PDA

View Full Version : Erstad signs with Astros


Sockinchisox
12-27-2007, 06:12 PM
http://www.kxmb.com/Sports/192767.asp

salty99
12-27-2007, 06:18 PM
Wow..now the Astros are going to be very grindy!

chisox77
12-27-2007, 06:18 PM
Proof that Houston is going for it all.

(Seriously, not a bad idea to pick him up - I don't think Cecil Cooper will be tempted to play him as much as Ozzie did)

thomas35forever
12-27-2007, 07:17 PM
A veteran presence remains on the Astros' roster. We'll have to see if he can stay healthy.

RKMeibalane
12-27-2007, 07:20 PM
He'll trip over the giant hill in CF and miss most of the season.

CLR01
12-27-2007, 08:03 PM
Nebraska should just close up shop on the football program now.

getonbckthr
12-27-2007, 08:03 PM
He'll trip over his shoe lace and miss most of the season.
Fixed it for ya.

DumpJerry
12-27-2007, 08:28 PM
Nebraska should just close up shop on the football program now.
So can the Cubs and their so-called baseball program.

soxwon
12-27-2007, 08:53 PM
damn the stros are loadin up, the cubs better watch it.

Brian26
12-27-2007, 09:01 PM
damn the stros are loadin up, the cubs better watch it.

I don't think an Erstad acquisition is a sign that a team is "loading up", unless your definition of that term drastically differs from the common definition.

jabrch
12-27-2007, 09:08 PM
Good luck to Erstad and to the Stros...

soxwon
12-27-2007, 09:10 PM
I don't think an Erstad acquisition is a sign that a team is "loading up", unless your definition of that term drastically differs from the common definition.JUst one among many transactions for Houston.

Brian26
12-27-2007, 09:22 PM
JUst one among many transactions for Houston.

I understand that the Astros have made other moves. I'm saying those moves can be judged independent of the Erstad signing, as I don't think Erstad contributes to the Astros "loading up".

viagracat
12-27-2007, 09:25 PM
I liked Erstad. Hope he does well with the 'stros.

AZChiSoxFan
12-27-2007, 10:05 PM
http://www.kxmb.com/Sports/192767.asp

I didn't take the time to read the article. What exactly did he sign with the Astros to do? Is he going to be the guy who carries the baseballs out to the ump between innings.

Sockinchisox
12-27-2007, 10:19 PM
1 yr, 1 mil.

gogosox16
12-27-2007, 10:21 PM
1 yr, 1 mil.
How much did the Sox pay him last year? Thats not bad for a player to be utility. If he can stay healthy, he can become vital to their bench...What ever happened of him going to college football to coach or whatever?

soxinem1
12-28-2007, 10:53 AM
Note how HOU says he will be a 'back up guy'.

Maybe they will learn from our mistake.

thedudeabides
12-28-2007, 11:17 AM
Good luck to him. I'm surprised this thread has actually stayed civil.

Foulke You
12-28-2007, 02:15 PM
As long as the Stros plan on using him as a bench player, I think it is a pretty good move for them. Erstad can only be valuable as a bench player at this stage in his career. Playing in a limited role could keep him healthy for the season. Erstad can also provide plus defense at any outfield position as well as 1B. I always liked Erstad as a player. We just tried using him as a starter when his starting days were well in the past. Sadly, my lasting memory of Erstad in a Sox uniform will be that freaky injury in Toronto when he swung and fell in a heap in the batters box.:(:

balke
12-28-2007, 02:59 PM
The very mention of Erstad is now forever going to haunt me as a Sox fan. It's tough to even judge what kind of move that is for the Astros.

I mean let's be honest, few people wanted him on the team. He had to play because Kenny always wanted him. Everyone said he'd get injured... he got injured several times. He ended with a horrible stat line, and it all makes you wonder how it happened. It seemed like a fulfilled prophecy for the most part.

Good luck to him, but it takes some sick drive to even want to play again after last season. I mean, he was injuring himself swinging at curveballs.

oeo
12-28-2007, 03:27 PM
How much did the Sox pay him last year? Thats not bad for a player to be utility. If he can stay healthy, he can become vital to their bench...What ever happened of him going to college football to coach or whatever?

