Sure, but you're presuming that the replacement level closer they have now would blow all the saves, while the expensive closer would convert all of them. The truth is somewhere in the middle. This team has blown 3 ninth inning saves this year, winning one of those games. They still don't have enough true ninth inning save opportunities to warrant an elite closer.
How many years do we have to wait until we can blame crane? Five more years? Ten more years? Will he ever be blamed?
The strategy he and Luhnow have in place has not had time to prove itself at the major league level, while at the minor league level they are acknowledged as having one of the best farm systems in baseball. He could be blamed for them losing 100+ games instead of 95+ during his tenure but organizationally, it would be hard to blame him right now. One could nitpick and say a better manager may lead to more wins, but nothing that would make a significant positive difference.
I know this concept doesn't make sense to some people, but prospects in baseball usually take from 3-5 years after the draft just to make their MLB debut, and probably another year or 2 to really make an impact. Jim Crane just started his 3rd season as owner. The CSN mess, and the fact that he seems like a genuine tool are clouding peoples opinions. As of right now he appears to have the organization on the right track. If come 2017 the Astros still have one of the lowest payrolls and are losing, then we can start to tear into Crane.
This ^^^^ But the main argument against (not saying I take this position myself) is basically we are not fielding the best team we can, now. This leads some to conspiracy theories as to why (true or not) and sour grapes in general. If true though, and one also subscribes that the course we are presently on is the best one, then your forced to confront the idea that the plan CALLS FOR not putting the best team on the field now. You couldn't say, in other words, that we are doing the plan, and who plays on the field is not part of that plan. So the real question is +/-. If we sacrifice something in the future for having a marginally better team in the now, then the real argument is the weighting given to the +/-'s. Assuming there are very real consequences in the future to being better in the now, then the question is about time. NOW vs THE FUTURE. But the sometimes overlooked analysis is the best team in the NOW cant be a good team in any circumstance but the FUTURE TEAM has a chance to be a great one. So in this sense, I favor certain sacrifices in the NOW for the chance at FUTURE greatness. The argument left is that the future sacrifice wouldn't be that great, perhaps not significant at all.
The test for Crane, outside of resolving the ridiculous TV situation, is how he handles the payroll going forward. Part of the plan he laid out was to gradually increase the payroll when/where it made sense (like the bullpen/Feldman spending this offseason) to supplement the influx of cheap young talent from the minors. It's all wait and see at this point.
The main issue is that this strategy is still unproven... and if it backfires/fails, it could lead to 10+ years of 100 loss seasons, and essentially kill/smother/bury baseball in this city (if it hasn't already done-so yet). I also expect Luhnow to be able to keep this farm system as highly regarded as it is now, while having a GOOD team at the MLB level. It shouldn't have to be either/or (which would cause some to question whether it was truly necessary to suck this badly to get the farm system where it is now... I guess it doesn't really matter). They also really need to have the #1 picks prosper... can't miss on them (which the draft history unfortunately says that not all of them will make it. not a good situation when you're picking #1 every year).
No doubt. By all accounts, he did quite well in STL without top-of-the-round picks (exactly how much of that is directly attributable to him we will never know). But then again, Tim Pupura was very highly regarded and praised when he was promoted.
