Not happy

[Jacksonian]

I'm not happy with the job Wade and Heck have done.  3 years on and the levels of the minors where only the talent they hired resides is awful.  DSL, GCL, Greeneville, and Lexington all lack talent.  All of them have drafted, FA, and international talent most if not all signed by Wade/Heck.  Lancaster is near there too.

[austro]

I'm not happy with the job Wade and Heck have done.  3 years on and the levels of the minors where only the talent they hired resides is awful.  DSL, GCL, Greeneville, and Lexington all lack talent.  All of them have drafted, FA, and international talent most if not all signed by Wade/Heck.  Lancaster is near there too.

Yeah, I had high hopes for Heck based on the talent he pulled into the Milwaukee system, but I think that we've now got a large enough body of work to start to render a verdict, and it's not good.

[chuck]

I'm not happy with the job Wade and Heck have done.  3 years on and the levels of the minors where only the talent they hired resides is awful.  DSL, GCL, Greeneville, and Lexington all lack talent.  All of them have drafted, FA, and international talent most if not all signed by Wade/Heck.  Lancaster is near there too.

Hang on a second and you'll have all sorts of people leaping up to tell you it's all Drayton's fault.

[jbm]

I don't think it is Drayton's fault, but I don't agree with the initial assessment anyway.

[Jacksonian]

Hang on a second and you'll have all sorts of people leaping up to tell you it's all Drayton's fault.

I expect disagreement.  And I'm the first to tell people that the lower minors are about development and not necessarily results.  But at the same time talent does show through.  Raw players with more talent will generally beat raw players with lesser talent.  That's what I'm seeing.  Players in other orgs at generally the same level of development across their rosters are just better than the ones with the Astros.  That doesn't mean I think none of the players in the org will pan out.  Some will just not as many as the ones who have done better signing better ball players.

Another issue I have is their consistent attention to players with particular physical characteristics.  They've admitted with Altuve they didn't see the ballplayer for the lack of height.  I fear they have overlooked, and will continue to overlook, talented ballplayers in the name of signing players who fit the particular model they seek.

[OregonStrosFan]

Another issue I have is their consistent attention to players with particular physical characteristics. 

Bloodlines. Got sick of hearing that every time they were trying to praise the DeShields signing. C'mon people, supposed to be drafting ballplayers here, not breeding horses...

[jbm]

The only physical preference I see is the 6'4" ish pitcher.  They may have other preferences on positions players that I am unaware of, and I may be mistaken on this pitcher preference.  

To me, it seems that the pitcher physical profile embodies a preference for downhill throwers who I suspect they think will be durable. I also suspect they value the present ability of the 18 year old pitcher much less than what they think he will become.  Thus, the preference of using non top picks for pitchers.  I think it is way to early to conclude that this is a failed strategy.

What physical charateristics were you refering to anyway?

[moriartp]

The system definitely seems to have taken a step backward this year. Altuve and Martinez have been the real success stories, and neither one of them is a player the organization expected to succeed. Look at the guys taken in the top rounds in the '08-'10 drafts:

Castro: early returns were good before injury.
Lyles: rocketed through the system, looks pretty good.
Austin: I think the "bust" label is probably fair at this point.
Davidson: didn't sign in '08, but didn't perform in college and wound up as their 41st-rd pick in '11.
Seaton: hasn't lived up to the hype.
Mier: poor offensive performance in a repeat at Lexington, worse after promotion.
Bushue: unspectacular results in a repeat of A-ball.
Nash: looks the most promising of the top '09 picks, but still not a guy who gets a lot of buzz.
Meyer: has yet to demonstrate hitting ability.
DeShields: looking pretty terrible on both sides of the ball, by all accounts.
Foltynewicz: has turned it around after a rough start, but hasn't dominated.
Kvasnicka: too old for his level, modest numbers that are only getting worse.
Velasquez: looked promising before TJ, can't evaluate yet.
Wates: hitting well enough, but nothing eye-opening.