-The Sox payed him $750,000.
-His major problem is the inability to stay healthy.
-He said he would retire and go coach at Nebraska if he couldn't find a job.

russ99
12-28-2007, 07:00 PM
I like this move for the Astros, especially if Darin can start out healthy and play the way he did for the Sox last April.

This signing is basically to add a lefty pinch-hitting vet to the Astros outfield reserve mix, which previous to the signing consisted of Jose Cruz Jr, Yorvany Ramirez and Reggie Abercrombie.

Erstad, if healthy, is a huge upgrade over those players, and decent insurance in case new CF Michael Bourn falters or gets injured. He can also spell Berkman at 1B for a few games, but Loretta is a better choice for that.

The Astros do look much improved with their flurry of activity this offseason.

However, in order to consider them contenders with the Brewers and (likely to be weaker) Cubs, they need to add a starting pitcher or two as of now the rotation is Oswalt, Wandy Rodriguez, Brandon Backe, Woody Williams and a rookie, either Sampson or Paulino.

russ99
12-28-2007, 07:09 PM
Erstad's quote after signing:

ďIíve come to accept the fact that my body might not be able to play every day again. I could be a utility guy, the fourth guy in the outfield, the guy who comes off the bench with a double-switch. Itíll be different, not being an every-day guy, but I think the way they play in the National League gives me the maximum opportunities to be on the field.Ē

ďItís tough, but I havenít been healthy. How could a team rely on me for an every-day role? I canít stay healthy,Ē Erstad said. ďItís not something that is easy, but itís really the natural progression of anybodyís career. Youíre not as valuable as you used to be. Iím a realist. I accept that.Ē.

WhiteSoxJunkie
12-28-2007, 07:40 PM
Erstad's quote after signing:

ďIíve come to accept the fact that my body might not be able to play every day again. I could be a utility guy, the fourth guy in the outfield, the guy who comes off the bench with a double-switch. Itíll be different, not being an every-day guy, but I think the way they play in the National League gives me the maximum opportunities to be on the field.Ē

ďItís tough, but I havenít been healthy. How could a team rely on me for an every-day role? I canít stay healthy,Ē Erstad said. ďItís not something that is easy, but itís really the natural progression of anybodyís career. Youíre not as valuable as you used to be. Iím a realist. I accept that.Ē.

Damn do I have respect for this guy. How many professional athletes today are willing to admit this?

Tragg
12-28-2007, 11:38 PM
Erstad's quote after signing:

ďIíve come to accept the fact that my body might not be able to play every day again. I could be a utility guy, the fourth guy in the outfield, the guy who comes off the bench with a double-switch. Itíll be different, not being an every-day guy, but I think the way they play in the National League gives me the maximum opportunities to be on the field.Ē

ďItís tough, but I havenít been healthy. How could a team rely on me for an every-day role? I canít stay healthy,Ē Erstad said. ďItís not something that is easy, but itís really the natural progression of anybodyís career. Youíre not as valuable as you used to be. Iím a realist. I accept that.Ē.
Had he been used like that last year, as he should have been, there wouldn't be this angst about him. But the Sox had to use him as a starter, and even when the season was long gone, they played him way too often and inexplicably continued to shift the batting order around him to ensure he batted 1,2 or 5. it was ridiculous.
And he's right - the NL might offer a bench player more chances. He might get a lot of late inning work after one of those "crafty" double switches those NL managers do.

tick53
12-30-2007, 08:58 AM
I wish him the best but the guy's never heathy.

Grzegorz
12-30-2007, 09:46 AM
He's a class guy and I hope that he's blessed with health. He's a great hedge against injuries in the outfield and first base.

Frater Perdurabo
12-31-2007, 10:37 AM
The Astros got a bargain. $1 million for a .400 hitter!

:)

PaleHoseGeorge
12-31-2007, 11:16 AM
Just further evidence that the Houston Astros are one of the most dysfunctional baseball franchises in MLB.

How did they ever make it to the World Series? Oh that's right, they play in the N.L. Comedy Central. Never mind...

