I personally don't think bringing up someone too early is going to affect anything about how that eventually turn out. They could have stuck Springer in the majors right when he was drafted, and he would have become good at the major league level in the same time frame as it is going to take him now going through the minors. You either have it and are going to figure it out or you are not.
Already mentioned about it not applying to pitchers (due to the inmature arm issues)... And I actually went to one of Ankiels dominant starts in 2000 at Enron. Definitely a case that warrants reviewing to see what could have been done differently. He mentally snapped in the playoffs. Just completely lost it. He could have gone on dominating the minors and the regular season like he had been... But as soon as he was in the national spotlight, he snapped. He started (and dominated) over 60 minor league games. And over 30 major league games over 2 years without a semblance of mental issues. It's really a tragic case, but again I don't know how the Cardinals could have handled it much differently as once he snapped, he was never the same.
Sorry to interject between the Springer debate, but I'd like to throw in my opinion on the Norris trade: After sleeping on it, and thinking about it more and more, I absolutely love this trade. By trading away a solid #3/4 pitcher, we got the following return, listed in order of value in my opinion: 1. Comp pick - this is essentially another first round pick. I'm not expert about all of draft class, but apparently Luhnow said that he likes how deep it is. That means we can really add a high-impact prospect with that pick. For example, I believe we drafted McCullers around this pick's spot. And per the Crawfish boxes podcast, this is currently slated to be 1 pick after where Sean Manaea was taken in this past draft by the Royals. Therefore, it is quite realistic to hope/expect another McCullers-type prospect with this pick; a high ceiling pitcher that can turn into a solid #2. Of course this is all projection, and whoever we draft can be out of baseball in 2 years, but Luhnow and company have done a fine job of drafting the last few years. So hypothetically, let's say we draft Rodon with the first overall pick, and then draft a McCullers type with this pick. This gives us a potential rotation of: Rodon Appel Cosart McCullers (the real one) McCullers (whoever we draft with this comp pick acquired in this trade) And that is not taking into consideration any of the other great pitchers in our minors; Folty, Wojo, Thurman, Velasquez, etc. Our starting pitching in the minors went from our big weakness a year or two ago to ridiculously deep and rich with talent. And let's be honest, if push came to shove, we would have probably been happy with Norris for Glasnow straight up (at least I would have been). Who's to say that this comp pick doesn't yield us a prospect even better than Glasnow? I think it's quite possible, especially with Luhnow's talent evaluation. 2. Hader - a nice LHP prospect. His numbers have been very good thus far, and he is still young for the league he's in, which also bodes well for him. In 3-4 years from now, it definitely isn't out of the realm of possibilities that he is putting up Bud Norris type of production. Or he can completely fizzle out. That is the risk when you're dealing with prospects, but the potential reward is certainly there as well. 3. Hoes - although he's been described as a 4th OF, I think he might be able to develop into an everyday player. Sure the power isn't there, but I'll gladly take a .300 hitter with great on-base skills that can give me 15 HRs, even from a corner outfield position. Although that doesn't fit with what we think of as the prototypical corner outfielder, he could slide in to be a perfect 2 hole hitter, and there is plenty of value in that. Him following a Nick Markakis career would be wonderful. The pick and the additional money that comes with it makes me really like this trade. It gives us flexibility and 3 picks within the first 50 in next year's draft, a draft that Luhnow said is deep. As fans, it's hard to settle for delayed gratification, as we want to see immediate results of a trade and declare a "winner" and a "loser," but I think looking back on this trade in 5 years will hopefully work out real well for us.
This is a very realistic possibility in my opinion. If you look at the numbers Markakis puts up, they are very comparable for what we are seeing projected for Hoes. Not many homers, a decent amount of doubles, a few stolen bases and a good balance of strike outs and walks, I don't see why Hoes can't be that guy. One difference, though, is that Nick plays right fiend and has a decent arm. It is worth noting that we have a short left field porch that lets us mask a below average fielder in left that can hit with a little more pop. I hope Hoes turns out to be a decent corner outfielder and follows Markakis in his career, then I think he is a success considering he may be the third nicest piece in the trade.
Haha Luhnow was definitely trying for the trade rape. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/webberoo11">@webberoo11</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/BHam2421">@BHam2421</a> Read a rumor that Luhnow was asking for Britton, ERod & Hader, originally.</p>— Alex Sandoval (@LEXthePEX) <a href="https://twitter.com/LEXthePEX/statuses/362916989993365504">August 1, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
If we go pitcher at #1 next season we really shouldn't use our comp pick on another pitcher. It makes me happy to say this, but our farm system is stocked with talent at SP.
