Former Astro Scott Elarton out for the season

Perhaps Dierker is to blame?

If Dierker didn't overwork him in 2000, when we were out of the playoffs for the whole year, perhaps Elarton would be our #1 starter...

 

I don't know that Elarton ever really had what it takes to be a number 1 starter guy. I think he was labeled as such because he threw hard and was a huge, towering figure on the mound, which teams LOVE. But I was never really very impressed with his control or with any of his pitches outside of his fastball.

Thank god the Astros aren't afraid to draft short pitchers.

 

Raven-At the very least, he would probably be in our starting rotation...

 

I think I recall reading that Elarton felt the initial injury was due to him not knowing how to pitch out of the bullpen. Basically trying to throw too hard and not knowing how to warm up properly as a reliever.

 

I doubt elarton would've deserved to start for us this yr.

Not with miller,oswalt,hernandez,redding and shane is a lock.

He would've had to prove himself.

 

I don't know -- the one good year he had was pretty good. If he could've kept that pace, I'd imagine that if he wasn't starting here, he'd be starting for someone else.

It's funny... I remember when the Astros drafted Elarton, and I kept thinking how great it was that they'd drafted a big guy, who supposedly had great mechanics who'd never throw their arm out. When they drafted Wagner, all I could think of was the impending Tommy John surgery. Guess the old addages about big pitchers not hurting their arms isn't so true after all.

 

that sucks for Scott, he's not a great pitcher, but he had the stuff to be a quality No. 2 or No.3 starter - very nice fastball and good curve.

Now he implodes, gets traded to hell, and is out for the year.

I hope he recovers quickly.

 

I don't know for sure, but as I recall, the one good year Elarton had wasn't really all that spectacular unless you looked at his W/L record, which was 17-7, as I recall. The problem was that his ERA was very mediocre that season (4.81, far from great). He had unbelievable run support that season. Actually, looking back at the season he had before that, he did go 9-5 with a 3.48 ERA, but more than half of his appearances were from the bullpen. The thing that always worried me about Elarton was that I heard if he had remained healthy for us after his "great" season (17-7), we would have owed him a lot of money via arbitration. If that had happened, I think it would be largely undeserved, because at that point he had not shown that he was capable of pitching consistently. I am glad Pued mentioned his curve ball, though, because I had completely forgotten how good that pitch was for him when he was getting it over the plate.

Well, let's hope the addage doesn't hold true for Wagner, Dotel, Oswalt and Hernadez, but does hold true for Wade Miller, who is a pretty big pitcher himself.

Seriously though, I am still glad that Elarton was traded for Astacio, who was injured and then left. I think if Elarton had remained, we never would have found out how good a guy like Oswalt or Hernandez or Redding might be, and at this point, I think they will all end up better than Elarton. I do hope for the best for Scott, however, but in order for him to achieve the best, he seriously needs to find a way to get himself out of Colorado.

 

Redding? Please.

Elarton has proven a lot more than Redding. Redding was atrocious last year.

Elarton was very good in 99 and 00. He was as hyped up after 99 and 00 as Miller and Oswalt.

At worst, Elarton would be our 4th starter, had he not gotten injured, and then basically go down the drain.

Redding will not be our 5th starter to start the year.

 

I'm not sure...

Oswalt and Miller wouldn't have really been affected, but I don't think Hernandez would have started or played for us last year.

Besides, all of our young pitchers were highly touted, so the Astros knew that they had stud pitching in the minors.

 

kidrock,

I'm sorry but Scott Elarton would've had one tough spring competition with Redding.

Scott never had great command and was basically a curve-fastball pitcher, like Redding. Especially coming off of his pathetic year last season.

Also, Redding may not be our 5th starter to start the season but it won't be long before he supplants Dangerous Dave Mlicki in the starting rotation, I will guarantee it.

 

Don't you think that Elarton might have been crappy last year because he played with a messed up arm?

The 99 and 00 Elarton is probably better, statistically, than Redding will ever be.

I truly think that Elarton would be a solid #3 or so guy (I'm not a big Reynolds fan) if he were healthy and as good as the 99 and 00 Elarton.

Elarton IMO is better than Mlicki and Redding which would make him #4 or #5 behind Miller, Oswalt, Reynolds, Herndandez. I guess there would be a 3-way battle for the #5 slot.

 

Did we see the same Redding? Redding had no command whatsoever. That is why his pitch count would be close to 100 by the 5th inning.

Elarton was a much more economical pitcher.

 

Redding lacked control as well, no doubt, but that's why I said they would've been in competition with each other in the spring.

I liked scott and it could've easily been the injury last year, but even when he pitched I never really felt comfortable watching him on the mound.

 

I believe that some of Elarton's percieved 'worth' (ironically) came from the fact that, in addition to three 'plus' pitches, (fastball, curve, and change) his size and solid mechanics made him a guy that most teams would consider an 'inning eater', or a guy who could go for 200+ innings every year.* That's the kind of guy who, even if below average, gets penciled in as no worse than a #3, or #4, because he'll keep your bullpen rested. Given the development of arm problems, that value would seem to be diminished.

Also, I think it was fairly well accepted that he was a guy who was particularly poorly suited to the small diminsions of Enron. Even in the Dome he gave up alot of HR's and was always a fly ball pitcher. I think, to some degree, people took that into account when judging his 'big' year at Enron.



*I remember reading this statement, more or less, from Baseball America when the 'stros drafted him. It was a big deal because apparently he had some big commitment to Stanford and was considered a signing risk.

 

Elarton was blessed with greate athleticism, a good fastball, and a good curve. That's enough to constitute a quality pitcher. I still think he will be... probably a #2 or #3 starters.

Very premature to say whether Redding will be inferior or better, though. Has great pure stuff... needs to work on his control. I have a feeling he's going to be Wagner II, though. Great fastball, but we need to see more.

 

i'm with haven...who the hell knows how good redding will be?? i think the jury's still out on that.

but it's pretty clear to me that elarton will never ever be what he was made out to be....and i think opinions of him in 2000 are grossly inflated due to his record...his ERA wasn't all that spectacular. I would bet money that Redding will eventually be able to have less than a 4.81 ERA in a year as a starter at some point in his career.

 

Scott's fastball in 01' was about 8-10 mph slower than his fastball in 99'.

 

I think we would definetely make the rotation had he not been traded and remained healthy..I have always wondered why Shane gets so much hype but yet never produces high win%..Can someone explain to me this discreptencie..It cannot be due to a lack of run support because this patter has been continuous 5 years and running