The Astros' Owner and G.M. Have Long-Term Plans

[Can_of_corn]

I understand that, but they have lost 7 consecutive games, and they are coming off 6 consecutive losing seasons. The season is not even half over yet, so their excellent start to the season is still far from confirmation that they are necessarily back with the contender status that they had a decade to a decade and-a-half ago, when they made it to they had 6 consecutive winning seasons and made it to the first World Series in franchise history.

There is a big difference between a perennial contender losing 7 straight games after a fast start to the season, and a team that is desperately fighting to get back to respectability losing 7 straight games after a fast start to the season.

The '89 Orioles had the longest losing streak ever by a first place team to not relinquish first place. They didn't crumble and fall apart. (even if they did eventually finish second)

[OFFNY]

The '89 Orioles had the longest losing streak ever by a first place team to not relinquish first place. They didn't crumble and fall apart. (even if they did eventually finish second.)

Aside from the fact that the 1990 and 1991 Orioles DID fall apart immediately following that 1989 season, the 2005 Orioles were in first place until early June, and they fell apart.

So what? Where did I say that the Astros were necessarily going to fall apart?

In fact, since I started this thread, my overall sentiment has been that Crane and Luhnow WERE onto something, and that the Astros' probably did have a bright future in spite of them being in the process of (what was then) completing their 3rd consecutive 100-loss season. In fact, I even stated that if the Astros did do a tailspin this season and finish with a losing record that they were NOT NECESSARILY doomed to failure in 2016 and beyond, but rather that they will be hearing a lot of flack from the press, their fans, etc. about them being the "same old Astros."

If they CANNOT at least accomplish the latter, they (Crane and Luhnow) may still be correct about the Astros' future (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, etc.) ...... but they will be likely get a LOT of grief in relation to the Astros being the same old Astros, their fast start to the 2015 season was a fluke and a mirage, etc.

What is exactly is your point, and what exactly is questionable about my overall assertion that perennial losers need to show more/prove themselves more that they are in fact bonafide contenders than do perennial winning teams?

Edited June 11, 2015 by OFFNY

[Can_of_corn]

What relevance is the six losing seasons? Is there a single player from the 2009 Astros still on the roster? (no there isn't)

These kids are not hanging their heads about what happened to the 2010 team.

[OFFNY]

Can_of_corn said:

 

What relevance is the six losing seasons? Is there a single player from the 2009 Astros still on the roster? (no there isn't)

These kids are not hanging their heads about what happened to the 2010 team.

 

o

 

You know Corn, instead of reiterating my point (which I have already done twice), you appear determined to have the last word here, no matter how unreasonable your argument is. You know damned well that the '89 Orioles were a bad example to use in this discussion because of the fact that this thread (and my continual assertion) is about the Astros' overall future being bright for numerous years, and not one season, as the success of that 1989 Orioles team was.

I never said anything about this Astros team hanging their heads, simply that they have indeed been punched in the mouth with a 7-game losing streak after a very fast start to the season, and their resilience is being tested.

So since you are obviously being incorrigible just for the sake of being incorrigible, I will leave it at that.

 

o

[Can_of_corn]

You know Corn, instead of reiterating my point (which I have already done twice), you appear determined to have the last word here, no matter how unreasonable your argument is. You know damned well that the '89 Orioles were a bad example to use in this discussion because of the fact that this thread (and my continual assertion) is about the Astros' overall future being bright for numerous years, and not one season, as the success of that 1989 Orioles team was.

So, since you are obviously being incorrigible just for the sake of being incorrigible, I will leave it at that.

The '89 Orioles were the perfect example to use since, as I stated, they set the record for the longest losing streak by a team in first place that retained control of first place.

What happens in the next two seasons isn't relevant since the O's had no where near the farm system of the current Astro team.

But...if you want an example of a young team with a history of losing starting off strong, fading, and coming back in later seasons to become a contender....I give you the current Pittsburgh Pirates.

[OFFNY]

Can_of_corn said:

 

The '89 Orioles were the perfect example to use since, as I stated, they set the record for the longest losing streak by a team in first place that retained control of first place.

What happens in the next two seasons isn't relevant since the O's had no where near the farm system of the current Astro team.

But...if you want an example of a young team with a history of losing starting off strong, fading, and coming back in later seasons to become a contender....I give you the current Pittsburgh Pirates.

