I think we're saying the same thing. Also, you can add the TB Rays to your above list of prolonged contenders that ultimately didn't win it all.
Yep. Add the Pirates, and sub the Royals. Would you take the Royals last 5 years plus their future 5? Royals are ****ed going forward, but I'd still have loved to have been there for their recent run.
On that note, would you have taken the Chicago White Sox' run from 2005-now and the next 5+ years over what the Astros have done in that time? Its almost a push... but of course you have that pesky world series title for the White Sox in 2005.
Musgrove isn't "unproven" by any stretch. He had three rough outings last year but he posted a 1.83 ERA (10 ER in 48.2 IP) in his other seven starts (+ an extended relief appearance). And he earned a spot in the rotation this year. We'll see whether it's sustainable - but that was a very promising debut last year. I know Martes and Tucker are the marquee names here; but I guarantee you the Astros don't see Musgrove as an insignificant throw-in. He has 2+ WAR potential right now with a higher ceiling.
That's a weird measure. 1.83 ERA is meaningless unless you can tell us what everyone else's numbers look like when you take out the 30% of their worst outings. It's not like it was 3 bad outings out of 25. It was 3 out 10. But even independent of that, performance over 62 innings (or 48 if you discount all the bad ones) is a miniscule sample size. He's shown flashes and we all hope get can be good, but he's not proven at all. Pitchers have hot stretches all the time - and this one wasn't even a hot stretch unless you take out all the bad outings anyway.
He's as "unproven" as Bregman, who @Progs said would "help" - they both played roughly a 1/3 of a normal season for their respective positions. We know Musgrove *can* pitch at this level - that was the point: 8 of his 11 appearances were very, very good. Whether he can sustain it... well, we should have the same concern for Bregman.
Unproven is relative. He's more proven than a prospect. His 4.18FIP, 4.04xFIP, & 3.98SIERA all back up his ERA. That increases his value. 62IP is hardly a guarantee, but it is a lot more than 0. The biggest concern is how we he hold up to the workload. A lot of guys have become busts because they had injury problems.
He's as proven as Bregman; they both had roughly a 1/3 of what you'd expect from a starter at their positions (10 of 30 starts; 217 of ~650 PAs). We know he can pitch at this level; what we don't know is whether last year is sustainable. But that should be of equal concern with Bregman.
He's pitched in the past 2 seasons (his first 2 where he's gone over 50 b/c of injury): 100 IP, then 147 IP. How you can count on him I have no idea.
Did I draft Quintana in my fantasy league this year because I owned Gomez when we traded for him? ...maybe
Bregman's not remotely proven either. Lots of rookies have come up and had flashy call ups just to not pan out. We've had several ourselves (Daryle Ward rings a bell to me). That said, Bregman had triple the WAR that Musgrove did in his 1/3rd of a season, and his stats were prettty good even without taking out the worst 30% of his starts. He also showed immense consistency and kept getting better after the horrible start, while Musgrove was more up and down throughout his time. But even that doesn't mean much due to small sample sizes all around. Neither of them can be penciled in to be good or great, but Bregman definitely showed more than Musgrove in his limited time.
Agree Bregman is a much better bet than Musgrove. However, guys of Bregman's stature typically produce less than 3 WAR over club control years about 12% of the time. MLB pitchers that produced 18 WAR over a 4-year period produce less than 5 WAR over the next 4-year period about 25% of the time. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but the concern for Bregman not being a good player shouldn't be drastically different than the concern that any pitcher, regardless of MLB track record, gets hurt. Not saying Bregman won't bust, just that he's the type of guy that you roll with and if he busts...you just shout a few expletives. Ward is a horrible comparison as basically the only thing they have in common is that they swing the bat, play baseball, and were baseball prospects thought of in at least favorable terms at one point.
Ward's OPS+ his first season was 96. It was 95 for his career. His 2nd year was the big year where he hit 20 HR as a bench player that got people excited, but was still a guy with a 99 OPS+ that was a 1B/DH. We should have been concerned from the beginning. Chris Johnson would have been a much better example, although he duplicated that rookie season for Atlanta, most of us realized he couldn't sustain his BABIP. Not that comparing position players to pitchers makes a ton of sense.
I think you're having a different discussion; I didn't mean to compare the two... I just don't think the Astros would agree with @Progs assessment of Musgrove ("unproven"); I think they see him as a rotation fixture and, in his own right, a difficult piece for them to part with. He seems to be treated here, more often, like a throw-in candidate.
He's certainly far more likely to produce meaningful WAR in the next two seasons than Martes is. That being said if they feel comfortable with Morton and backup plans then he is expendable as a significant trade piece. There's no reason musgrove can't be one of the two big pieces in a Quintana trade. He just shouldn't be a third big piece.
Francis Martes, Kyle Tucker, and Daz Cameron for Quintana = Yes Francis Martes, Kyle Tucker, and Musgrove for Quintana = No (which is what our front office already turned down reportedly, and I am glad they did)
I don't see why Astros are limited to Quintana. If it takes Musgrove to be one of the big pieces for Quintana, it would likely help Astros win more this year to try to use Tucker as headliner for Miguel Cabrera (Tigers would have to eat part of contract) and save Martes and Musgrove for themselves or to trade for another pitcher. Assuming Gammons was right (which I don't), Astros would be better off for this season subbing in Perez or Whitley for Paulino to up offer for Archer than to trade Musgrove with Martes for Quintana. If you want to win now with little regard for future, keeping Musgrove (and basically as many other guys projected to be in majors as possible this year) while obtaining Cabrera, Archer, or Quintana seems like a must. Musgrove may not provide good long term value due to injuries, but he's a good bet to be a BOR pitcher this year.
If they're going to include both Martes and Tucker, there needs to be something else coming back in addition to Quintana (a ptbnl rookie league prospect, Robertson with salary relief, Jennings, or Jones). Otherwise, I think Chicago will have a hard time beating a package that includes 1 of Martes/Tucker plus 3 fringe top 100 types (Fisher, Perez, Whitley, Paulino, Cameron, Moran, Reed, etc.).
