks, runs created - and other such bothersome fodder, focusing instead on Ks, which, frankly, IS very justice of her. i expect better from ms. footer.

again, it?s asinine to, at any point, not want adam dunn on your baseball team.

75
Talk Zone / Re: footer: dunn and his drool
« on: October 26, 2006, 12:45:46 pm »
Quote:

Seriously - I think Dunn is a nice hitter, but what makes him a better cleanup hitter than Ensberg?



consistentcy.

the guy'll turn 27 next month and is signed thru 2008; i couldn't find exact #'s, but my guess is that he'd come cheaper than carlos lee, in terms of salary.

Quote:

Just for the record here...if the Astros wanted Dunn, I have a feeling the talks would include something like Lidge, Qualls, Hirsh, Patton, and Buchholz. Not one of them. All of them.



i'd give them a choice: lidge or qualls? hirsh or patton? and we'll throw in buchholz.

froback, it is weird, but likely just the luck of the draw; i notice he hit 5th quite a bit last year behind jr. and aurilla, and they had 142 RsBI between them.

76
Talk Zone / Re: footer: dunn and his drool
« on: October 26, 2006, 12:24:27 pm »
Quote:

What makes her opinion "ridiculously asinine?"



because it's ridiculously asinine to not want adam dunn on your team. especially for, of all reasons, his BA. good god.

true, as she points out, his K rate is a bit alarming, but not as much in light of his other production. a player is going to make anywhere from 350-450 outs a year; ultimately, who cares how they do it if they're still getting on base nearly 40% of the time (career OB% of .380), jacking 40 dingers, driving in 100+ runners and not killing rallies with DPs (he's grounded into 38 in nearly 3k ML ABs)?

77
Talk Zone / footer: dunn and his drool
« on: October 26, 2006, 11:48:29 am »
didn't see this anywhere; from footer's latest mailbag:
Quote:

Rumor has it that the Reds are getting rid of their big strikeout hitter -- Adam Dunn. Do you think the Astros will try to get him on a trade? I would love to see Adam here! His hometown is New Caney.
-- Samuel R., Houston

Apparently, Dunn is salivating at the idea of playing for his hometown Astros. And yes, the Reds are throwing around the idea of trading him for pitching. So it's something that I'm sure both teams will look into this winter.

I've made my opinions of Dunn clear in past mailbags, and those opinions aren't too popular among those who want the 6-foot-6 slugger in the Astros' lineup. I won't beat around the bush -- his 194 strikeouts make my stomach turn. The Astros have enough hitters who whiff on a much-too-regular basis. Why add another?

But a friend of mine who is close to the Reds organization swayed my opinions a bit. First of all, as we know, Dunn is a terrific home run hitter. He's hit at least 40 three years in a row. And he walks a lot. He's drawn at least 100 free passes in each of the last three seasons. He's averaging .380 in on-base percentage over that same span of time -- not too shabby.

He'd look quite nice hitting in the cleanup spot, behind Lance Berkman. Yes, I'll admit that. But a .234 batting average? Yikes.




her ridiculously asinine opinion of dunn aside (he's 26 and has a career ops of nearly .900 - nearly 60 points higher than lee and soriano), what would you be willing to part with to land him?

because if dunn CAN be had, he's jump to the top of my wishlist this winter.

78
Talk Zone / Re: Coming Around
« on: October 25, 2006, 01:20:30 pm »
Quote:

Even with the shit season Huff had last year (I'm talking entire season, not the Month of Production



i don't get the "shit" season conclusion; he was hurt early last year, but once he got to houston, we was every bit as good as we were led to believe.

consider:
his career OPS is .819; as an astro (224 ABs), his OPS was .819 had he been on his astro pace all year (year = his previous 3-year average of 604 ABs), he would have socked 35 HRs and driven in 104 Rs. (his career highs in those categories, btw: 34/107.)

that's a shit season?

yeah, yeah - he only hit .250, but that's meaningless. had the guy just gotten 5 more measley hits, he would have hit .272 as an astro (and those that watched him know, he hit A LOT of rockets right at people). so with five more seeing-eye singles and/or texas leaguers, huff was on a .272/35/104/.819 pace as an astro.

it was NOT a shit season. i think resigning him and adding lee gives the astros a VERY potent 3-5. if scott is even half as good as he was in '06, and you can get solid production out of biggio/burke, then that would be a very dangerous team with a great R/L mix.

79
Talk Zone / Re: Lou wants the Rod
« on: October 17, 2006, 02:20:22 pm »
Quote:

Especially if Ramirez leaves the Cubs.  They'd pretty much be the same team offensively.



no kidding.
arod, career: .305/43/125/.959
aram, 2006: .291/38/119/.913

so they cubs want to dish out an additional $6M for 8 more hits, 5 more hrs and 6 more rsbi? have it, douchetards. gee, with arod last year, you would have won exactly zero more games they you actually did.