WhiteSoxJunkie
12-31-2007, 07:20 PM
Just further evidence that the Houston Astros are one of the most dysfunctional baseball franchises in MLB.

How did they ever make it to the World Series? Oh that's right, they play in the N.L. Comedy Central. Never mind...

Yeah but they were the wild card. They didn't win the division. They made the playoffs by having a better record than the 2nd place NL East and 2nd place NL West team. Being in a crappy division didn't help them.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-31-2007, 08:01 PM
Yeah but they were the wild card. They didn't win the division. They made the playoffs by having a better record than the 2nd place NL East and 2nd place NL West team. Being in a crappy division didn't help them.

Unlike the 2nd place teams in the East and West, the Astros fattened up with 19 games each against the rest of the NL Central division pigs.

You know what is even a bigger joke than the NL Comedy Central? The moron who invented MLB's wild-card format.

Daver
12-31-2007, 08:07 PM
Unlike the 2nd place teams in the East and West, the Astros fattened up with 19 games each against the rest of the NL Central division pigs.

You know what is even a bigger joke than the NL Comedy Central? The moron who invented MLB's wild-card format.

The biggest joke of all is the pinhead who decided baseball needed a wildcard.

TommyJohn
12-31-2007, 09:48 PM
Unlike the 2nd place teams in the East and West, the Astros fattened up with 19 games each against the rest of the NL Central division pigs.

You know what is even a bigger joke than the NL Comedy Central? The moron who invented MLB's wild-card format.


But where would we as a society be without all those epic Red Sox-Yankees
matchups?

The biggest joke the wildcard ever foisted on baseball was the 2006
Detroit Tigers. Those choking pigs (to use your word) didn't deserve
to sniff the playoffs, let alone play in the World Series.

Nellie_Fox
12-31-2007, 11:42 PM
I've always hated the (baseball) wild card, I'll always hate the wild card.

FedEx227
01-01-2008, 12:19 PM
I've always hated the (baseball) wild card, I'll always hate the wild card.

I've enjoyed it. Anything that keeps more teams interested late in the season is fine by me, I'm a baseball fan and I enjoy seeing the game do well.

Likewise, it's been great to see some of these Wild Card teams even make the World Series.

But as a poster said above, you do have instances where the 2006 Tigers choke and make the Wild Card as opposed to go on a huge run for the wild-card.

But you can't honestly say you didn't enjoy the run of the 2003 Florida Marlins or last year's Colorado Rockies.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-01-2008, 01:19 PM
I've enjoyed it [the wild-card]. Anything that keeps more teams interested late in the season is fine by me....
But you can't honestly say you didn't enjoy the run of the 2003 Florida Marlins or last year's Colorado Rockies.

Actually, I can say without any reservation that I have HATED the Marlins and Rockies making the playoffs -- and worse, making a mockery of the 6 months worth of nearly daily baseball games that preceded the playoffs.

If you don't like the effects of a 162-game baseball schedule, at least have the guts to admit it. Speaking for myself I won't have my intelligence insulted that a team which qualifies for the playoffs by virtue of playing an unbalanced schedule of 162 games -- entirely different than their competitors' -- should be entitled to play post-season games. It's stupid on its face.

If MLB played a lousy 16-game schedule, I could see the "interest" of staging a ridiculous crap shoot for the final playoff spot. But this isn't the NFL. MLB's regular season is 10-times longer and making it count for **** doesn't cut it for this baseball fan. How sad...
:(:

Daver
01-01-2008, 04:51 PM
Actually, I can say without any reservation that I have HATED the Marlins and Rockies making the playoffs -- and worse, making a mockery of the 6 months worth of nearly daily baseball games that preceded the playoffs.

If you don't like the effects of a 162-game baseball schedule, at least have the guts to admit it. Speaking for myself I won't have my intelligence insulted that a team which qualifies for the playoffs by virtue of playing an unbalanced schedule of 162 games -- entirely different than their competitors' -- should be entitled to play post-season games. It's stupid on its face.

