You know, I just went and looked at their minor league clubs. Every team was in last place but 2. Of those 2, neither had a winning record. If things are this bleak all the way down to A ball, who ever is in charge of revitalizing the farm system needs to go back to their day job.
Certainly. Because we all know such a revitalization happens overnight, and anything less than that is just pathetic.
Consider instead that if this seems like some sign of improvement to you from where these clubs were pre-Wade, then make your argument. AAA Roundrock: Last place AA Corpus: Last Place A Lancaster: Last Place A Lexington: Tied for 3rd place (.500 club) A Tri-City: 3rd place (.400 club) A Greeneville: 3rd place (.519 club) Rookie Club: Gulf Coast Astros: Last place
He's had two drafts. Two. It's too soon to make a judgement either way, regardless. That's the point.
It maybe too soon to judge Wade, maybe. But its not too soon to simply say that our farm system is no better than it was 2 years ago.
Not too soon, but perhaps inaccurate. W/L record alone is a pretty poor way to look at a farm system. Sure, when better players get in the records will certainly improve. But they drafted--and actually SIGNED--some pretty nice players the last couple years, who are now *in* the system. Their presence makes the farm system better--even if only a fraction better--than two years ago. Two years ago the Astros hired two guys with some very well-proven records in building farm systems: Ed Wade and Bobby Heck. Let us see, after two more years, what difference they will have made.
It can't be fixed overnight. We actually are doing better than last year based on record. We won 42% last year, as opposed to 44% this year. The big problem is that we are still recovering from bad drafts especially 2007. Because of how weak the overall system is, we have to further stretch the talent across multiple teams.
What win/loss tells me is that our minor clubs are being out performed by their rival clubs. What this usually translates into is that they are reaping better players out of their farms than the Astros are. True, even on bad teams, you can have a few good players, maybe one outstanding one. But again, what the minor league records show is that other teams are STILL getting more out of it, more good players, more outstanding ones. If after 2 good drafts we still are falling FURTHER behind, much less breaking even in respect to other clubs farms, than in a sense were not improving, we are getting worse. And implies that it may take 4 or 5 good drafts to make a substantial difference. Only at the point where our farms hold their own against other clubs could I see us saying we are making progress, or at least, not falling further behind. So the argument becomes, if after 2 years were worse off, and it will take until 4 or 5 years in total to be better off, you have to ask if this is a acceptable timetable or couldnt it be done faster? Trading assets now for prospects is always a way to move up the farms. But the Astros braintrust always seems reluctant to part with their better players. The ones that will bring decent prospects anyway. So its not just about only having 2 drafts, but how matters in other areas have been handled as well.
The idea behind these drafts is to pull out prospects, and to find players that you can develop into prospects. It does not necessarily mean that the entire team has to out-perform other teams and their entire minor league teams. The Astros could care less that their Low-A and High-A teams are losing games. However, if they have a pitcher that is a major prospect, then it matters that that one pitcher out-performs the other team's prospects because that would now be a real evaluation at the draft. The other players? It really doesn't matter much as their job is to mainly fill out a roster. If your system is bad enough without any prospects to throw out, then your minor league TEAMS can struggle for years while you're actually improving. If you're holding 2-3 prospects and they bat 3-4-5. They can do all they want, but teams can still lose more games than you'll ever win. What do those non-prospects do? They can either keep at it and hope to develop into something; they could quit; or they could get left in the same level for years and make 35k a year until they feel that they should do something else with their lives.
But js just posted that they're winning 2% more games than two years ago. How is that "falling FURTHER behind"?? It *does* take 4 or 5 good drafts when the system is the poop-hole it had become. Two years in, most of the draft picks haven't even sniffed AA yet. You can't replace all those roster positions and change a culture of losing after two drafts. Agreed! Has this been your point the whole time? That you want to see a trade? Why didn't you just say so? It's so funny, because at many times fans have posted how the Astros are too *cheap* to hold on to their better players. The irony... The answer is that *lately* the braintrust has been reluctant to part with their better players, not "always". (see: Hampton, Mike for just one example) And, I will agree with you that it has been a dumb, dumb course of action--but they appear to be changing course again: we said good-bye to Tejada, and they are obviously listening to offers for Oswalt, Berkman, and Myers, even if their expectations are too high. and that was your point the whole time, wasn't it? Purpura, and even Hunsicker, still carry the lion's share of blame for where this club is now. Hunsicker's last two or three drafts were disastrous -- almost as calamitous as Purpura's drafts. Hunsicker, perhaps at McLane's bidding, traded away too much farm-talent in the hopes of "winning now". Not that those guys would magically be helping the big club today mind you, but the farm would at least be a tad healthier. So, unless you want to have an all-out firesale like the Marlins, these things take time--like 4-5 years. They just do.
not only that, but they offered arbitration to a couple of guys this past offseason and reaped a couple draft picks for it.
But js just posted that they're winning 2% more games than two years ago. How is that "falling FURTHER behind"?? Lets say team 1 has a .420 record and team 2 has a .650 record. Lets say these are A minor teams. Suppose team 1 has 1 outstanding and 3 good players. The .650 then would probably have 2 -3 outstanding players and 4 or 5 good players. So lets say the outstanding and the good players all move up. Which parent team got better? Depends on how you look at it. You could say they both did. But the parent to team 2 got more better. Suffice to say in worldly terms, parent team 1 got worse in relation to parent team 2. And when your team is in last place, probably all the teams teams got better in relation to you. So in essence, parent team 1 got worse compared to the others despite improving their parent team.
But suppose that the players on the good team were all over-aged for their division, while the players on the bad team were all under-aged. The players from that second team may put up big numbers in the minors against players who are younger, smaller and less experienced - but will that transition into anything at the big league level for the parent club? Probably not. Minor league success doesn't directly lead to major league success because there are so many variables involved dealing with age and development. Most minor league teams will win or lose games based on players who will probably not have more than a cup of coffee at the major league level, if that. And most of those players will be picked up by the local team itself - Ed Wade is not going to spend time trying to sign a middle reliever for Corpus Christi. Though given his track record he may end up trading Roy Oswalt for one.
I do get that bad minor league teams dont mean zero prospects. I do get bad teams dont get good overnight (usually, miama heat?) But on the whole of things are not so much a individual indicator of talent, as they are an indicator of overall farm health in relation to other teams. And the state of health of a team has much to do with developing and recognizing young talent.
You're leaving out soooo many variables and factors. I'll refer you to Puedlfor's excellent post, and encourage you to take it into consideration.
But your making my point.....of course you dont know who is going to pan out to be the star in a group of prospects, of course numerous variables make any prediction at all impossible. So all you have left are averages, probability and luck. And since we have no control over luck, and averages are vague and inspecific, probability is the only thing you can give yourself. And a better team is probably going to give you more talent than a bad team. You build a good team in the hope it will yield somebody special someday. You make sure they have a healthy dose of new talent on a regular basis knowing full well most wont be good, and/or will flame out. Not signing draft picks, drafting badly, and not getting rid of waning players at the right time are the sap in the tree. Heck, I would almost submit that a good team is more important than good players.....maybe i would
