Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Astros

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Blue387 View Post
    Do you know what the Astros need?

    Kyle Kendrick.
    And they'd take him if Ed Wade was still there.
    "Chuckie doesn't take on 2-0. Chuckie's hackin'." - Chuck Carr two days prior to being released by the Milwaukee Brewers

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by riverfrontier View Post
      I've never been big on the Astros, but to me it's ridiculous to see a team with 50 years of history in a league be forced to switch to the other. Shoulda coulda been Milwaukee
      Sure, whenever the league wants to realign, Milwaukee can be the club that they push around back and forth between the two leagues.

      Comment


      • #18
        Anyone with me when I say I'd rather see the AL add two new teams (I don't know, say Montreal and Omaha) so that each league has 16 teams and then they scrap interleague play all together?

        I know it will never happen, at least not in the next 10 years, but if I were commish I'd rather do that than send Houston over to the AL and waste valuable potential divisional matchups with interleague play. And I don't think adding two teams would dillute the talent pool all that much, either.

        Comment


        • #19
          I would rather see a team contracted from the NL, but that's just my take on it. It's even more ridiculous with the DH rule to have so many inter-league games, of which there are already far too many. This is not the NFL or the NHL, where all ground rules apply at all times. I have nothing in particular against the Milwaukee Pilots, but if any team from any league belongs in the other league, it should be them. Where they started. The new alignment is the dumbest thing that I've ever seen a commissioner do. Drop or adopt the DH for something like that.

          If MLB expands in the next 10 years, I'll be surprised. I was a big fan of contraction when the notion was passed around, and I'm still leaning that way. I do understand the argument of letting every healthy metropolis who can (barely) support a team have one, which is the capitalist way, but there are LEAGUES (Guilds, if you like) which need to uphold a certain standard.
          smoker

          Comment


          • #20
            The Astros' winning streak ended last night at one game. As one fan said, "It was a wild ride while it lasted"!
            They call me Mr. Baseball. Not because of my love for the game; because of all the stitches in my head.

            Comment


            • #21
              This team has caught my interest recently because of their horrible record. Like a car wreck. I saw the Tigers when Bobby Higginson was the best they had to offer, and it's a bit of nostalgia rising to see a team win THREE (count 'em) games in a month that is not October. If they beat the Pilots tomorrow, they'll have 4.
              smoker

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by riverfrontier View Post
                I saw the Tigers when Bobby Higginson was the best they had to offer
                In these parts, we refer to him as Philadelphia's Own Bobby Higginson
                "Chuckie doesn't take on 2-0. Chuckie's hackin'." - Chuck Carr two days prior to being released by the Milwaukee Brewers

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by riverfrontier View Post
                  I would rather see a team contracted from the NL, but that's just my take on it. It's even more ridiculous with the DH rule to have so many inter-league games, of which there are already far too many. This is not the NFL or the NHL, where all ground rules apply at all times. I have nothing in particular against the Milwaukee Pilots, but if any team from any league belongs in the other league, it should be them. Where they started. The new alignment is the dumbest thing that I've ever seen a commissioner do. Drop or adopt the DH for something like that.

                  If MLB expands in the next 10 years, I'll be surprised. I was a big fan of contraction when the notion was passed around, and I'm still leaning that way. I do understand the argument of letting every healthy metropolis who can (barely) support a team have one, which is the capitalist way, but there are LEAGUES (Guilds, if you like) which need to uphold a certain standard.
                  I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I think the year-round interleague games is clumsy and stupid. I don't like contraction but I'm not in favor of expanding.

                  I just want to briefly touch on the "Milwaukee Pilots" thing. I think Milwaukee is a National League town. We had the Braves back in the day. We also have the Green Bay Packers (well, 100 miles north but you get the idea) and we like old-school blue-collar nose-to-the-ground sports around here and that means NO designated hitter. Milwaukee belongs in the National League, we have new intense rivalries with the Cubs and Cardinals that is way extreme, nothing like what we had with the White Sox or Twins.

                  Seattle wasn't ready for a MLB team in 1969, as proven by the debacle of the Seattle Pilots. Milwaukee had a major league stadium and a history of supporting major league baseball. IMO, Milwaukee should have been given an NL expansion franchise and I would have put Montreal in the American League.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    When you look at the schedule the Tigers have played this year, you'll see they've played the Pirates 6 times and the Blue Jays 4 times. It's already August. Yes, we are in agreement, this inter-league thing has never been a good idea.

                    About Milwaukee, well they only spent a little over a decade in the NL the first time around, and more than twice as many years in the AL. It took me a good 5 or so years to become accustomed to them as an NL team, and with the Astros spending my entire lifetime and more in the National League, it's going to take me twice as long to reprogram myself to view an Astros-Mariners series as a normal occurrence.

                    As for the Brewers having better rivals in the NL than the AL, it could be that the Twins and White Sox were never competetive and were also in the western division when the Cooper/Oglivie/Yount etc. team was powerful. In the NL central, only the Pirates have been non contenders for the past decade or so. The Cubs and Cards are (usually) in the running, so yes, there's probably more excitement when they come to town.

                    Anyway, none of this matters because the Astros are the ones who are leaving. They're going to look like an expansion team not only because of their berth in a new league, but also because of their glorious triple A roster. It'll be interesting to see what they do in the off season. I don't see them attracting many top tier free agents.
                    smoker

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by riverfrontier View Post
                      I would rather see a team contracted from the NL, but that's just my take on it. It's even more ridiculous with the DH rule to have so many inter-league games, of which there are already far too many. This is not the NFL or the NHL, where all ground rules apply at all times. I have nothing in particular against the Milwaukee Pilots, but if any team from any league belongs in the other league, it should be them. Where they started. The new alignment is the dumbest thing that I've ever seen a commissioner do. Drop or adopt the DH for something like that.

                      If MLB expands in the next 10 years, I'll be surprised. I was a big fan of contraction when the notion was passed around, and I'm still leaning that way. I do understand the argument of letting every healthy metropolis who can (barely) support a team have one, which is the capitalist way, but there are LEAGUES (Guilds, if you like) which need to uphold a certain standard.
                      Not me. Contraction is for fledging, financially struggling leagues, not a century-old plus institution like MLB.

                      The "certain standard" is way too fluid a concept to be a hardline rule for contraction. Teams that struggle at the gate 5 or 10 years ago might have a change of fortune and draw fine now. And visa versa. And considering 15,000 may have been considered average attendance several decades ago but now is somehow unacceptable? It just doesn't add up.

                      I'm not necessarily against relocation if the factors call for it, but contraction is a cop-out way beneath MLB. Plus it would never happen anyways, at least not in our lifetime.

                      Comment

                      Ad Widget

                      Collapse
                      Working...
                      X