There's what, one player in this whole list who's exceeded expectations? Early returns on the '10 draft look pretty terrible, with '09 not far ahead. Zero Latin American signees have forced their way into the picture. Dumping $2.6 million on Ovando was an exciting move, and we'll have to wait and see how that turns out. Worst of all, even the picks on which they seem to have hit aren't all that exciting. I don't expect them to nab a superstar every year, and I understand that the majority of picks will bust. But the talent just isn't there. When Wade came aboard, he commented that one bad draft can set a club back three years. How many years have the Astros been set back since '08, then?

[Navin R Johnson]

I highly doubt either of them are here once the sale goes through.  That makes this season doubly frustrating as we are just stuck going nowhere right now. Once the sale is done I expect a near complete house cleaning. I think there is a really good chance either Friedman comes in or the Hun is back.  A new direction in just about every area would be a nice change.

Hopefully then they get back to really concentrating on loading up on pitching.   Look at the list above, 10 position guys and 5 pitchers.  Should be the opposite or at least a 50/50 split.  08, 09 & 10, there is Lyles and a bunch of ?s.  You would think in 3 drafts there would be more than 1 guy that has not only progressed further, but is showing real signs of being a legit prospect.

[jbm]

Castro: early returns were good before injury.
Lyles: rocketed through the system, looks pretty good.
Austin: I think the "bust" label is probably fair at this point.
Davidson: didn't sign in '08, but didn't perform in college and wound up as their 41st-rd pick in '11.
Seaton: hasn't lived up to the hype.
Mier: poor offensive performance in a repeat at Lexington, worse after promotion.
Bushue: unspectacular results in a repeat of A-ball.
Nash: looks the most promising of the top '09 picks, but still not a guy who gets a lot of buzz.
Meyer: has yet to demonstrate hitting ability.
DeShields: looking pretty terrible on both sides of the ball, by all accounts.
Foltynewicz: has turned it around after a rough start, but hasn't dominated.
Kvasnicka: too old for his level, modest numbers that are only getting worse.
Velasquez: looked promising before TJ, can't evaluate yet.
Wates: hitting well enough, but nothing eye-opening.

A few things.  I know it seems tired, but it's too early to conclude failure for some of these, and way too early for a lot of these. Also, the whole stats evaluation of these guys is so misleading.  I mean, I see no reason to be down on Deshields, Folty, Velasquez, or Wates.  Declaring that draft a bust is extremely premature. Most of their latin signees are 17 and 18 now.  Shit, if they aren't kicking ass now, they probably never will.

Basically, their philosophy is high school, high celing talent. Judging it by their stats as 19 year olds is pretty ridiculous.

Also, if we are wedded to stats, where is the credit for guys like Martinez, Wallace, Kuechel, Goebbert.

I also suspect Heck to be gone, I just don't see it as a plus, as I see no reason to conclude he is a failure.

[astrosfan76]

A few things.  I know it seems tired, but it's too early to conclude failure for some of these, and way too early for a lot of these. Also, the whole stats evaluation of these guys is so misleading.  I mean, I see no reason to be down on Deshields, Folty, Velasquez, or Wates.  Declaring that draft a bust is extremely premature. Most of their latin signees are 17 and 18 now.  Shit, if they aren't kicking ass now, they probably never will.

Basically, their philosophy is high school, high celing talent. Judging it by their stats as 19 year olds is pretty ridiculous.

Also, if we are wedded to stats, where is the credit for guys like Martinez, Wallace, Kuechel, Goebbert.

I also suspect Heck to be gone, I just don't see it as a plus, as I see no reason to conclude he is a failure.

Yep. 

[Hornstros]

Whenever Lyles got promoted this season, it left no blue chip prospects in the system.   It made me start thinking about how shitty the system was back in late May (the fact that JD Martinez was injured around this time didn't help anything) and more importantly the lack of improvement since Wade/Heck took over in late 2007.  The weird thing about it is that Heck has been praised in many circles for the job he has done.   Thinking back on it after the 2009 season, Heck was riding high.   the rotation at Lexington was highly touted with Lyles and Seaton leading the way.   Shuck, Steele, and Gaston were tearing up high A ball and looked like the outfield of the future.   And top picks in the most recent draft, Mier and Bushue, had impressive debuts at short season ball.  Top 2008 pick Jason Castro was flying through the system....