I hope so. We have the worst pitching staff in baseball right now, and we need not only SP to come up and be effective... but also elite level relievers as well.
I think its easy to think all these guys will realize their potential and forget that only 10-15% (if that) of minor league prospects actually flourish at the ML level. That said, we can never have too much pitching talent at the minor league level.
I would say that Appel, Rodon, Folty, and McCullers are all considered elite level front of the rotation potential starters. Wojo, Thurman, Velazquez, Hader, and Kyle Smith being tier 2.
Out of all those guys, only Appel and Rodon are going to have expectations to be successful starting pitchers. Folty/McCullers likely to be more effective in the bullpen, but will get every opportunity to make it as starters. Again, its easy to get real excited about them all... but in reality, the Hudson-Zito-Mulder/Avery-Glavine-Smoltz combos happen oh so rarely.
I'm guessing we take Rodon 1-1 and a developed college bat with our Comp pick. That makes the most sense.
I guess. Was talking about hitters the whole time since we were talking about Springer. Guess I never specified it. There are certainly far more pitchers who flame out earlier largely due to arm issues. Then again, lots of pitchers (super young, young, older) end up with arm issues. Strasburg had arm issues very early. Appel could end up with arm issues.
I think it's a little silly to say what the comp pick should be, 10 months before the draft. I think it should be whoever gives us the best value, and that can come from the best available pitcher or the best available hitter. They've already shown they are not afraid to go pitcher heavy, as they went with pitchers with their first 3 picks last year. I only said pitcher as a reference to what we might be able to get (a McCullers type). It seems to me that pitchers usually drop due to signability issues. My overall point is that whoever we draft with the comp pick, regardless of position, should be a very good prospect.
Since the Springer debate is clumped into this thread. A player generally gets the most opportunities to develop in the minors because they could focus primarily on his development as opposed to the ML level, regardless of the Astros's standings at this point. You have to work on continual growth on your 3-5 OFs/1Bs (Pena doesn't count) as well. You can bring Springer in here and stick him at 1B, but what is this doing with his range? We still have relatively young players on our ML roster that needs playing time. Springer can have as many at bats as they want him to have. His offense is not the only thing that they would want him to work on. By having him come up and have to develop other players as well, he would not have as much primary focus on career development that he would have at AAA. Your coaches there are here primarily to enhance their talents, not fix their struggles as ML coaches are more custom to do. They expect players in the ML system to be ML-ready; and obviously, the Astros felt like Springer have a few things that he could work on adjusting, as opposed to fixing (yes, they are two different things) Of course, money factors into things, but there's a counter argument to everything thrown. Yes, the Astros better have a direction 6 years from now, but a year is a year and if you could develop a player in AAA as opposed to ML, why would you move him up now? It may sell a few more tickets, but I doubt that many people will see Springer and rush to the ticket box office. Not that many fans would pay enough attention to know who he is unlike the ones debating here. Bringing him up does not make us compete this year, so why do it? We have other talents, including an OF in this Norris trade that seems to fit the No. 2 hole type of hitter. People develop all the time and ceilings change. Nelson Cruz was permanently stuck at AAAA (or so they called it), but somehow made enough adjustments to become a pretty nice addition to the Rangers staff. For every player that came up and performed, there are also many that got better because of time in the minors. There is no stat that could prove that keeping him at AAA as opposed to promoting the player is the PRIMARY factor of performance. The Astros did what they feel would help him develop most, so who are we to say it should have been done otherwise. If he does not get better in AAA and we move him to ML and he struggles, why can't the "he was never that good" argument be valid as well? The fact is, WE DON'T KNOW. I'd like to bet that the Astros organization are better at talent evaluation and development than us average Joes. Besides, what they say in this situation goes. What's not to like about having 3-4 players being brought up simultaneously. Maybe having companionship to share the growing pains would help development. They may be other psychological factors involved. Maybe Springer handles failures differently than others that could impact him more than others. There is no straight up formula for developing, just like we wouldn't know if the D-League in the NBA would be the place to develop or the bench and practices of the NBA squad. He'd definitely get more rep at the AAA level and chances to play around with what he may be capable of vs. facing ML pitching and getting use to MMP. It could help, it could make things worse. Why are we even arguing what's right or wrong? There are no real formula to prove it, even on hindsight if a player works out or not. He stays in AAA and becomes a force for 10 years, can you really say he got better because he stayed in AAA for a few weeks? Maybe he was that good all along. It's their feel and their decision. We should try to support our team and trust that they have more variables fixed than we do.
Back to the topic, I think Astros did okay in the trade. I think Norris is a nice middle of the rotation starter, but the return was sufficient to trade him. Hopefully, Hoes can be on base when Springer hits those homers.