80
Talk Zone / Re: Latest helping of Dick...
« on: October 11, 2006, 07:43:24 pm »
Quote:

So, for you, every time he writes something his authority has a fresh start?  There is no reference to his reputation and what he has written the day before?  YOU are his target audience.



again, 9.9 out of 10 times, i would agree with you. he often prints erroneous, misguided, ill-informed conjecture that eeks its way into the culture of douchebags who put stock in what he has to say and will use (as he inevitably will do as well) his empty, knowledge-less rhetoric to later hold the local teams to an unrealistic standard.

but i just think this is one of those rare 0.1 circumstances in which he's covered his bases and that if a standard is eventually set from this paticularly harmless post, it's the fault of the douchebags, not justice.

81
Talk Zone / Re: Latest helping of Dick...
« on: October 11, 2006, 07:12:02 pm »
Quote:

I think prav's point is that anybody can come up with that shit. But Dick sits high up on the Chron masthead and that shouldn't be where gossipy blogspeak comes from.



gossipy? how so? it'd be one thing if he had speculated about crawford's availability, making it seem likely that he would, in fact, be on the open market. or had he set pupura up to fail with intentionally misleading and inaccurate information about crawford's availability. but he did neither.

he clearly states, "'You've said you won't trade Carl Crawford. If that's set in stone, we're sorry for bothering you."

Quote:

Especially since he is so insulting to the people who disagree with him. And, as the blog, (if you can call it that) is heavily moderated we can't see the replies he's refering to. He needs to invest in a drawer full of bunchless panties.



that was a completely different post; this one's harmless.

i mean, yes - the guy's a fucktard. goes w/o saying. but i think his fucktardness is coloring your view of this paticular topic.

82
Talk Zone / Re: Latest helping of Dick...
« on: October 11, 2006, 07:04:54 pm »
Quote:

I'd like to know how he justifies distinguishing himself from "fat, unemployed right-wingers with computers" if all he has to offer is his uninformed speculation?



but what, exactly, is he speculating about? crawford's availability? no. the astros' interest? no. there's nothing substantive in the piece.

again, i suppose you could argue he was lazy for not doing some legwork and figuring what might actually pique the d-ray interest. and you could certainly rip him for a stupid, snarky comment he made in a previous blog. but beyond that... i don't find what he said in this instance egregious at all.

83
Talk Zone / Re: Latest helping of Dick...
« on: October 11, 2006, 06:50:20 pm »
Quote:

Richard Justice pretends to be someone who knows something about baseball. 99% of the people in Houston do not know anything about baseball. If Richard Justice suggests that Tim Purpura could easily trade 2 unknown commodities for Carl Crawford, then those fans are going to think, "yeah why doesnt Purpura just trade for Crawford, Justice says it would be a snap."



so is your objection that he didn't go out and research viable trade options in relation to what the d-ray may actually need? had he listed, say, burke, nieve and qualls, would you have been ok with it?

if so, ok; i see where you're coming from. but i still don't think this is near as egregious as most of his spittle. it's wild speculation; he frames it as such; he makes it clear crawford is probably not likely to be available... where's the harm?

if, six months from now, he's shoving his fist up purpura's ass and demanding to know why carl crawford's still a d-ray and not an astro, then yes, justice has blown his usual mess of vapid stupidity upon all of us yet again. but i just don't think that's the case here.

84
Talk Zone / Re: Latest helping of Dick...
« on: October 11, 2006, 06:21:28 pm »
Quote:

He's supposed to know something.



i don't TOTALLY disagree with you; but there was nothing inherently irresponsible about this paticular piece:

Quote:

5. Telephone the Devil Rays and say: ''You've said you won't trade Carl Crawford. If that's set in stone, we're sorry for bothering you. However, if you change your mind, give us a shot at him. Better yet, name any package of young players. Hunter Pence and Jason Hirsh? Consider it done. Anything else?



85
Talk Zone / Re: Shit. Anyone Got the News On?
« on: October 11, 2006, 06:14:20 pm »
thank god - john kruk and steve phillips are here to help us make sense of it all.

86
Talk Zone / Re: Latest helping of Dick...
« on: October 11, 2006, 06:09:06 pm »
Quote:

I've done 5 minutes on the Internet and realized that a Crawford to Houston deal is a long way off.  Why print this and stir up the masses? Oh, to stir up the masses.



well, sure - they'd be maroons to deal him.

in justice's defense, however, he's not "reporting" anything; he's offering his "solutions" to the astros, which includes a license to speculate.

and i would, vomit-inducing as it may be, agree with him that there's no harm in heading out to the tampa bay-st. pete area for a little game i like to call, "how much vodka can you hold in your mouth at one time and, oh, by the way, how 'bout wandy rodriguez and ty gainey for carl crawford?"

