They're actually masquerading as a small-market team in a top 10 media market. I'm all for "fiscal responsibility"... as it pertains to not overpaying for over the hill players, or getting locked into 5+ year deals with injury prone pitchers... but I don't think a club's financial situation should dictate absolutes on when prospects make their debut. As I said before, you aggressively promote the special ones... and there's a long history of teenagers making their debuts going on to have HOF careers without fear of "ruin" or free agency (dating back to Ruth, Mantle, Kaline, Killebrew). I feel he should start in AA, and get the call-up if he has some sustained success.
He'll be 31 when he becomes a free agent... likely will have more good years as an Astro (or minor leaguer) than after free agency.
This is the story that is still to be told about Crane. Would have been stupid to spend last couple of years Key is coming up, will he spend to add final pieces when needed? More importantly will he spend to keep the prospects that turn into stars? I don't want to be the Tampa Rays West. Yes they have been good, but every time we develop a star I don't want to have to start wondering who his replacement will be when it's time for him to get paid.
Well so far, they're actually doing a worse impression of Tampa. Will Myers was stashed for $$$ reasons, but still made his debut at 22. Its becoming more and more clear that teams will base their payroll on TV revenue.
TV has a lot to do with it obviously But anything anyone says about how Crane will spend is complete guesses, we won't know till the time gets here Would really suck to do it the way they do though
Cosart pitched a good two innings today. I think there is a real good chance he comes out of ST as our opening day starter. What do you think?
Hope so, I do think he is going to be better than many predict this year. He did throw too many pitches and not enough strikes last year, but he just doesn't give up many balls that are hit hard. I've heard batters describe his pitches as very "heavy" when you hit them. To me he is a legit mid rotation guy with the upside of a top of the rotation guy if he continues to develop
I seriously doubt that... not on this team. Its the guaranteed one sellout this team will have all season... and they need return business in the worst way/shape/form. Having their one young pitcher with real hype/promise out there would be the most exciting way they can do it. And if he does well, they may just get a few more people to come out for his starts more than any other pitcher on the roster. Also, neither Feldman, Peacock, Oberholtzer or Harrell (haha) have done anything of note in their careers to automatically deserve the spot.
Myers was drafted when he was 19 and was in the minors for 3 full seasons with the Royals before being traded to Tampa. A bit of a different situation.
Sure... and 4 year college players drafted in the first round who dominate each level of the minors should't be spending almost as much time "developing", along with being stashed for $$$, as HS players.
Every post of yours is the same: fast, accelerated development. We get it. Recap: HS draftees- should be in the majors at 20, cuz if they're special they'll succeed and if they don't they weren't special College draftees- should be ready early, cuz they're older. I know it's easy to get impatient given how bad the big league club has been, but the idea that every top prospect should be promoted as fast as possible belies the importance of 'development' itself. Springer dominated AA, got promoted to AAA. His K rates improved in AAA and overall numbers went up too. That's not a waste of time. That's development. College draftees need skill development too and by all accounts Springer was an extremely unusual draftee: the raw, big-tool college player. With regards to his service time, I think they're making a very pragmatic decision. By waiting just a little longer (and getting some more dev time in) their 6 years of club control will more overlap with his peak age 27-31 window. It just makes good sense to get an extra year of peak performance vs 2-3 mo's of rookie level performance. EDIT* Seriously though, how much can you really argue with Springer's development? He was an extremely raw college player who has thus far met expectations. His current ceiling is pretty much as high as his drafted ceiling, which is incredible to me and tells me the Astros have done a great job managing his development.
I'm all for "development"... which should always be player specific and never have exact "timetables." I'm against organizations prolonging the start to players careers purposely simply due to financial reasons. I agree Springer was the rare "raw" college player, and shouldn't have been up here no earlier than last year. However, it appears the organization did not expect him to exceed expectations as he did... and as he continued to dominate, they had to stick with the "plan" no matter how foolish it made them look (and yes, every single "excuse" they used not to promote him looks more and more foolish when you look back on them). The kid likely gets a deserved promotion on every single other MLB team... probably even on the Pirates and Rays too... but can't get up here on a last place team with nobody blocking him. Additionally, you cannot tell me that he wouldn't have continued to improve as you illustrated if he was promoted. You also can't tell me that he won't struggle early on (despite the extra half season of "development") once he finally gets the long-awaited promotion. Again, nothing against development... but the people that seem to think a player is incapable of improving or succeeding early at the MLB level still can't explain why there are several (almost a majority of) all-stars every season that had very little "development" time in the minors. Also, all this p***y-footing around doesn't guarantee Springer is a success. He could still ultimately flop, and the organization just prolonged the eventual "reveal" by stashing him.
A lot of valid complaints. I disagree he would have been called up by every other team but no other team is in the particular rebuilding situation the Astros are. Your final paragraph hits on the crux of the issue for me: the inexact nature of prospect development means we don't know exactly what is too much or too little development time, even in retrospect. Springer's hot topic development has almost made it un-fun to follow him personally because we're quibbling over his career before he's really started it.
Agreed... I acknowledge that development is an inexact science, and you largely don't know what a player will do till they make it up to the big leagues. I do not, however, acknowledge that the Astros kept him down all of last year solely for "development" reasons. THAT has been my only issue with any of this... the stashing for financial reasons by a last place minor-league-talent team that has no business to be masquerading as a small market team, using small market tactics.
Bless you both... So wonderful to pop into a Clutchfans thread and see two people civilly discussing an issue despite differences in their opinions. I thought the polar vortex was rearing its ugly head again but I guess it was just hell freezing over. Sorry... just came here from the GARM: poster 1: LIN SUCKS! poster 2: NO YOU SUCK AND LIN'S GREAT! Went to the hangout and opened the Academy Award thread: poster 1: THAT MOVIE WAS GARBAGE! poster 2: ONLY A GAY IDIOT WOULD SAY THAT! It was truly awesome to read and enjoy your conversation instead.
