No, it's not crazy. I'd take: A) a 21 year old draft pick with a track record in college over B) an 18 year old who was awesome in high school and has less than a year of A ball any day. Not that those two options encompass all draft picks and all A players, but there are many scenarios where it's not crazy. Frankly, I think most GMs would scoff at trading a proven MLB player for an A ball player. Purpura absolutely made the right decision.
I'd be willing to bet that year-by-year the top 20 A ball players as ranked by BA or some similar reputable organization have a better major league track record than the top 20 drafted players in the draft class. As likewise down the draft and A ball rankings. It's entirely probable that purpora didn't get offer worth taking (i, like most, dont 'have any first hand knowledge), but are you honestly saying that there are no A ball players you think are worth trading Mark Loretta (a late 30ies middle infielder who likely is not in the long-term plans of the team)?
Obviously it's relative. The #1 pick in the draft certainly has a better chance at major league success than the average A ball player. No one can debate that. I would agree with your scenerio as well, but all things being equal, an A ball player should be be a "safer" choice given that he's generally competed against higher level competition in a pro setting without medal bats. etc. I would guess a 21 old in A ball would have less risk invovled that a 21 draft pick all things else being equal. Likewise, i would guess an 18 yr old hitter (btw there are no many 18 yrs olds that have made it past short season ball so generally that's a big accomplishment in it self) who has a pro league track record with wooden bats is more likely to have major league sucess than a 18 draft pick all things being equal.
We have to be exremely catious when the Astros trade for prospects. I say this due to our scouting and drafting history over the last several years. I'd rather get some top round draft picks if we don't resign Lamb, Loretta, or Jennings. However, if we have no real plans on resigning them, i'm wondering if Drayton is screwing around with their playing time on purpose to try and affect their arbitration value while at the same time trying to have the determined as type A free agents. I'm assuming Loretta will be a type A free agent, i don't know about Lamb. Jennings might have worked his way down to B with his recent outings. It's risky if Drayton is actually trying to do this if he has no intention of resigning them. But i have wondered about the ways Lamb and Loretta have been used this season.
Dude, Loretta has been an everyday player for a few months now. He played every game in June and only sat once in July. In June/July he has only 8 fewer AB's than Lee who we know doesn't take days off. And Lamb has been screwed around with for awhile now because they put faith in Ensberg returning. It's not just this year.
Yes- very, very few. Probably almost no pitchers (impossible to project success at that level), and only a handful of position players. Certainly, not knowing which player(s) he was offered makes this all conjecture, however.
Loretta is a nice older player who likely only has a year or two of being a better than average productive player. As far as i can tell the only legitimate reasons you would not trade him at the deadline is: a)you need him to help compete this year; b)you can get more through compensation picks than through a trade;or c) you feel you can rebuild the team this offseason to compete for a division title/pennant/ws next year and you want to keep Loretta to help with that. a) Seems ridiculous to me. sure the team has made amazing comebacks the last 3 years, but they are further out this year and have the less overall talent than the last few years. Loretta may at the very most make the difference between losing 92 games and losing 90 games, but does that really matter, when the cost is a chance to improve in the future? b)This seems like a legitimate reason to me, but seems to defeat the argument that a potential trade was too risky because purpora only got A ball players in offers. c)Is probably the case. I just don't see it as a realistic possibility. There are just too many holes on this team and there is no immediate help in the minor leagues. that means you'd have to overhaul the team's roster with trades or free agency. What does the team have to offer in trades this offseason? In free agency, if the team is going to fill their holes it's going to cost a lot. now i dont' think drayton is cheap at all. I still remember the team under mcmullen and how nice it was to actually have an owner to was willing to spend money to sign big money free agents (drabek, swindell). that said, it's unrealistic to expect McClain to spend 200 300 or 500 million this offseason. The astros are never going to be able to mantain the payroll of the Yankees and if you expect they will it will only lead to disappointment and claims that "drayton is cheap". Given the state of the minor league system it just doesn't seem like it's very realistic to competely rebuild the team so that it can compete next year. I hope i'm wrong, but given that, it's irresponsible to ignore moves that could help us in the future in the slim chance that the astros can go worst to first next year. That's my biggest fear with Purpora. The Jennings trade, the Deadline this year, and even the Lee signing smack of desperation. It's feels like he's morgaging the teams future so that can build a mediorce team that will keep his job. The New York Knicks have a theory that you can't rebuild in NYC so they, so they sign mediorce players, and traded away draft picks that could have gotten an amare, or a hilario in return for nba caliber players that could help them "compete." and they've competed with the leagues most mediorce franchises the past ten years. I don't want the same for my astros. Rebuilding isn't that bad. There is nothing wrong with that. Every competitive team has to do it as some point. some of my favorite years as a fan were in the earlier 90's when the team was "rebuilding." They traded "major league caliber players" and "Stars" for minor leaguers and unestablished players like Bagwell, Schilling, Harnish, and Finley. I remember i was so excited when the astros actually finished 500 in 92. Those "rebuilding" team were the foundation fo the golden year of the astros. Without trading Davis and Anderson and giving young players a chance the astros would have never had this 94-2005 run.
Nice, well thought-out post. I just think you're overvaluing A ball players. Has nothing to do with my opinion about the state of the Astros, though, but I appreciate the good post.
