all trades are made with a risk assessment on players. A probability on their future success. This means that, no matter what, some players that leave are going to do well. As we know, prospects pan out or fail all the time...they get injured all the time. Luhnow isn't making these trades saying "100% chance this guy sucks in the future, so let me deal him". So judging trades on the result of prospects really shouldn't happen. It's about the process they use to evaluate the trade and whether the risks of the prospects developing make sense at the time of the deal. tl;dr--I think it's completely unfair to use hindsight on prospects to change your opinion on deals.
My problem with the Giles trade is that i believed VV could do a great job in the 8th or 9th inning for us last year and obviously this year. I said we needed to use him as Toronto did with Osuna. Osuna probably is going to start in the future for the Blue Jays but right now helps the team more as a reliever.
There is nothing wrong with saying a trade worked out or not. One trade should not be used to judge the process. In aggregate, the results of trades can be used to judge the process.
Let's not forget, a HUGE reason for the complaints (if that label even applies) is the fact, the "established" players we received have been G A R B A G E.
The Astros were always gonna give up some stars. When you build a great system, and use that system to make trades, you are gonna give away some guys that come back to bite you, it is unavoidable. Complaining about what we gave up is never something I would do. The problem is that Gomez and Giles have struggled. I'm not flipping out about them yet, because there's still plenty of time for them to help us. But if they never turn it around they will be bad trades. Complaining about what we got is something you can do.
Even if they have success... people will complain if what they gave up has success as well (or more success).... and that's ok as well. People forget that the Larry Anderson-Bagwell trade was a very good trade for Boston at that time. Anderson had a tremendous stretch run that helped propel them to a division championship and LCS appearance. Yet plenty of Boston fans complain about missing out on the HOF 1B (and rightly so).
Always was, but thanks for caring. Kazmir pitched very well one start, too... against the eventual champions. The jury is still out on Fiers.
Of everyone we have traded for, I'd say Fiers is the least worrisome. Along with being great last year, he did just throw a QS against the reigning champs, with his only blemish coming by a cheap Crawford box homer. Gomez is the guy that is really worrying me. He needs to get his **** together.
I'll agree with that somewhat. But there's so much context to trades...it's supply/demand. For example, if there's 1 stud SP on the market, it might take more to get the guy. Similarly, if you're a contender and the only one with a specific need (like a C, perhaps), someone who has one could wait it out and force you to overpay. Looking back, just looking at how prospects panned out overall vs. how the ML guys performed is a little unfair.
If VV never gets injured throughout his career, it would be using hindsight to criticize the move for that fact (when the deal was made assuming a *likelihood* of injury as one of the many factors). Using 2 weeks of data (and ignoring the past 2 seasons) to evaluate a trade is silly regardless.
Hank Conger has now allowed 44 consecutive stolen bases. His last victim, and only one of 2015, was former Astro JB Shuck.