87
Talk Zone / Re: Latest helping of Dick...
« on: October 11, 2006, 05:41:46 pm »
Quote:

Dan Wheeler and Chris Burke



done. throw in nieve, too. and then they can pick among our starters not named hirsh (in terms of prospects).

88
Talk Zone / Re: Shit. Anyone Got the News On?
« on: October 11, 2006, 04:36:15 pm »
Quote:

from CBS News.com: There's no word yet on any deaths or injuries.



it kind of feels like the first draft probably read,  "There's no word yet on any deaths or injuries... but our fingers remain crossed." doesn't it?

89
Talk Zone / Re: Latest helping of Dick...
« on: October 11, 2006, 04:15:51 pm »
Quote:

I suspect most successful clubs (that cannot spend 200 million) build their club from within.  Let's simply say that they place a little more value on their farm system than you.



we're not talking about a 31-year old OFer losing bat speed. crawford just turned 25 in august; he's a mere 20 months older than hunter pence and just 6 months older than jason hirsh. he's the VERY DEFINITION of the kind of player every team wants to build around.

last year, he led the al in triples and stolen bases and was 10th in hits. he would have led the astros in Hs, SBs, 3Bs, and would have been second in SLG%, RsBI, and Rs. as a #2 hitter this year, he led all of MLB in slg% (.553) and was 6th in ob% (.361). now imagine lance berkman sitting in the on-deck circle for his 600 abs...

at one point can we expect similiar results from jason hirsh and/or hunter pence and/or any other still-unproven propect?

90
Talk Zone / Re: Latest helping of Dick...
« on: October 11, 2006, 01:31:33 pm »
Quote:

The issue at hand is not Pence for Crawford, it is Pence AND Hirsh for Crawford.  Does Hirsh have no value to you?



in relation to getting crawford? no. zero. i'd trade any and every unproven "prospect" for carl crawford. hell, if tampa bay asked for the entire corpus christi franchise, i'd have to give that serious thought.

i have zero investment in prospects. i'll take a proven ML'er any day and 53 times on sunday. if said ML'er happens to also be just 25, showing signs of having an unlimited ceiling and is signed cheaply thru 2010, my interest stops being measured and enters the same rarified realm as that piercing sound only dogs can hear.

91
Talk Zone / Re: Latest helping of Dick...
« on: October 11, 2006, 12:38:50 pm »
Quote:

Based on my assumption that Crawford will be soon making much more...



your assumption is incorrect. from the st. pete somethingoranother - times, maybe?:
On Friday, they signed All-Star outfielder Carl Crawford to a six-year contract that could be worth more than $31 million.

The agreement includes two one-year club options covering the 2009 and 2010 seasons, Crawford's first two years of free agency.


oh, btw, where did pence's OPS rank last year among ML'ers? you do realize crawford's only 20 months older than pence and already has FOUR full ML seasons under his belt, right?

92
Talk Zone / Re: Ok, Let's Talk About A-Rod
« on: October 11, 2006, 12:34:27 pm »
Quote:

oh please...Jeter is not even the best player on his team. You could even argue that...wait for it...Arod should win the MVP over Jeter.  Jeter hit .343 this year, which is the only reason, imo that he's even in the discussion.



you're probably right; but therein lies my issue with arod - why would the yanks even entertain the thought of dealing him?

4 years. 2 mvps. (potentially) 3 teams.

i lived in dallas during the arod era; there is just... something off about the guy. i can't put my finger on it. his numbers are overwhelming, but...... if you were there, you know what i mean. he was like a ghost.

and now he may be traded for the second time in four years.

93
Talk Zone / Re: Latest helping of Dick...
« on: October 11, 2006, 12:28:14 pm »
Quote:

I would have to be pretty sure that Crawford will continue to improve before I would even think about dealing that kind of talent/potential for him.



crawford's OPS each year since becoming a full-time player:
'03: .671
'04: .781
'05: .800
'06: .831

and he's 25. hell, even if he DOESN'T improve, but maintains his current level of production, he's a significant upgrade to this offense. my southern region literally fills with blood at the thought of crawford being an astro.

plus, i think he's signed reasonably cheap thru, like, 2009. he's a no-brainer.

94
Talk Zone / Re: Latest helping of Dick...
« on: October 11, 2006, 11:51:05 am »
Quote:

The Pence+Hirsh for Carl Crawford deal seems kinda steep to me, but not outrageously so.



were it me, they'd have to invent a new measurement for recording time intervals if i could get carl crawford for ANY combination of our prospects because i'd say "yes" that quickly.