If MLB played a lousy 16-game schedule, I could see the "interest" of staging a ridiculous crap shoot for the final playoff spot. But this isn't the NFL. MLB's regular season is 10-times longer and making it count for **** doesn't cut it for this baseball fan. How sad...
:(:

Rewarding teams for being an also ran makes no sense to me.

Brian26
01-01-2008, 06:16 PM
Rewarding teams for being an also ran makes no sense to me.

I understand what you're saying, but I use this argument as the basis to why I actually like the wild card.

Why should teams be rewarded for winning divisions that are determined not by distribution of talent or previous success, but simply the arbitrary idea of geographic location?

With the playoff system setup as it is right now, the wild card offers some protection from having possibly the 2nd best team in the league sit out of the playoffs while the first, third and fourth best teams play for the pennant. Necessary evils of this system are having an 83-win St. Louis Cardinals team win the Series or the Florida Marlins take two wild-card berths to Series titles.

Daver
01-01-2008, 06:21 PM
I understand what you're saying, but I use this argument as the basis to why I actually like the wild card.

Why should teams be rewarded for winning divisions that are determined not by distribution of talent or previous success, but simply the arbitrary idea of geographic location?

With the playoff system setup as it is right now, the wild card offers some protection from having possibly the 2nd best team in the league sit out of the playoffs while the first, third and fourth best teams play for the pennant. Necessary evils of this system are having an 83-win St. Louis Cardinals team win the Series or the Florida Marlins take two wild-card berths to Series titles.

My solution is simple.

Take the best team from the NL, and have them play the best team from the AL, winner take all.

Brian26
01-01-2008, 06:26 PM
My solution is simple.

Take the best team from the NL, and have them play the best team from the AL, winner take all.

I don't disagree with that concept, but that's leaving a LOT of money on the table.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-01-2008, 06:32 PM
I don't disagree with that concept, but that's leaving a LOT of money on the table.

Create a punch-out tournament. That puts every penny right back on the table -- plus a whole lot more, too.

Solved.

:wink:

pierzynski07
01-01-2008, 06:44 PM
Unlike the 2nd place teams in the East and West, the Astros fattened up with 19 games each against the rest of the NL Central division pigs.

You know what is even a bigger joke than the NL Comedy Central? The moron who invented MLB's wild-card format.

:rolleyes:

I like how the NLC in 2005 is also being called the NL Comedy Central when:

The NLCS was represented by St. Louis and Houston, for the second straight year no less.
The Central featured a 100-game winner, the Cardinals.
The West's division winner was the Padres, and their amazing 82 wins.Now, on the same token, how fair is it for a certain playoff team in 2005 to make the playoffs (and the world series no less) while playing in a division with both a 56 and 71 loss team?

Daver
01-01-2008, 06:48 PM
I don't disagree with that concept, but that's leaving a LOT of money on the table.

I really don't give a rat's ass about profit margins, the system they have now cheapens the integrity of the sport.

TommyJohn
01-01-2008, 07:02 PM
:rolleyes:

I like how the NLC in 2005 is also being called the NL Comedy Central when:

The NLCS was represented by St. Louis and Houston, for the second straight year no less.
The Central featured a 100-game winner, the Cardinals.
The West's division winner was the Padres, and their amazing 82 wins.Now, on the same token, how fair is it for a certain playoff team in 2005 to make the playoffs (and the world series no less) while playing in a division with both a 56 and 71 loss team?

56 and 71 loss team? May I ask what the hell you are talking about?

PaleHoseGeorge
01-01-2008, 07:31 PM
Now, on the same token, how fair is it for a certain playoff team in 2005 to make the playoffs (and the world series no less) while playing in a division with both a 56 and 71 loss team?

Umm... because the White Sox played an IDENTICAL SCHEDULE to these bozos and piled up 43 and 29 more victories than either of them. They also piled up 16 more wins than the Twins and 6 more than the Indians, the division's next-best team. You know of a better way to pick a champion?

If you're trying to convince me the National League is **** and the NL Central only the absolute biggest joke of a very comically bad set of teams, you'll get no argument here.
:cool:

spiffie
01-01-2008, 07:45 PM
My solution is simple.