Since this time not a whole lot has gone right.  Many of the Wade/Heck top picks have not panned out thus far.  We don't really know what we have with Castro.  That rotation at Lexington has produced Lyles (and indirectly Matt Lindstrom).  All 3 members of the 2009 Lancaster OF have taken a step backward.  Mier and Bushue have been disappointing in full season ball.  And the top picks in the 2010 draft have not given much hope

the top prospects in the system (IMO) are Martinez, Altuve, Paredes, Nash, Villar, Foltynewicz not necessarily in that order and Wade/Heck have only signed/drafted half of them

[hostros7]

So, I hate being this guy because the following question I'm about to ask is pretty chickenshit second guessing, but I'm genuinely curious and assume there is a story: why Mier over Trout?  Obviously, 20+ other teams passed as well, but I've seen that pick referenced by several "draft experts" in the past as how Heck does things "his way."  Obviously, in that case it didn't work out.

Springer needs to pan out.  Missing on a college guy at the top of the first round is a kick in the junk.

[Uncle Charlie]

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't Heck also responsible for providing the names of prospects he would prefer in a trade of major leaguers for prospects?  In other words, wouldn't his job also cover the scouting of the Astros current closer, Paredes, Wallace?

[Navin R Johnson]

Obviously W/L records aren't the ultimate goal of your minor league organization, but none the less....

Standings:
OKC - Last place
Corpus - 2nd to last
Lancaster -Last place
Lexington - 2nd to last
Greenville - Last place
Tri Cities - Last place
GCL - Last place
DSL -Last place

[Jacksonian]

The system definitely seems to have taken a step backward this year. Altuve and Martinez have been the real success stories, and neither one of them is a player the organization expected to succeed. Look at the guys taken in the top rounds in the '08-'10 drafts:

Castro: early returns were good before injury.
Lyles: rocketed through the system, looks pretty good.
Austin: I think the "bust" label is probably fair at this point.
Davidson: didn't sign in '08, but didn't perform in college and wound up as their 41st-rd pick in '11.
Seaton: hasn't lived up to the hype.
Mier: poor offensive performance in a repeat at Lexington, worse after promotion.
Bushue: unspectacular results in a repeat of A-ball.
Nash: looks the most promising of the top '09 picks, but still not a guy who gets a lot of buzz.
Meyer: has yet to demonstrate hitting ability.
DeShields: looking pretty terrible on both sides of the ball, by all accounts.
Foltynewicz: has turned it around after a rough start, but hasn't dominated.
Kvasnicka: too old for his level, modest numbers that are only getting worse.
Velasquez: looked promising before TJ, can't evaluate yet.
Wates: hitting well enough, but nothing eye-opening.

There's what, one player in this whole list who's exceeded expectations? Early returns on the '10 draft look pretty terrible, with '09 not far ahead. Zero Latin American signees have forced their way into the picture. Dumping $2.6 million on Ovando was an exciting move, and we'll have to wait and see how that turns out. Worst of all, even the picks on which they seem to have hit aren't all that exciting. I don't expect them to nab a superstar every year, and I understand that the majority of picks will bust. But the talent just isn't there. When Wade came aboard, he commented that one bad draft can set a club back three years. How many years have the Astros been set back since '08, then?

This really isn't what I was getting at.  I'm not talking about the chances each individual prospect has at succeeding.  I am keenly aware of how that goes.  What I am talking about is at the levels I referenced (esp DSL, GCL, and Greeneville) the players in the Astros org are not playing at the same level as most of the other orgs.  All the players down there are essentially raw and developing.  So, at the end, the more talented win because no team is going to win there with highly polished players.  The polished players move beyond that too quickly.

