My guess/belief is that the MRI revealed potential issues IF, at some point, he has to have reconstructive surgery which the Astros (again, my guess) view as "when" not "if." And so they adjusted accordingly. IOW, they still wanted him; they just wanted to mitigate their invesment risk because "when" he has TJ surgery, his chances of fully recovering are lessened by whatever they found on the MRI (guessing - again - it's the shorter UCI, which makes it harder to reconnect the new ligament). I don't know the details - they initially agreed to $6.5MM; the Astros formally offered $3MM to secure compensation... after that, my guess is that the Astros set a drop-dead amount and began to try and engage with new offers. I don't think they "caved." My guess is $5MM was their new ceiling. But it makes no sense to offer that right out of the gate.
Again, they didn't get NOBODY. They got the #2 pick in next years draft. They don't need to root for him to get injured, all they need is him to not become a star or have the player they take #2 next year end up as good of better than Aiken.
That isn't anybody yet... the 2014 draft went from projecting Rodon to being that for-sure #1 prospect that they were salivating over, to selecting a HS player because he seemed to be the most polished HS pitcher they've ever seen (only to have more of an injury risk than over-worked college pitcher Rodon). Its a total unknown what the 2015 draft will (or will not) bring. I'm also not buying into the "we can just select a college player next year who will be better, and get to MLB faster than Aiken" rhetoric... if they truly believed that, they would/should have selected a college player this year. I'd still prefer they take the best player available, whom they feel will have the best MLB career. And, yes they do need to "root" for an injury. If Aiken stays healthy, and sucks, its a reflection that he wasn't the "right" pick. If he stays healthy and dominates, its a reflection that they made the wrong "risk assessment" move. If he stays healthy and dominates, and the #2 pick next year is "better", then the Astros could have had BOTH! (presuming they're on track for the top pick next year). If he gets hurt, and has successful UCL reconstruction and then dominates, we are right back to square one. I also don't think its likely that both the 1.1 and 1.2 picks (if they have them both) turn into bonafied/perennial all-stars. It would be a big boost for the future of this organization if it happens... its just that the odds are against it. At this point, I'm no longer really rooting/relying on the draft... I don't think this regime can withstand another 5+ years of doing what they're currently doing (which involves losing at the MLB level). Chances are, they're going to need to start packaging some of these prospects for established MLB players, along with signing some free agents to supplement the big league roster (something Luhnow really has yet to develop a track record for as an MLB GM... we all knew he could build/maintain a minor league system already)
But now they have a "house money" pick that they can utilize to make up for the Aiken pick (if they so choose), be it the compensatory pick or their own (likely) top five pick.
They need to pick the best player available... and I do feel this team needs to be showing even more progress than they have thus far by the time they're making that pick next year. If not, or if there's regression and continued losing, I do believe you'll start to hear whispers about the front office "competence". As it is, there's 5 negative stories for every 1 positive one.
Rodon's struggles really have nothing to do with it. It is always a crap shoot at the top of the MLB draft. No one had Aiken as the potential #1 pick a year ago, many things change. I hope that they do not take a college player just because they feel they have to. The idea that they should have taken a college player this year is weak to me, you take the best long term player period. No, they don't need to root for an injury. If he does not become an all star caliber player, no one is going to really care about why the Astros did or did not sign him. It is just the reality of the situation. It is unlikely that the #1 and #2 picks from next years draft both become stars. Then again half or more of #1 picks don't become stars anyway. It doesn't really differentiate. I never did rely on high draft picks. There are just so many different factors that figure into a big league team being a success. We are talking about a sport that takes sometimes 5-6 years or long to evaluate a draft, where injuries and "fit" play a huge part in the evaluation process. A sport where depth and salaries play a huge part. I don't think they plan on being terrible for the next 5 years. I expect that they will start having mild improvement (I think they are already better than last year) and will continue to improve the next 3-4 years. At what point do they become "good"? That is hard to say, you know that. I also agree with you that at some point in the next year or so, they will package some of their prospects for players that win at the big league level.
