How much were the 2010-2011 draft picks worth for 2010-2019? Prorating Luhnow's 2012-2019 to 10 years would likely put him easily in the Top 10 despite getting heavily penalized as the recent years are more heavily for Luhnow than the other 29 teams. This is still not meh or questionable. Instead, if one removed the 2010-2011 Astros picks and added in prorated 2020-2021 seasons from Luhnows picks, this would likely be a more apples to apples comparison (10 years and 162 game seasons). This would be close to a wash as Tucker, Correa, Bregman, and LMJ would have a high prorated WAR amount without even looking at guys that aren't Astros. Maybe Astros drop 1-4 spots. Let's say Luhnow loses 5 WAR on this comparison. On the tanking, the Astros were bad regardless. We are talking about a 5-6 WAR boost (probably less) over the tenth pick a year for 3 years of tanking. While I consider this value from drafting, even if removed, this is still probably less than 18 WAR combined. So all together, we are talking about 23 WAR worst case to take away from that calculated in https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/ranking-every-mlb-teams-draft-performance-in-the-2010s/. That would put Luhnow in the Top 10. Though the other teams in the Top 10 didn't have their top 3 picks negated, and got to keep the 2010 and 2011 drafts that were loaded with talent. Regarding the losing, winning is better than losing. Astros 2017 World Champs.
Drafting Correa was no doubt a stroke of genius for Luhnow. Parlaying that pick into also being able to get McCullers, Ruiz, and Phillips was also genius. Luhnow’s 2012 draft overall was spectacular. Taken out of context it makes Luhnow look transcendent. But he only got that #1 pick through losing intentionally. And taken in that context along with his subsequent poor drafts (complete whiffs on back-to-back #1 overall picks, etc.), and the larger picture of Luhnow’s draft prowess is less glowing. Assessing Luhnow’s tenure is complex because there’s so much subjectivity involved in valuing the things that happened during his time as GM. To place a “grade” on Luhnow, one has to really decide what they think of intentionally losing games (including fielding a top 3 all time worst set of teams), manipulating the rules (like draft pools), the cheating scandal and his role in it, and the value of World Series trophies and what is one of the most successful 3 year runs in baseball history. It’s why I don’t totally mind engaging on the topic when it comes up every few months. For some, flags fly forever and really nothing else matters; drafting a future HoFer (or two) renders any misses moot. For others, intentionally losing is loathsome, and a cheater is a scumbag; no amount of winning justifies breaking the rules. I don’t view things in those binary terms. I evaluate Luhnow in the context of all those things. He was obviously a highly intelligent dude who formed a plan that achieved its goal. He built the best teams the Astros have ever had, and they were a blast to watch, and they won it all. But the way he did it was stained, and in the end, his flaw of not giving a **** about making enemies proved fatal. It’s easy to understand why he’s so polarizing, but in the aggregate, he was just good not great, and specifically regarding his draft prowess, he was just ok.
To argue that Luhnow was a transcendent draft wizard would mean acknowledging that during 2012-2014 he was the worst GM in history (if results speak for themselves and context doesn't matter). Since Correa and Bregman make up the VAST majority of the production from the Luhnow drafts (with an asterisk next to Tucker as he may end up contributing a lot), to argue that Luhnow is a master of the draft, you'd have to compare what he did with 1-1's and 1-2's vs what other GMs did with similar resources. How much better of a 1-1 pick was Correa than Gerrit Cole, Steven Strasburg, or Bryce Harper (the 3 1-1's taken before Correa)? When you compare the sample of Luhnow's 1-1's (Correa, Appel, Aiken) against all the 1-1's since 1965, does he really stand out? Correa is likely somewhere between the 10th and 20th best 1-1 of all time, out of 55. So in context, Correa was a pick that fell somewhere between the 60th and 80th percentile. A good pick, but not transcendent. Add in Appel and Aiken, and Luhnow's track record with 1-1 was very average, if that. Bregman rates better in the pantheon of 1-2's; he was a 95th percentile pick at that slot. But again, taken in context with his other high picks, and it just isn't that great. I'm not arguing Luhnow was BAD at drafting. I'm just positing that it's not binary and that he was a JAG when it came to actually making the picks. If he had a transcendent skill, it was convincing his owner to let him do what needed to be done to acquire the picks in the first place, then seeing it through; but that may be attributed more to Crane than Luhnow.
Not it doesn't. It means he was dealt a bad hand, and made a decision to accumulate as much talent as possible in the Rule 4 draft as possible instead winning 5 or so more games in seasons that were going to be absolutely with or without tanking. Luhnow did not make the Astros absolutely horrible. He just didn't try to paint a condemned building. Using the link I posted earlier as it does the hard work of comparing draft pick values and establishing the average value of a pick for club controlled years, number 1 overalls have been worth about 11 WAR and the No. 5 pick around 5.5 club control WAR. That's a value of 38.5 WAR for 3 No. 1s and a No. 5. Correa, Appel, Bregman (formerly the Aiken pick), and Tucker's combined value is 60.9 WAR with prorating 2020 and 2021 stats to 162 games. That's 22.4 WAR of extra value with Tucker still having 4 years after this and Bregman 1 year of club control years. Of total value, those players alone are better than most of the other teams did from 2010-2019 in that BA article, and that surplus value already almost matches what the Reds did in that BA article. Luhnow made a lot of mistakes, but Correa and Bregman's production allowed for a lot of cushion.
