Agreed. There is no doubt the Astros would take Kris over Mark right now... BUT that doesn't mean Mark won't be very good. What many people don't realize is that the MLB draft is a crapshoot. Just because you pick #1 doesn't mean you will get the best player in the draft, in fact more often than not you DONT get the best player. Mark has very good stuff, and is on track to be a long term top 3 in the rotation fixture and that is valuable.
Yeah, most of the time the best player in the draft isn't gonna be first overall. I just skimmed the last 15 drafts, and only a few times was the #1 pick even in the discussion as best player. As long as your pick lives up to expectations that's all you can hope for. You can't agonize over all the guys you didn't pick, because odds are you screwed up and picked the wrong person.
SO he is a stud after 10 at bats? 10 !!!! where did you learn your baseball. By your logic he is going to bat .600 for the season. Its too early to tell let him play at least 60 or so games and then we can discuss whether he is a stud or not. Let Appel have at least 15 starts in the majors then we can compare.
Just that the Astros, despite the purposeful years of sucking, and despite the advanced scouting, still likely haven't found that "special" pitcher. At this point, Correa seems like that guy from a position player standpoint... but Appel, while he still could be very good, isn't on that same sort of trajectory. Perhaps they thought they had that guy with Aiken. Perhaps they continue to try and get that guy in this years draft, perhaps that guy "is" in the system and hasn't declared himself just yet... or maybe they just flip the prospects into somebody who is already established. But I wouldn't put Appel's ceiling on the same tier as Kershaw's, that's all.
Its why I don't foresee a lot of other teams emulating the Astros "rebuilding" strategy... you don't need the #1 pick to rebuild a minor league system or a major league team. But you do need to draft the best possible player available, the "right" player based on data available, and commit the needed money to sign them (along with signing mostly all your draft picks as is).
I think if the standard is one-of-the-best-of-all-time, then virtually every team is going to disappointed all the time. The Astros' rebuilding strategy wasn't necessarily to suck to get #1 picks. It was to suck because there was no real alternative worth the effort required. The reason the Astros did what they did was the state of their system about 5 years ago - an aging and crappy MLB team and complete destruction in their minor league system. That's a rare situation for a team to be in and trying to be mediocre (instead of terrible) while rebuilding would have expended a lot of resources that could be used better elsewhere. The larger purpose of gutting the MLB team was to build some health in the farm system - the #1 picks were just sort of a nice side-effect of that.
I wasn't the one that made the comparison... I agree that comparing Appel to Kershaw, or even saying he could be "a Kershaw" is a disappointing exercise. I understand all that... and many teams have gutted the MLB team in order to rebuild the farm (some have rebuilded and won world series in the time it has taken the Astros to not lose 100 games). That along with committing to signing draft picks can go a long way into creating organizational depth. Very few have ever done what the Astros did... they took "gutting" to an entirely different level. The question is, was it ultimately necessary if it wasn't about ensuring to become the worst team in baseball? (and hence get the #1 pick). To suck as badly as they did purposely certainly has risked a lot from testing long-standing fan allegiances, public relations, image, demand for tv deals, attendance, etc.... and while not spending anything at the MLB level certainly saved Crane some money, that really doesn't impact anything in a positive way other than him. (this would be in direct response to you saying it was "not worth the effort required" to be respectable, but still gutting).
Uh, no...he's been a stud for a couple years now. Im saying that his first game of 0-4 with 3Ks was more of an aberration than anything. Anyone with any inkling of baseball knowledge or scouting ability could tell you that Bryant was going to tear it up in the majors after how he has performed in the minors/spring training. He is a far superior hitter than 90% of the league. There is no "lets wait and see how he does after 50 games" here...unless you're trying to fool yourself. And Bryant being good has nothing to do with how Appel does, so not sure why you're saying "let Appel have at least 15 starts...". Appel has every opportunity to be just as good. Bryant has been and will be a stud, and anyone who really thinks that he wont continue ripping the leather off the ball is delusional.
Best summary I've read. I'm tired of the "purposefully sucking" rhetoric. And, I still see the Marlins' past fire sales in a worse light than what the Astros have done. Except, of course, that it appears to have *worked* for the Marlins. Fingers crossed...
The Marlins will always be worse because both times featured breaking up a World Series winning team. At the same time, the Marlins never bottomed out in the farm system like the Astros did in the mid 2000's, and the Phillies are now, thus they were able to rebound with the additional prospects/young payers acquired at a faster rate. What I still don't know is if it was totally necessary to be an utter embarrassment at the MLB level... unless you wanted to ensure the #1 pick. I know some will say it "doesn't matter", and that there's not much of a difference between a 50+ win team and a 70+ win team... then again, the 70+ win team from last year was infinitely more exciting to watch. Additionally, the brand basically needs to start over in terms of generating fan interest/excitement/season ticket sales... which is quite a bit of turnover and love lost from the world series season just 10 years ago.