95
Talk Zone / Re: Ok, Let's Talk About A-Rod
« on: October 09, 2006, 03:25:22 pm »
Quote:

I can honestly say that I don't care if a baseball player is "part of the community" or if he goes straight home at night and sets cats on fire.



it took him less than 3 years to wear out his welcome in dallas. and the guy won an MVP, ferchirssakes.

IF the yankees deal him, he'll be playing for his 3rd team in four years. i can't think of another athlete in (or even near) arod's class that can lay claim to such a distinction. even bonds hasn't accomplished that feat.

on the field, the guy is a beast... so why do teams seem so eager to get rid of him? i mean, the yankees are coming off a disappointing year.... and they want (maybe) want to jettison the guy who won an MVP last year? clue phone's ringing....

96
Talk Zone / Re: Is there anyone else interested in Lidge?
« on: October 06, 2006, 02:52:12 pm »
Quote:

Starting the bidding with Wily Mo Pena



i'm listening....

Quote:

and Julian Tavarez?



nooooooo!
love,
minute maid park water coolers.

do they still have kottaras? pena and kottaras would float my bloat. i'd do that deal in a sub-nanosecond.

97
Talk Zone / Re: Hickey fired...
« on: October 04, 2006, 05:57:05 pm »
not a big shock, nor a terrific loss. clemens/pettitte/oswalt aside, i can't think of a single pitcher who got better after hickey's arrival, save for wheeler and qualls, and even they proved somewhat inconsistent.

meanwhile, the marks against him start to take on more and more weight: lidge regressed, backe was wildly inconsistent, no 4th or 5th starter ever emerged, the bullpen struggled for much of the first half, and a slew of supposedly promising youngsters looked anything but.

98
Talk Zone / Re: perpetuating bullshit
« on: October 03, 2006, 01:13:10 pm »
he also name-drops a slew of players (posada???) to rile fans up and then "outs" two years of clandestine discussions between the astros and marlins, re: willis, attempting to frame them as serious when my guess is that 97 other teams have been having "ongoing discussions" with the marlins about willis, too.

99
Talk Zone / Re: Is It F/A Season Yet?
« on: October 02, 2006, 07:13:32 pm »
Quote:

Now I am not saying Ensberg was good, he sucked... but Huff was actually worse with the Astros this year.



you do realize that if huff had gotten a mere four more hits - seeing-eye singles, infield bleeders, whatever - that he would have "outperformed" ensberg in that category? and you think of all the times huff hit the ball really, really, really hard this year....

but screw all that - huff's career OPS is .819. as an astro, his OPS was .819. he was AS ADVERTISED, and performed well, imo. his astro-only pace would have yieled 35 hr's 102 rsbi over the course of a full, 604-ab season, which is how many he averaged the three previous years.

i would welcome huff back with open arms for a) the right price; b) assuming we add a better bat in addition to his. as your third or 4th best offensive player, he's great. as your second-best offensive player....

he's also LH and plays at least 3 positions decently. and unlike ensberg, stays healthy. a lefty bat is big. no guarantee on scott; no guarantee on lamb (who i would try to deal for arms... or an arm).

100
Talk Zone / Re: Lane and Ensberg
« on: October 02, 2006, 06:00:52 pm »
Quote:

Am I the only one who is concerned about his ability to stay healthy?  And, once injured, his ability to recover?



no. i think the organization has soured on him for this reason, too, not to mention not just his recovery, but threshold to play hurt and be smart about it. nothing specific, just garner's tone and the way he used him after he came back from the DL.

my guess is that they'll take offers and jump on a decent one; hope to get.... a bullpen arm, maybe?

101
Talk Zone / Re: Carlos Lee?
« on: September 21, 2006, 05:53:33 pm »
Quote:

Would any of you guys like to see Podsednik in the Mud 'n' Blood next year?



podsednick sucks. i'm convinced his exists only so fat hacks like john kruk can get all moist, gargle with their balls and then make stupid statements like, "he plays the game the way it was meant to be played." shut up.

102
Talk Zone / Re: when do we expect a verdict on luke scott?
« on: September 20, 2006, 06:52:39 pm »
Quote:

IMO, unless Drayton really expands the budget, TP would be a dumbass to spend 7 - 10 mill to "upgrade" a very inexpensive producer like Luke Scott.  Use that money to get some arms.



view it in a vacuum. it's an excercise.

Quote:

You can sign Lee, Vernon Wells...



wells isn't a FA.

103
Talk Zone / Re: when do we expect a verdict on luke scott?
« on: September 20, 2006, 06:17:45 pm »
Quote:

he was given the job twice last year and did nothing. NO????? Round Rock!!!!



right; RR. and given? he certainly earned in it ST last year. i don't remember there being a second time... when was that?

regardless, he looks like a completely different player this year. 180.