Specifically regarding the Correa pick, had they won a few more games the year before they likely get Correa anyway, most teams had Buxton and Rodon at the top of their boards. Now how much that affected slot value and having enough extra to get Lance I’m not sure of
Really, he drafted Bregs/Correa/Tucker/StrawLMJ Also drafted Rodgers/Cameron /Beer/Rojas/Nottingham etc... that allowed for MLB type trades. Traded prospects he drafted, signed for Alvarez/JV/Greinke/Pressly etc.... We can only hope Click has as questionable drafts as Luhnow had.
The greatest 3 year stretch of baseball in history disagrees with you. Heck Click is still living off of Luhnow's work. What would you consider to be great if this stretch of baseball isn't great?
2012-2014 was part of the plan that lead to the success they're having today. A small price to pay and a well executed plan.
Did you just not actually read my comment, or do you not know what aggregate means? We get it. You are in the “flags fly forever and nothing else matters” side of the binary viewpoint.
He also drafted Mark Appel & Brady Aiken, which were possibly the worst 1-1 picks of all time. He came into a situation with Dallas Keuchel, Jose Altuve, & George Springer (and JD Martinez, FWIW), giving him a good base. He then took other existing parts and added to the depth of the system by trading Bud Norris, JA Happ, Wandy Rodriguez & Jared Cosart. All 4 bringing back several prospects including 4 guys that are currently pretty solid MLB players (Josh Hader, Joe Musgrove, Robbie Grossman & Colin Moran). Musgrove & Moran got us 2 years of Cole, Hader we'd all like to forget about that return, and we cut Grossman. He also traded away Teoscar Hernandez & Ramon Laureano for nothing. The best thing Luhnow did was have a vision, and it was a brilliant vision.
Bermudez and his lack of pedigree has been discussed before on this thread, but he is just obliterating AA so far in 15 IP. 44.1% K-BB%. 19% SwStr%. 1,28 xFIP. You can't get any more dominant than that and he's pitched 5 innings in each of his appearances so he hasn't been used as a traditional reliever either. I wonder how long they give him before letting him take a crack at AAA which seems to be a very pitcher unfriendly league so far.
My guess would be 40-50 innings in AA would be enough, assuming he keeps performing like he has. Like you said, there’s really not much else he could show, as he has been as dominate as a pitcher can be so far.
The aggregate is he hit on enough draft picks to play/trade for players to put three 100 win teams on the field in three years. (Never been done before) Yes I'm a flags fly forever type of guy. You have to be calculated to compete with the big boys especially when they're cheating too. BTW, When are the Yanks court docs going to be unsealed? You never did give an example of what you would consider a great stretch of baseball if this isn't a great stretch of baseball?
With the way the bullpen is now, it wouldn't be a stretch to just call him up from AA straight to the majors if his control is good.
Most orgs have 4 or 5 guys that can play when a regime comes in. Yes there's luck involved (Aiken/Bregs and yes you miss sometimes (Appel) but the key is to admit your errors and be adaptable to make the best of it. Most of those trades were made with a win now mentality. A philosophy I agree with, when you have a chance for a championship you should go for it. When Luhnow left the cubbard was hardly bare.
My first thought when I read this was ... I sure hope that he does not get caught doctoring the baseball.
I guess you didn’t read my comment, the one where I mentioned the 3 year stretch as a great stretch of baseball, but also mentioned the other things balanced against it and how that factors into evaluating Luhnow’s draft prowess and overall performance.
For a moment, let’s take out the cheating scandal. I’ll return to that at the end. Let’s consider luhnow drafting, his FA moves, trades, heading the movement within the team that took verlander, Cole, pressly and others to new levels. I’m sure I’m missing some things here, but taken together, there is no question that Luhnows performance was elite - not good, not great, but among the best ever. returning to the cheating scandal, everyone can discount or penalize Luhnow however they want for the scandal, that’s fine. Some don’t care, some think it buries whatever good he did, some are in between. but I don’t think it can be argued that what he did outside of the cheating scandal was anything other than elite.
2 straight 100 loss seasons conveniently left out of this analysis. Luhnow’s resume, start to finish: Years 2-3 of Worst 3 year stretch in baseball history World Series championship 2 AL titles 3 straight division titles 3 straight 100 win seasons (top 3 all time 3 year stretch) Fired for cheating Overall record 657-639, 50.9% winning pct.
