Are the Astros about to go on the meaningless run?

I'm with you on being better than us. But everyone is better than us. They're exactly one game better than the defending champs AND they're just entering the toughest part of their schedule. My guess is they'll finish worse than the Reds this season. Beyond that, their run differential is -12 this season. Nowhere near as bad as the Astros or Cubs...but nowhere close to Cincy's +42.

The Royals have had great talent in the farm before, too. Again, the problem isn't having talent in the farm for these organizations...it's keeping it around long enough to matter. If Cosart and Singleton are studs for the big club, I have faith the big club can afford to keep them around, ultimately. In KC and Pitt, I wouldn't have that faith. Growing talent is great if you can keep it...these organizations don't. Not interested in seeing the Astros become that.

 

I dont think we are going on a run. We may play at a .370 - .400 clip, instead of the the current .333 season average though.

 

these predictions may not be mutually exclusive.

 

On the flip side, its not just keeping home grown talent that matters... its identifying who NEEDS to be kept, and who can be expendable.

Sometimes, its best to not hold on to border-line all-stars long-term, as a lot of them are replaceable... but they're all going to want that one big contract during their career. The Phillies identified that well with Werth. The Astros identified it to some extent with Pence. When you overpay to keep those types of players around, it CRIPPLES your big league payroll, and thus flexibility in signing more needed/better players. Then you end up giving up the farm for those players, and that's how you deplete talent.

Some of these young fringe teams like the Royals and Pirates will not be able to overpay to keep a nucleus around... however, if they're smart about it, they should be able to both get the best years out of their young players... as well as have the young talent to replace them when they move on to free agency.

The really special ones, you want to keep around no matter what... like the Astros did with Bagwell/Biggio and then Berkman/Oswalt. That is something the Royals and Pirates may not be able to do... and is definitely what separates "small market" from "mid market".

 

Which is a problem with their MLB club because of payroll. But that doesn't change the fact that they have great young'ns to sell off - something the Astros are in need of. So emulating that part of the process is not a bad thing.

It's not a big deal this year since there's no one uber-prospect, but the Nationals getting the #1 pick instead of the #2 pick the last two years is likely going to make a massive difference in their futre.

 

The other reason why the Royals/Pirates comparisons aren't valid for the Astros... those teams didn't/don't have the money to keep the young talent together! The problem for the Kansas City's and Pittsburgh's of MLB is that not only do they have to draft well, but they need somewhat of a perfect storm. That is, they have to have a LOT of quality young talent to all become Major League-ready at the same time, if they want to win. Otherwise, if it's staggered, they'll be forced to trade off the likes of Carlos Beltran as they approach free agency years, and the cycle never gets a chance to reach its peak.

With Houston, the revenue stream is there to retain players and allow a cycle of quality prospects to reach its apex. It's just a matter of building the talent so that can happen. High draft picks can certainly help.

 

Also not missing when signing some of the non-superstars to bigger deals helps a lot... such as when the Astros resigned Jose Lima and Richard Hidalgo.

 

Strasburg followed by Harper has never happened before and may never happen again. For every Harper, there are a handful of Berkmans and Pujolses out there. You can build a winner without the #1 pick in the draft.

 

I bet harper will never come close to being as good as Pujols. In fact, nobody in this era will be as good as Pujols has been.

 

but... but... but Pujols wasn't a #1 pick!!!!

 

If you could tell me that by 2013 the Astros organization will be in the same spot talent wise as the royals are as an organization this year, I'd be esctatic. The pirates and royals under current management (along with toronto and Tampa bay) should absolutely be a model for this organization.

 

Unfortunately outside of Astros fans I think about 100% of the population would bet against that prediction. The royals are right now here the Astros were in 1991 and where the rays were in 07.

 

Sure - but if you have the #1 pick, you have a better chance of getting an impact player than if you have the #5 pick or the #10 pick or the #200 pick. Sure, you might get lucky and find a Pujols. You just have a much better shot of it with a #1 pick.

 

then we shall see.

 

obviously your odds are better with the #1 pick, as you get your choice out of all the talent available. But drafting Pujols, Berkman, et. al. wasn't luck. Not in the least.

 

Pujols was drafted in the 13rd round, if the Cards thought he was going to turn out to be who he is today, he would have been taken by their first pick, and if every other team knew who Pujols was going to be, he would have been #1 overall.

 

Why thank you, Captain Obvious. The point, however, is that often the once-in-a-lifetime greats like Pujols are not drafted even in the first round, much less with the top pick.

 

I'd rather emulate the Rangers...since it's not enough to just get to where the Pirates and Royals of the world are. Once we have young-mlb ready to talent, we need to be able to keep them and build a true sustained winner on the big league club.

 

But as TheFreak pointed out, on the rare occasion when that happens, it tends to be sheer luck. The Cardinals didn't have any clue that they were getting what they did when they drafted Pujols.