Also when I talk about physicality I talking about all players.  Wade/Heck are focused on athletes.  They do not pay as much attention to ball players.  This is how a guy like Altuve slips through.  Relatedly, on Mier vs Trout, Mier has the more classic baseball athlete body.  Trout at the draft had the more football body.  Both were considered talented.  I have no problem with this individual pick.  My issue is that the overall body of work by Wade/Heck comes up short.

[jbm]

Fair enough, but what you are describing is that they are taking what they feel are higher upside players.  Probably riskier types  They will certainly miss with more of those than they would with profiling "ball players," resulting in lower level teams which will be rawer and thinner, and thus lack depth and probably lose more.

Your observation may be spot on, but I still think their strategy/philosophy can only be judged over a longer period of time, not by how well the lower clubs perform. 

[OregonStrosFan]

The fact that the Astros are carrying an 'extra team' in the lower levels of the system could have something to do with the RK/SS-A struggles as well, no?

[Jacksonian]

Fair enough, but what you are describing is that they are taking what they feel are higher upside players.  Probably riskier types  They will certainly miss with more of those than they would with profiling "ball players," resulting in lower level teams which will be rawer and thinner, and thus lack depth and probably lose more.

Your observation may be spot on, but I still think their strategy/philosophy can only be judged over a longer period of time, not by how well the lower clubs perform. 

That's just it.  Every team signs the players they think are the highest upside players.  They are all risky.  That's why they are all raw and essentially in the same developmental boat.  The difference on the field at this level is the talent not the development.  Talent wins there.

[Jacksonian]

The fact that the Astros are carrying an 'extra team' in the lower levels of the system could have something to do with the RK/SS-A struggles as well, no?

Greeneville, DSL, VSL to Greeneville, GCL, DSL.

[jbm]

That's just it.  Every team signs the players they think are the highest upside players.  They are all risky.  That's why they are all raw and essentially in the same developmental boat.  The difference on the field at this level is the talent not the development.  Talent wins there.

Do all teams really focus on the highest upside?  Seems like all teams face those decisions in early rounds, as the choices are pretty stark.  Some go for the predictable college starter with mid-rotation upside, others choose the high school power arm who can't find the plate, but if he eventually does, he is top of the rotation.

I assume the same considerations exist in the later rounds also: do we choose the relative certain talent with AA upside, or the less predictable guy with a higher upside, but a lower probability of making it past A ball?

[Reuben]

Do all teams really focus on the highest upside?  Seems like all teams face those decisions in early rounds, as the choices are pretty stark.  Some go for the predictable college starter with mid-rotation upside, others choose the high school power arm who can't find the plate, but if he eventually does, he is top of the rotation.

I assume the same considerations exist in the later rounds also: do we choose the relative certain talent with AA upside, or the less predictable guy with a higher upside, but a lower probability of making it past A ball?

Either way, it is troubling, and depressing, the losing at all levels of the system. The Tri-City championship team from 2010 was a stark exception, and even there they didn't have a great regular-season record, they got hot at the right time and squeaked into the playoffs, then beat a heavily-favored Brooklyn team to win it.

I do have hopes that the Lex club can put together a good 2nd half and at least manage a winning record, but that may be their only shot in the whole org.

[jbm]

I think you may be missing out on a much improved Hooks squad, which has way more promising talent than it did before Heck arrived. For that matter, way more promising talent than anyone might have foreseen at the start of the year.  I also watched some more of Folty and Alaniz today. Folty looked great to me, and Alaniz was just a notch behind  Just more evidence of the vast improvement since Heck started.

I'll stop, but I just don't share this view that the system is stagnating or bleak.

[Navin R Johnson]

Current W/L record for all Astros MILB teams combined, 198-279.

[Reuben]

I think you may be missing out on a much improved Hooks squad, which has way more promising talent than it did before Heck arrived. For that matter, way more promising talent than anyone might have foreseen at the start of the year.  I also watched some more of Folty and Alaniz today. Folty looked great to me, and Alaniz was just a notch behind  Just more evidence of the vast improvement since Heck started.