I do think the number 1 pick had some sway in Astros moves, but the Astros were 100% geared to getting "sustainable success". The 40 man roster was littered with guys that might be useful in the future (trying to find a treasure in trash bins like McHugh) or guys that they were trying to rehabilitate to flip for prospects. Even then, JD Martinez was let lost just because they choose the wrong long shot to bet on. If the Astros weren't concerned with getting the #1 pick, they may have pulled off enough wins to be #2 or #3 overall if they were lucky.
I think the reason last year's team was exciting to watch is not that they were a 70 win team vs a 50 win team. It was that you were seeing players get chances / grow up - McHugh, Keuchel, Springer, Singleton, Carter, Altuve, etc. You could see something building towards a future. The Astros simply didn't have access to those types of players 3-4 years ago. A 70 win team full of Jose Valverde's and Pedro Feliz's would not have been nearly as exciting, and that was the only way to be mediocre a few years back. I'd say last year's 70 win team was far more fun/interesting than the 75 win teams with Berkman, Oswalt and Pence because you knew that wasn't going anywhere. On the effort/money side, I disagree that Crane is the only one to benefit. Businesses don't look at things in 1-year time frames. If you make an extra $50MM over a couple of years, that gives you more flexibility to spend more later. You don't want to lose money over an extended period, but if you've pocketed that much cash, it's easier to justify taking more risks later on. That said, the whole CSN fiasco cost them probably about $70MM (plus future fan base, etc), so any potential extra flexibility probably got wiped out there.
This is an excellent point also. Filling the roster with mediocre veterans takes away playing time from young players to see what they can do, and kicks people off the 40 man roster. If you have a bunch of mediocre vet pitchers, do you run Keuchel out there for 3 years in the hopes that he eventually figures it out?
True, this played a huge role in it... similar to what the Astros fans saw in the early 90's. I never advocated for signing a bunch of expensive but non-productive veterans... but there is somewhat of a middle ground that they likely could have found but still have been able to re-stock the farm AND not be a blatantly obvious joke (unless, of course, you value that #1 slot money pick... which I still think was a goal, despite others saying here it wasn't). They've pretty much backed themselves into a "win, or else" scenario in terms of re-generating fan interest (and in this case, they're not only going to have to win... but win quite a bit before they get the Houston fans back in droves). Throughout the mediocre Drayton Astros seasons, MMP itself was still a draw, the home-grown veterans were still a draw and Biggio's quest for 3000 was still a draw... but I didn't they'd ever bottom out to below late Astrodome-level attendance numbers again. This off-season definitely has a little more sense of "urgency" as the business-side of the front office is likely crunching numbers and realizing that things need to turn around at the gate soon (plus they're finally getting tv money again). I'll always wonder if the fact that they were that embarrassing at the MLB level in the midst of negotiating for CSN played any role in the outcome... the Pirates and D'backs had also been mediocre, but not bottom-out mediocre, and were still able to get deals done. Then again, its clear the whole RSN bubble was on the verge of bursting as is.
Not filling the roster up with veterans also allowed to give extra long looks to fringy young guys. Not all of them worked out (Dominguez, Schafer, etc) but, for instance, it also allowed them to be patience and give Keuchel multiple years to get it together. As we saw, unfortunately with JD Martinez, some guys are late bloomers. If they they went out in free agency and crowded their staff with the Ricky Nolascos and Aaron Harangs of the world, Keuchel and Mchugh might not have gotten shots as 5th starters last year. now, instead it looks like they have two top of the rotation going forward on minimum salaries. Not filling the roster with short term veterans allowed the Astros to find them.
Very good point. At this point in the rebuild is where I think it's time to start sprinkling in some veterans across the roster. Not too many to where it dilutes the ability for our farm system advance, but just enough in the clubhouse to balance the youth of this squad. We have the depth to make a couple more high-impact trades. I'm excited to see how Luhnow continues to develop this roster.
Lowrie, Rasmus, Valbuena, Carter...who on the farm would you rather see getting time? At some point, and it seems that this year is that point, you have to try and put an entertaining product on the field.
They we're talking about the 11-13 clubs. Nick didn't like how bad we were, and he was arguing that wasting roster spots in an effort to be slightly less terrible, while taking time from prospects, made no sense. Now we are actually trying (and succeeding so far) to win baseball games, so giving solid vets a chance makes sense
Lots of times if I haven't read a thread for a few days I'll just skim everything. Thanks for the Clutch BBS For Dummies. You are a good man, and thorough.