Quote:

he has been great, but i think caution is warranted.



ok, so let's say we've signed lee and resigned huff for reasonable costs, and then tim p gets a call from made-up baseball player guy. he's in his late 20s, has gap power, has an .800-.850 OPS over a 3-4 year career and he's going to cost you.... $7M-$10M/year. but you're flush with bagwell/clemens/pettitte cash, so $$ for this exercise is not necessarily an object.

do you sign the guy, or pass because you have scott? i guess that's the real question.

104
Talk Zone / Re: when do we expect a verdict on luke scott?
« on: September 20, 2006, 05:44:39 pm »
Quote:

how did you feel about Luke last year?



fair point, but i didn't have 170+ ML ABs to base an opinion on.

i mean, this is 2 solid months of ridiculous production on top of a .900+ OPS over the last 2 years in NO. i don't see how he hasn't earned a spot at this paticular time.

105
Talk Zone / when do we expect a verdict on luke scott?
« on: September 20, 2006, 04:52:58 pm »
i was listening to carl dukes... this morning, i guess, and he gave a jury's still out assessment of luke scott in terms of 2007. he's now the second local guy to do so (the other being our BFF, justice).

now, i know; combine both of their baseball IQs, etc., etc... but it did make me wonder if they were maybe getting that vibe from the organization?

so what IS the consensus? just among us? is it rigoddamndiculous for us to expect him to be productive again next year as we move forward and reshape this roster? (not AS productive, of course?)

i see a guy, numbers aside (though they remain impressive and... he just hit a bases-loaded triple!), who seems extremely confident at the plate. he rarely seems to get cheated and it's even rarer for him to look overmatched. and he seems to consistently drive the ball. i felt, btw, none of these things about jason lane last year, if that's, by chance, the reason for the "wait and see..." approach.

personally, i think he?s a lock entering 2007, but am i the only one?

106
Talk Zone / Re: starting to bother me
« on: September 20, 2006, 04:36:26 pm »
Quote:

Club officials believe Lee's lack of conditioning has contributed to a second-half brownout for the second consecutive season. He had 20 homers and 73 RBI, with a .563 slugging percentage, at the all-star break. Since then, he had eight homers and 32 RBI, with a .502 slugging percentage, entering the weekend.



i think playing july and august in an outdoor park built for left-handed hitters is at least a small part of the reason for his (slight) decline.

the oppressive north texas heat has long been a reason bandied about when discussing ranger second-half collapses. having lived there for 10 years, I know IT CAN BE a factor.

107
Talk Zone / Re: Why they lose
« on: August 25, 2006, 06:25:04 pm »
Quote:

You are new here.



ehhhh... not really.

Quote:

I observe the games, I comment on the way they are played, I compare the way the players play to other players. I don't pretend to make evaluations.



then why is it so important that this team perform the "little" things consistently? or is the absence of doing such the reason that every baseball team fails?

108
Talk Zone / Re: Anyone interested in Vernon Wells?
« on: August 25, 2006, 06:01:01 pm »
Quote:

What would make Wells more attractive, from an overall perspective, than Carlos Lee?



younger; plays a harder spot to fill. i think you could argue wells is a better player, and has a higher ceiling.

but he'll cost you comparable monye and players.

109
Talk Zone / Re: Why they lose
« on: August 25, 2006, 05:56:38 pm »
that's fine; i'll play...
Quote:

Which player on the 05 Astros do you think lacks "talent"?



the team, collectively, lacked talent. per arky vaughn:
Quote:

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.



how many times would you want to go into battle with that team? it took a collective trio of pitching performances nearly unrivaled in the history of baseball just to squeak into the playoffs.

but sure, let?s just assume that because they did squeak into the playoffs, that they?re above reproach.

Quote:

Also, how is an outfielder not knowing which base to throw to a "little thing"?



because...
Quote:

...Bay moves to 2nd on the throw. Didn't affect the scoring but...



it?s a sound, accurate baseball point. but now let me ask you a question - why do the astros have to be so mindful of the "little" things? don't they have enough ?talent? to overcome them? or has their talent significantly compromised their margin for error?

and then i'd like you to please answer my question: are you content with the 2006 astros upgrading only their propensity for successfully doing the "little" things?

110
Talk Zone / Re: Why they lose
« on: August 25, 2006, 05:31:22 pm »
Quote:

Astros 1999 vs Astros 2005.



i'm sorry; and this confirms the 2006 astros are a talented team just getting beat by the "little" things how?

and i did ask you a question - are you content with this current roster going into next year, assuming the only upgrade is that they start doing the "little" things?