I'll stop, but I just don't share this view that the system is stagnating or bleak.

The talent at CC is exciting, no question. And I do think the system has improved vastly since Heck took over. But, that's not necessarily saying much. The question is the degree of improvement, relative to the improvement that other orgs have made to their systems during the same time period. The Astros aren't the only team that has renewed their emphasis on the draft, or on Latin American scouting/signing, in the last few years. And it is a fact that they still have not devoted the financial resources to it that other teams have, like the Pirates for example, who, while they've had an advantage with earlier 1st-round picks, they've also gone way over slot for lots of talent after the 1st round.

I'm curious where the Astros org would rank if you ranked the systems solely based on talent brought in from 2008-on. Very likely in the bottom half, maybe even the bottom 5, I have no idea. Damn. This thread is making me cynical, when really I'd been feeling pretty good about the farm, in general.

[astrosfan76]

The Astros aren't the only team that has renewed their emphasis on the draft, or on Latin American scouting/signing, in the last few years. And it is a fact that they still have not devoted the financial resources to it that other teams have, like the Pirates for example, who, while they've had an advantage with earlier 1st-round picks, they've also gone way over slot for lots of talent after the 1st round.

At the same time, though where does Drayton come into play?  I'm not going to go on a "Drayton is cheap" rant, but ultimately, is it Heck's fault if he isn't given the same budget as the Pirates?  Would they draft differently if they had an additional $5M to play with? 

[Navin R Johnson]

Ed got Drayton spend money on signings last year.  I believe the Astros were in the top 5-10 in overall money spent on signing bonuses when you add in international signings.  Now spending money on the actual team this year is another story, which is why the bullpen is full of a bunch of young guys.

[astrosfan76]

Ed got Drayton spend money on signings last year.  I believe the Astros were in the top 5-10 in overall money spent on signing bonuses when you add in international signings.  Now spending money on the actual team this year is another story, which is why the bullpen is full of a bunch of young guys.

He did pony up last year, but still not to the level of the Pirates or Nationals.  The gap grows even larger if you look even further back. 

Speaking of payroll, Heyman (take it for what it's worth) had this nugget:

word is, incoming #astros owner wants payroll cut to $60M, wandy, myers being shopped. heariing theyll keep pence tho

If that's $60M next season, with Lee still around, that is going to be some chopping.

http://twitter.com/#!/SI_JonHeyman/status/92624317468258304

[Navin R Johnson]

That doesn't make any sense. What would the point be of telling people you want the payroll at 60m?  Not buying it.

[chuck]

That doesn't make any sense. What would the point be of telling people you want the payroll at 60m?  Not buying it.

Not only am I buying it, I've bought it. The team will have an effective payroll of $40MM.

[Reuben]

Not only am I buying it, I've bought it. The team will have an effective payroll of $40MM.

It is a sad, sad day when we start believing that Jon Heyman knows shit about the Astros.

[Jacksonian]

The talent at CC is exciting, no question. And I do think the system has improved vastly since Heck took over. But, that's not necessarily saying much. The question is the degree of improvement, relative to the improvement that other orgs have made to their systems during the same time period. The Astros aren't the only team that has renewed their emphasis on the draft, or on Latin American scouting/signing, in the last few years. And it is a fact that they still have not devoted the financial resources to it that other teams have, like the Pirates for example, who, while they've had an advantage with earlier 1st-round picks, they've also gone way over slot for lots of talent after the 1st round.

I'm curious where the Astros org would rank if you ranked the systems solely based on talent brought in from 2008-on. Very likely in the bottom half, maybe even the bottom 5, I have no idea. Damn. This thread is making me cynical, when really I'd been feeling pretty good about the farm, in general.

I had been optimistic until I started taking a deep look at the talent in the org that Wade/Heck brought in.  There are some talented players but the depth of talent does not exist.

[Ron Brand]

Not only am I buying it, I've bought it. The team will have an effective payroll of $40MM.

Many have wanted to see this fucker stripped down to the studs and that might just happen. A total rebuild might not be a bad thing but they've got to find a way to push the Rangers back.