Take the best team from the NL, and have them play the best team from the AL, winner take all.
Why have leagues? You truly want to find out who the best team is get rid of leagues altogether, contract by 2 teams, have each team play every other team 6 times, and at the end of the 162 games take the 2 best teams and put them in a best-of-7 series. No unbalanced schedule, no divisional crap, and no league garbage. Just a 162 game marathon to decide who the 2 best teams are and thus deserving of a chance to play for the title.

Brian26
01-01-2008, 07:55 PM
:rolleyes:
Now, on the same token, how fair is it for a certain playoff team in 2005 to make the playoffs (and the world series no less) while playing in a division with both a 56 and 71 loss team?

56 and 71 loss team? May I ask what the hell you are talking about?

I'm guessing he's referring to the White Sox in '05, but he should have said 56 and 71-win teams (I'm guessing he's implying KC and Detroit, with 56 and 71 wins respectively).

The bottom line is that anyone who tries to take anything away from the '05 Sox is way off base. That team dominated like no other team we've ever seen. The reason the AL Central collectively looked weak is because the Sox put a collective season series 52-22 ass kicking on them.

Brian26
01-01-2008, 08:16 PM
I really don't give a rat's ass about profit margins, the system they have now cheapens the integrity of the sport.

The intregrity of the sport has been in question since the 1950's when the Yankees used the Kansas City A's and St. Louis Browns as farm teams. :redneck

I don't mind seeing four teams from each league in the playoffs. It generates interest for the fans, and ultimately that keeps the sport healthy for future generations.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-01-2008, 08:26 PM
The intregrity of the sport has been in question since the 1950's when the Yankees used the Kansas City A's and St. Louis Browns as farm teams.

A very succinct argument for why MLB ought to relegate the weakest teams to a lower division. There is NO integrity to the sport when the weakest teams pay no consequences for less than a full effort.

Promote teams that are serious about winning and demote the ones who aren't. Then you don't need "wild cards" or any other sort of gimmick to decide champions as the smaller number of teams in the top division will be manageable again.
:cool:

TommyJohn
01-01-2008, 08:55 PM
I'm guessing he's referring to the White Sox in '05, but he should have said 56 and 71-win teams (I'm guessing he's implying KC and Detroit, with 56 and 71 wins respectively).

The bottom line is that anyone who tries to take anything away from the '05 Sox is way off base. That team dominated like no other team we've ever seen. The reason the AL Central collectively looked weak is because the Sox put a collective season series 52-22 ass kicking on them.

Now it makes sense.

Tragg
01-01-2008, 10:39 PM
I understand what you're saying, but I use this argument as the basis to why I actually like the wild card.

Why should teams be rewarded for winning divisions that are determined not by distribution of talent or previous success, but simply the arbitrary idea of geographic location?

With the playoff system setup as it is right now, the wild card offers some protection from having possibly the 2nd best team in the league sit out of the playoffs while the first, third and fourth best teams play for the pennant. Necessary evils of this system are having an 83-win St. Louis Cardinals team win the Series or the Florida Marlins take two wild-card berths to Series titles.
The divisions are contrivances so the wild card would even out the disparity of getting lucky with a division. The problem is the unbalanced schedule: playing more teams in your division plus a wildcard (where the schedule can give a huge assist) makes it even more ridiculous.
The wildcard would make more sense if they played a balanced schedule.

Frater Perdurabo
01-02-2008, 06:42 AM
The divisions are contrivances so the wild card would even out the disparity of getting lucky with a division. The problem is the unbalanced schedule: playing more teams in your division plus a wildcard (where the schedule can give a huge assist) makes it even more ridiculous.
The wildcard would make more sense if they played a balanced schedule.

That's why MLB should go to a completely balanced schedule, contract two teams, and have every team play every other team 6 times for 162 games.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-03-2008, 07:28 PM
That's why MLB should go to a completely balanced schedule, contract two teams, and have every team play every other team 6 times for 162 games.

How can I be accused of being impractical when proposals like this are seriously discussed?

You would have MLB try to market three teams finishing 26th, 27th and 28th for a six-month season of 162 games.. and have the Sox playing only 6 games against the Indians but 6 games against the San Diego Padres, too?