 

o

 

Or, the current Baltimore Orioles, who have had 3 consecutive winning seasons after having suffered 14 losing seasons in a row.

HOW EXACTLY does that disprove what I have been saying? For the 3rd time, where did I say that the Astros were not for real, either this season, or in the ensuing seasons of 2016, 2017, and 2018?

In hindsight, the 2012 Orioles were for real, as opposed to the the 1989 Orioles and the 2004 Orioles who were not, in terms of them being a team that was set up for long-term success. But those 2012 Orioles were not fully proven to be bonafide contenders until that season was almost 3/4 completed. After a very hot start to that season, the 2012 O's were 46-44 after 90 games, having lost 17 out of their previous 24. At that point, there were very few people who were convinced that the Orioles were necessarily contenders, and no longer the losers for 1998-2011. They may not have written the Orioles off, but they certainly were not accepting that the Orioles were necessarily over the hump ...... until the Orioles actually did put themselves over the hump later that season.

The same is the case for this Astros team. Their resilience will now be tested after a blistering hot start to the season. I believe (as I have been saying all along) that they will pass the test, if not this season, then definitely in 2016 and beyond.

 

o

[Can_of_corn]

Or, the current Baltimore Orioles, who have had 3 consecutive winning seasons after having suffered 14 losing seasons in a row.

HOW EXACTLY does that disprove what I have been saying? For the 3rd time, where did I say that the Astros were not for real, either this season, or in the ensuing seasons of 2016, 2017, and 2018?

In hindsight, the 2012 Orioles were for real, as opposed to the the 1989 Orioles and the 2004 Orioles who were not, in terms of them being a team that is set up for long-term success. But those 2012 Orioles were not fully proven to be bonafide contenders until that season was almost 3/4 completed. After a very hot start to that season, the 2012 O's were 46-44 after 90 games, having lost 17 out of their previous 24. At that point, there were very few people who were convinced that the Orioles were necessarily contenders, and no longer the losers for 1998-2011. They may not have written the Orioles off, but they certainly were not accepting that the Orioles were necessarily over the hump ...... until the Orioles actually did put themselves over the hump later that season.

The same is the case for this Astros team. Their resilience will now be tested after a blistering hot start. I think that they will pass the test, if not this season, then definitely in 2016 and beyond.

I never said you did.

Initially all I said was that they were still in first place.

Then I used the example of the '89 club to show that a first place club coming off poor seasons could weather a sustained losing streak and not collapse.

[OFFNY]

o

Corn, I apologize for calling you incorrigible. You're a good, knowledgeable poster who just happened to disagree with me, and you are far cry from those who are indeed inflammatory just for the sake of being inflammatory.

Sometimes I assume that just because someone does not see things my way that they are being obtuse, and that is obviously not necessarily true.

[Can_of_corn]

o

Corn, I apologize for calling you incorrigible. You're a good, knowledgeable poster who just happened to disagree with me, and you are far cry from those who are indeed inflammatory just for the sake of being inflammatory.

Sometimes I assume that just because someone does not see things my way that they are being obtuse, and that is obviously not necessarily true.

NP. I have to admit you had me confused for a bit there. It is probably why you thought I was ducking your question.

We were just not having the same conversation.

[weams]

o

Corn, I apologize for calling you incorrigible. You're a good, knowledgeable poster who just happened to disagree with me, and you are far cry from those who are indeed inflammatory just for the sake of being inflammatory.

Sometimes I assume that just because someone does not see things my way that they are being obtuse, and that is obviously not necessarily true.

NP. I have to admit you had me confused for a bit there. It is probably why you thought I was ducking your question.

We were just not having the same conversation.

Happens to me often.

[25 Nuggets]

Here's a question: will the Astros be buyers at the deadline or will they stick to their youthful guns?

[Can_of_corn]

Here's a question: will the Astros be buyers at the deadline or will they stick to their youthful guns?

They should be buyers. They have plenty of prospects and payroll room.

[25 Nuggets]

Taking a look at their roster, I'm surprised they have no youth to speak of in the bullpen. They're all over 30 except Josh Fields (29).

[Can_of_corn]

Taking a look at their roster, I'm surprised they have no youth to speak of in the bullpen. They're all over 30 except Josh Fields (29).

My take: They were under pressure from the union to raise payroll and the easiest way to bump short term payroll is veteran relief pitching.

[weams]

They should be buyers. They have plenty of prospects and payroll room.

They will lose three in Rule five again if they don't.