Boston has given time to several struggling prospects in recent years. Teams still give prospects a chance to prove themselves, even when winning matters. Villar started very well last year (he looked like an All-Star candidate after a month), and then he started to struggle.
Sure.... when the rest of your team is legit, you can sometimes get away with it (albeit, I highly doubt Boston or any other winning team would let a player who struggled as much as Villar has get that many AB's). At least this is being discussed in the minor league thread... because its honestly a waste of time right now to discuss Villar's future as an Astro (both currently and in the long-run.) And again, we can stop using the "P" word with Villar.
Villar still has a chance to turn himself into a backup player. Not a great chance, but not enough to classify him as organizational depth.
A backup at AAA when Correa laps him? Can he reliably play any other position? I could see him making the same mistakes he does at SS at 2B and 3B.
Jesus I can't even believe how wrong you are in this regard. You've made a few over the top arguments but this takes the cake. Unless you are the Yankees, and can just buy players, you have to develop prospects. All prospects are by definition unproven. Every team in baseball throws prospects into their lineup and rotation. Maybe you pull back in a pennant chase, but you don't just say f**k every prospect because he's unproven and we wanna win.
Hyperbole much? I'm specifically referring to where this team is right now and what the MLB needs are. And we are specifically talking about just these two players, not all prospects. Villar's not going to be this teams everyday SS now or in the future. If he is, that means there are some serious issues/events that occurred which would indicate this team won't be contending any time soon. And if you don't think he's had a fair shot, exactly how much does a player have to fail at this level before you'll finally admit they're just a dog with fleas? Santana, while he still hasn't had the chance Villar has had, simply won't break into this lineup unless the current players either get injured or severely underperform. We saw Folty's value get decreased even with just a small cup of coffee...I'd prefer the same not happen to Santana (when in reality this front office recognized that he's unlikely to be ready any time soon, and thus got established OF help). The over-valuation of prospects (or ex-prospects like Villar) here is ridiculous. Yes, organizational depth and building from the system up is very important. But not all these guys are destined for greatness simply because they cracked a top 100 prospect list. Some of you still would rather spend time rooting for the unkwowns/prospects vs focusing what is actually most likely (and most needed) to happen at the big league level for this team to reach respectability first... Then reach winning consistently.... And then if it comes alltogether, making some serious contention runs. I actually expect more continued Gattis-like trades now and in upcoming years... So don't get too attached to any prospect not named Correa and Appel (and it wouldn't surprise me if they gave up the latter if he was the key to making a deal for a star happen).
Also, I'd like to know what you consider my other "over the top arguments" to have been? That Springer was being held down to gain an extra year of control? That Fowler would likely be traded this year with his upcoming free agency looming? That Marrisnick would likely not be the opening day (or everyday) CF? Don't think any of those were "over the top"...frankly, they were all dead-on-balls accurate.
How about Fowler being traded before deadline instead of before the season ..or Marisnick not being an everyday player when that seems likely in either center or left.
I was initially met with hostility to suggest he would be traded at all... now its "over the top" to say when he should be traded? Obviously getting the inside track to Rasmus made him expendable earlier... but if they had traded him early without any suitable replacement (which I said Marisnick wasn't, and the front office concurred), this team would be currently worse. Also, not sure Marisnick will be anywhere close to being an everyday player (either in center or in LF)... clearly there are still a lot of question marks there, hence the front office going out and spending a good amount of money on Rasmus (who should compete with Springer for the CF spot). He'll definitely get some spot starts there... but he's likely to be in a LF platoon with Grossman/Pressley/occasional Gattis/occasional Carter (depending on what's going on at 1B). Again, "over the top"? Hardly. What's more over the top is the gesticulating going on here over questioning Villar's and Santana's roles with this team.
Funny you say this because over the last few years Boston has done exactly that. Villar had a 629 OPS in 530 plate appearances over the last two years. Jackie Bradley Jr. also was given the opportunity to amass exactly 530 plate appearances over the same time period but only managed to put up a 548 OPS. Will Middlebrooks put up a 633 OPS over 604 PA during the same time (including 374 PA in their WS year). Bogaerts had 644 PA and put up a 662 OPS. Etc etc
If Marisnick is dead on balls accurate not the starting CF, he's an everyday player. Just because you were right in Fowler being traded, you were over the top insistent he would be traded at deadline. I was never one to suggest he wouldn't be traded.
Your springer prediction wasn't accurate at all. You were adamant that he'd be held down past the super-2 deadline last year (ie June or late) even when I suggested that they'd bring him up after getting the extra year of control. You were dead wrong on that one.
Any chance we can use this thread for talking about Astros minor league guys and start a different one to argue about who is the smartest Internet message board poster? Keith Law on mlb radio asked about how tough it was to put Bryant ahead of Buxton as #1 overall, and he said he actually struggled more and gets more questions about whether Correa should be ahead of Bryant than Buxton Does kind of suck knowing we could have had both
Nope... I was adamant they bring him up in 2013. After that purposeful stashing, I was ready to consider the worst case possibility. I never wanted him to stay down... It was considered "over the top" to even suggest the astros were purposely stashing him. I agree with the above post. Let's get back to discussing the minor league system, specifically guys who have a realistic shot at being future Astros.
Agreed. While sucking majorly to have the #1 pick was part of the plan, I don't think this front office needed that "advantage" to get future likely MLB players. Again, I was for Appel, and the MLB team is set up to need more pitching than hitting.... So it still likely could work out.
Doubtful he's an everyday player. I'd consider that an over the top prediction. I suggested they could let him build up his value even further by waiting till the deadline. Hardly a blasphemous thought. In the end, they needed the $$ he would have gotten in arbitration to sign Rasmus, so that had a little more to do with it. They certainly didn't dump him to play Marisnick...that's laughable (and thus they would have spent that $8 million on something besides another OF).
Yep. I'd even favor a bullpen role like the white sox are doing with Rodon. Not sure how much he will benefit from pitching against has beens/never will be's at AAA (and if he falters there, then what?)