111
Talk Zone / Re: Anyone interested in Vernon Wells?
« on: August 25, 2006, 05:22:55 pm »
Quote:

It also ignores the fact that they need Pitching, more than they need offense.



it actually ignores nothing; it was merely an exercise attempting to determine which team would have better ML-level talent to offer toronto; not a 2007 texas ranger scouting report.

the astros have berkman and oswalt. beyond that, i'd rate every one of the "young" rangers i listed ahead of anyone else the astros would/could offer - burke, taveras, scott... uhm....

112
Talk Zone / Re: Why they lose
« on: August 25, 2006, 05:14:55 pm »
Quote:

how many days before the end of the season do you have to clinch to have talent? a week? a month?



did i at any point say that any team winning a playoff spot on the final day of the season lacked talent? no. i did not.

113
Talk Zone / Re: Why they lose
« on: August 25, 2006, 05:04:41 pm »
Quote:

How do you think this works? In the last 5 years, name a team besides the Yankees that have been to 2 World Series.



which do you think is more often the foundation of success: talent or a lifetime's worth of good luck and incredibly rare happenstance?

and are you content going into next year with this same team? convinced they can win if they do the "little" things?

114
Talk Zone / Re: Anyone interested in Vernon Wells?
« on: August 25, 2006, 04:30:06 pm »
Quote:

Such as???  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Houston has alot to offer.  I just don't agree the Rangers do either.



texeria, young, kinsler, laird, even blalock - all good, young players. they could also potentially deal mathews, jr., de rosa, wilkerson - older vets with some value.

115
Talk Zone / Re: Why they lose
« on: August 25, 2006, 04:18:18 pm »
Quote:

If the 2005 season was a miracle, then the last month of 2004 was Miracle-Light.



the 2004 team was infinitely more talented than the 2005 team. had pettitte been healthy, they would have won the pennant that year.

last year was a borderline fluke; a bunch of different career years, weird happenstances and historic performances all coming together at the right time. but it took ALL that and they still only made the playoffs on the final day of the season.

116
Talk Zone / Re: Anyone interested in Vernon Wells?
« on: August 25, 2006, 04:12:18 pm »
Quote:

The Rangers cannot match the offers Houston could make.



oh, sure they could - the rangers have a lot of good, young, everyday talent; far more than the astros.

117
Talk Zone / Re: Why they lose
« on: August 25, 2006, 03:55:46 pm »
Quote:

It's basically the same "talent" that got them to the World Series last year.



yes, the same talent that went 15-30 before going on arguably the most incredibly freakish run in baseball history; one that, given a 100 seasons, i doubt they'd ever be able to duplicate.

2005 was a miracle; a glorious, life-affirming miracle, yes ? but a miracle nonetheless.

118
Talk Zone / Re: Why they lose
« on: August 25, 2006, 03:14:58 pm »
Quote:

Little things, since they don't score in bunches, are killing this team.



yeah, that... and the lack of talent.

119
Talk Zone / Re: Getting ahead of ourselves
« on: August 24, 2006, 05:36:12 pm »
Quote:

Trade Taveras, Ensberg and Wandy Rodriguez for Wells




i would then trade lane and tim redding's 1998 potential for a-rod, insisting that the yanks pick up 99.9999999999999% of his salary. anything less and we pull back lane. if they continue to hem and haw, then we pull back redding's 1998 potential and offer nothing more than eusebio's afro, minus the hit streak.

purpura cannot show weakness, not this offseason.

120
Talk Zone / Re: Getting ahead of ourselves
« on: August 24, 2006, 04:23:21 pm »
Quote:

Wells is someone I would indeed give up alot for.  He is very underrated defensively and have a very good stick.  I also think he would be highly motivated to come here, I believe he is from Houston area... but that is not a for sure, being from my memory.



he's from dallas; arlington, actually, rumor being the rangers will let lee walk and pursue a trade for wells because his family is putting pressure on him to play closer to home.

would rather target lee or soriano - you'll have to give the same money to wells, and throw in players; likely really good ones. no way.

121
Talk Zone / Re: No Boras for Lee after all...
« on: August 24, 2006, 12:37:21 pm »
so... do you think word leaked to lee that if he was in any way, shape or form serious about wanting to play for the astros, he maybe should reconsider boras?

i mean, assuming his courtship with boras was true, doesn't this rather abrupt about-face portend well for the local 9?

122
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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?

123
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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.

124
Talk Zone / Re: Think This Out Before You Answer
« on: August 23, 2006, 07:01:19 pm »
when qualls gave up the tater monday night, my heretofore inextinguishable faith in this team was officially snuffed out.

i guess, as these last two years have shown, anything is possible, but? i don?t think this team has it. then again, neither do the commies or the cardinals?

125
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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....?