I agree with you, they need to be showing a real push for close to .500% at this time next year. They don't need to be .500% next year, but they need to show clear progress and a long span of improvement. I don't care about the negative stories. Atlanta was ripped in the late 80's after they cleaned house and rebuilt through the system... same thing with the Yankees in the early 90's and any number of teams. Ultimately the Astros will be judged on whether or not they win. If they win, the stories stop, if they lose long term, then the stories are proved accurate.
Yes, winning cures everything. But at this point, this team HAS to win (and win for several years, not just one) to get over the established negative perception. With each negative occurrence that happens, there's just a little bit less margin for continued error to work with to establish full "good graces". I feel they've dug a proverbial "hole" that simply being "not terrible anymore" (like the Pirates and Royals are now) may not be good enough.
They were just featured on the cover of SI so I'm not buying that the team is drowning in overflowing negativity. It's hot around them right now because of the Aiken fiasco and, you know - the losing. But I would encourage you to consider the sources on a lot of the larger hit pieces. Old school baseball media types HATE anything even remotely progressive. They still rail on Billy Beane; it's often comical how out of step they are. You can hear it in the "smartest guys in the room" talk; they loathe that baseball is being taken over by guys who used to live in their mom's basement.
I think being around .500% next season will be fine, people will see tangible improvement. Now, having said that, 2-3 seasons of .500%? Absolutely not, they will have to show continued improvement. Having said that, having a low payroll (with flexibility) and having a deep system should make that more obtainable. I also agree with you, a single winning season isn't going to cut it... and I think they know that. If you think there is pressure in Houston, you ought to be in Chicago right now......
That SI article was one of the only "positive" articles ever written about this front office... and it had the feeling of some major PR to the point that I think they have a friend at the magazine that threw them a bone (same goes for the recent article they just wrote on the Aiken piece). I understand why there is negativity, or people who don't think their approach is great for the integrity of the game. Unfortunately, perception is largely driven by the media... and there's still more negative press about the Astros (even before the Aiken situatioN) than there is optimism. Also, not sure why they continue to rail on Billy Beane... he was an actual big league baseball player (albeit not a good one), unlike virtually all the GM's (including the mom's basement ones) out there.
At least if their rebuild falls flat, they do have the financial resources to be a short-term success. However, they are stock-piling not only talent but what seems to be high-end/all-star talent (something the Astros don't have a lot of right now). Combine that with their superior financial picture, and they should be fine. I don't think anybody would take Houston's rebuild/future over the Cubs right now.
If there wasn't a thousand pounds of other problems dice Crane bought the team this would not have been quite as bad from a PR standpoint But it's one thing after another so the stros aren't gonna get much benefit of doubt on these things
The Cubs minor league system has their own issues, primarily a lack of pitching prospects and depth. As far as spending goes, there are actual legitimate concerns that the Rickets are so leveraged that they don't have a whole lot of money to spend. Theo Epstein refuses to comment on it. I don't think the Cubs future forecast in necessarily better than the Astros. Indeed, the Cubs have had financial strength for decades and have little to show for it.
Honestly, being the Cubs is the only negative I see for their future. Something will go tragically wrong for them.
Yep People are on them so much about this one situation with Aiken...in some ways that is good for Crane/Luhnow, less attention to CSN Houston "Send me 10 Million" Leaked Trade talk Piggyback I could keep going on but won't
Why do you say that? Teams have good minor league systems all the time and injuries or bad luck sink them. Hell, they developed: Wood, Prior, Zambrano, Willis and Clement in a short period of time and had little to show for it. The Astros drafted or developed: Oswalt, Miller, Hernandez, Redding, Santana and Lidge and had little to show for it. The list goes on and on... Baseball is very hard game to anticipate unless you have long term, consistent minor league production like Atlanta or St Louis.