126
Talk Zone / Re: Getting ahead of ourselves
« on: August 23, 2006, 06:44:27 pm »
i think you need to add a big stick, come hell or high water, in addition to resigning huff; he's been as advertised and i think he'll be very productive in a line-up where he's the 3rd or even 4th best hitter.

i'd also like to try scott in the 2-hole; he has such great power to the gaps - i think he'd drive taveras in a lot and then be on second base a lot for hitters 3, 4 and 5.

also, what is everyone's opinion of pettitte? i'm guessing few would outright say no to his return, but what's your ceiling on his deal? me? i'd love to have him back; i think the guy has balls. but anything beyond 2 years and $13M...

and i agree with fro' - i think ensberg has fallen out of favor and they will look to actively deal him. fool me once, shame on me, but fool me three years in a row....

laslty, i'd like to see lidge sent to a remote island that's never heard of baseball so he can decompress and come back mentally and physically recharged.

127
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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.

128
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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.

129
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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.

130
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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.

131
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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."

132
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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.

133
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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.

134
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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?

135
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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.

136
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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.

137
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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.

138
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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.

139
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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.

140
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« 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.

141
Talk Zone / Re: The Curse
« on: August 22, 2006, 07:29:26 pm »
plus, relievers are so damn unpredictable. case in point: brad lidge. case in point, #2: chad qualls.

you should never give away prospects if you don't have at least a semi-solid idea of what you're getting in return.

where i think you can legitimately criticize purpura is in how he's handled the arms the team does have in its system. why no driskill? or peguero? where did sampson go? why was nieve not groomed sooner to potentially be a closer? how can you justify recalling wandy fucking roriguez? etc.

142
Talk Zone / Re: So Much For Carlos Lee
« on: August 22, 2006, 06:51:26 pm »
Quote:

He hired Boras TODAY, Ric.



seriously? that's funny; i had no idea. ok, yeah - screw carlos lee...

143
Talk Zone / Re: So Much For Carlos Lee
« on: August 22, 2006, 06:24:43 pm »
Quote:

No, I'm being my typical try to ground what you're saying in some sort of reality self.  Based on what Mclane and Purpura have said about negotiating with Boras, it's unlikely that they're going to walk into that again.



yeah, i like the pedantic self better, personally.

lee likely has no idea the history with boras and mclane; he probably doesn't even know who mclane is.

and sure, maybe mclane does have a no-boras bottom line; but then, why did he try to trade for carlos lee? (and it could very well be because lee hired boras after 7/31... no idea.)

144
Talk Zone / Re: So Much For Carlos Lee
« on: August 22, 2006, 06:04:52 pm »
Quote:

Ok, so where's your "irrefutable proof"  that Lee is about to fire Boras because he wont negotiate with the Astros?  Do you think Carlos Lee is factoring in how fast Boras would sue him if he did that?



what? are you really asking me to validate the potential likelihood of what might go down in 4-5 months because you?re under the impression i actually think i have said knowledge? or are you just being your typically pedantic self?

i have no idea what's going to happen, nor does anyone else. but, assuming the astros won't or can't sign lee just because of this or that unrelated piece of info related to scott boras is every bit as speculative as me assuming it could possibly get done in spite of scott boras. we?re just kicking ideas around; no one needs to (or can) verify anything right now.

145
Talk Zone / Re: So Much For Carlos Lee
« on: August 22, 2006, 05:46:48 pm »
Quote:

I would think Soriano would be more expensive than Lee.



yeah, and only a year younger, right? if that?

i would love to add lee; i would love for them to resign huff; i'd love for them to move scott to the 2-hole, ala beltran, and go to war with that offense next year.

146
Talk Zone / Re: So Much For Carlos Lee
« on: August 22, 2006, 05:43:33 pm »
Quote:

Are you saying that you have any indication that Lee is going to fire an agent he just hired?  Further, do you know what Boras did when Sheffield tried the same thing?



i'm not "saying" anything, per se; just that boras does not, by his lonesome, mean no carlos lee for the astros. it might; it might not.

my guess (hope?) is that lee will have the stones to help decide his future.

147
Talk Zone / Re: So Much For Carlos Lee
« on: August 22, 2006, 05:39:29 pm »
awww, crap - don't call me out - cnnsi, i think? let me look it up...


yep. here it is: "The Rangers won the first battle for Lee at the deadline, but insiders believe the Astros have the edge to sign Lee long-term.

Beyond the fact that Astros owner Drayton McLane has an overriding desire to upstage his intrastate rival, Lee is said to have strong ties to Houston."

and here's the link:  Irrefutable Proof

148
Talk Zone / Re: So Much For Carlos Lee
« on: August 22, 2006, 05:35:51 pm »
and despite what beltran might think, boras works for lee. so if he sticks his sack in the middle of lee getting done what lee wants, a quick phone call removes boras from the equation.

149
Talk Zone / Re: So Much For Carlos Lee
« on: August 22, 2006, 05:32:29 pm »
Quote:

Boras has a tendency to make negotiations much more difficult.



yeah, for food-thru-straw numbnuts like tom hicks. mclane's a little savier.

150
Talk Zone / Re: So Much For Carlos Lee
« on: August 22, 2006, 05:30:41 pm »
Quote:

Life v Federline.



that's fucking classic. cap, doffed.

i'm not disputing boras' level of douche baggery; only that if the astros really want lee, and if lee really wants the astros (all reported on an internet site, so i'm inclinded to buy-in 100%), then lee and the astros will get things done, regardless (or, were i spencer tillman, irregardless) of any and every trick boras pulls out of his shawshanked ass.

right?...

right?

151
Talk Zone / Re: So Much For Carlos Lee
« on: August 22, 2006, 04:15:02 pm »
Quote:

But to conclude Boras is not an indication of Lee's preference for a top dollar contract is foolish.



never concluded that.

Quote:

If McLane offers the most money, Lee might sign in Houston. Don't bet on that being the case because other teams will do their best to drive up Lee's price for Houston. And if they don't, expect Boras to drive up the price any way he can.



it takes 4 to tango in this scenario: a big market team; lee; boras and a smaller market pawn.

but if big market teams aren't in the running, boras can't just pull figures from his ass. or rather, he can try, but no one's going to bite.

when you then factor in lee's (supposed) interest in houston, and i don't see why this is such a far-fecthed idea.

we know the astros were/are interested; we know lee has some ties here.

152
Talk Zone / Re: So Much For Carlos Lee
« on: August 22, 2006, 03:34:08 pm »
Quote:

You don't hire Boras unless you're going for top dollar, regardless of location.



then what's the issue? if houston's the team offering top dollar and lee wants to play here....

remember, the dandy doodles stayed as far away from beltran as humanly possible; even with the mets in the running. so, too, did the NE bandwagon. it's not like boras snaps, and the big dogs come runnin'.

beltran wanted NY; boras got him NY. lee (supposedly) wants houston.

153
Talk Zone / Re: So Much For Carlos Lee
« on: August 22, 2006, 02:54:27 pm »
you guys are acting like carlos lee is some mute puppet prone to move and contort whichever way his puppetmaster sees fit. doesn't he own a ranch in or near houston?

my guess is that he'll take one look at the crawford boxes (which... ya know, he's probably already seen, really, but, for dramatic effect) and think, "i wouldn't mind abusing that like a saigon whore for the next 5-7 years. where do i sign?"

i mean, really, when you think about it, neither the doodle dandys nor the northeastern bandwagon need a LF, so who among the useless leftover flotsam could overpay lee and provide a great fit not to mention proximity to his ranch in or near houston?

154
Talk Zone / Re: Huff
« on: August 11, 2006, 09:47:03 am »
Quote:

I wouldn't mind seeing Huff play 1st and Berkman in right when he's 100%.



if berkman ever so much as shags flies the rest of his career, that manager should be fired on the spot. he's your first baseman; go from there.

155
Talk Zone / Re: Huff
« on: August 10, 2006, 06:25:18 pm »
Quote:

There is some lingering talk about the Padres making a bid for him for next season.



he's done, contract-wise, after this year, right? i think huff is more valuable given his ability to play multiple positions.

156
Talk Zone / Re: What?????
« on: August 10, 2006, 06:21:14 pm »
Quote:

Ever. There is still a game being played.



i remember that assbag sanders doing it after his dinger in game 1 last year; i'm still pissed off about it even though the baseball gods showed him who had the bigger cock with that game 2 smackdown.

f'ing cardinals...

157
Talk Zone / Re: Huff
« on: August 10, 2006, 06:16:04 pm »
Quote:

Then they would still need to sign MoBerg



i have absolutely nothing to go on other than my own dumbassocity, but i have a feeling from the gut area that unless he goes on an absolute tear, ensberg isn't in their future plans.

if he was really and truly in the thick of deadline discussions, while on the disabled list, my hunch is that there's some frustration with him beyond the stripes.

158
Talk Zone / Re: Morgan Ensberg,
« on: August 10, 2006, 03:52:13 pm »
Quote:

I don't know where Gar'd put him, but he's at his best in getting on base for someone else to drive in, not driving in runs himself.



i think he'd be dangerous in the 2-hole; he'd see some pitches, he could take some walks without the flack, maybe drive in taveras here and there... he'd still be a vagina, of course, just less of one.

makes even more sense now that biggio seems poised to chase aaron rather than 3,000.

159
Talk Zone / Re: Huff
« on: August 10, 2006, 03:39:43 pm »
he's been absolutely crushing the base ball for a week or so, but not finding any holes. last night, he found holes. i think he's about to go a gigantic run. like a... beltran, 2004 playoffs kind of run.

Pages: [1]