[jbm]

I'm curious where the Astros org would rank if you ranked the systems solely based on talent brought in from 2008-on. Very likely in the bottom half, maybe even the bottom 5, I have no idea. Damn. This thread is making me cynical, when really I'd been feeling pretty good about the farm, in general.

I'm curious how one begins to rank this.  What is the rank on 2011 class, are they bottom five in that also?  The idea that one can rank the 2010 class at this point is completely absurd.  The 2009 class just slightly less, not to mention the 2008 class which still might yield two starters (or more), whose ultimate value is still unknown.  Most of the latin guys from the 2008 class are 18 and 19. 

Looking at Neil Walker yesterday, I thought how some must have gone years tearing up the Pirates management for their lousy pick.  It is so naive to start trashing players two and three years into their career, much less one half of a season into their careers. 

I also flipped by the roster for the Missions, who are kicking ass on the Hooks.  I guess they have more future talent which will help their big league club, I mean, their record is much better. 

[chuck]

Many have wanted to see this fucker stripped down to the studs and that might just happen. A total rebuild might not be a bad thing but they've got to find a way to push the Rangers back.

I'm not looking forward to being the league's doormat for three or four years but, honestly, why keep Wandy around when his contract will end before the team's any good again? A total rebuild seems like the only option, but I'm with Jacksonian in wishing that the team's drafting - a crucial component in a re-build - were showing better results.

[MusicMan]

It is a sad, sad day when we start believing that Jon Heyman knows shit about the Astros.

The Astros are a subcategory of "anything".  It's sad when we start believing that Jon Heyman knows shit about anything.

[astrosfan76]

That doesn't make any sense. What would the point be of telling people you want the payroll at 60m?  Not buying it.

I don't think he's saying that Crane's been shouting that number while riding on the back of Junction Jack.  But, word does leak sometimes.  Sometimes it's misinformation, sometimes there's truth.  Crane has let it be known that he wants to have a streamline operation.  He wants to avoid adding players through free agency.  That doesn't imply a direct number, but does imply that he doesn't want to spend too much on too few players.  Heyman may be full of crap, but it is possible that Crane has already determined he wants to slash another $10M off the payroll and someone let it leak.

[MusicMan]

Crane has let it be known that he wants to have a streamline operation.  He wants to avoid adding players through free agency.

No, he's said he wants to avoid *building* through free agency.

[Jacksonian]

I guess they have more future talent which will help their big league club, I mean, their record is much better. 

Tsk. Tsk.  I specifically referenced only the lowest levels.  The upper levels are a different animal.

[Jacksonian]

but I'm with Jacksonian in wishing that the team's drafting - a crucial component in a re-build - were showing better results.

This isn't quite what I am saying.  At the lowest levels, draft, trade, and esp in international signings, the Astros simply have not brought in the depth of talent that a number of other teams have over the last several years.

[Reuben]

I'm curious how one begins to rank this.  What is the rank on 2011 class, are they bottom five in that also?  The idea that one can rank the 2010 class at this point is completely absurd.  The 2009 class just slightly less, not to mention the 2008 class which still might yield two starters (or more), whose ultimate value is still unknown.  Most of the latin guys from the 2008 class are 18 and 19. 

Looking at Neil Walker yesterday, I thought how some must have gone years tearing up the Pirates management for their lousy pick.  It is so naive to start trashing players two and three years into their career, much less one half of a season into their careers. 

I also flipped by the roster for the Missions, who are kicking ass on the Hooks.  I guess they have more future talent which will help their big league club, I mean, their record is much better. 

Come on. I'm not saying none of those players will ever pan out, or none will resurrect their careers after a sluggish start, or anything like that. There's always going to be players ala JD Martinez from the lower rounds of the draft who end up surprising, so of course we can't pronounce a final "grade" on the 2008, 9, 10, or '11 classes. But by that same logic, we can't yet pronounce a grade on the 2005 draft, because hey, Bogusevic could be a late bloomer, he could turn into the next Jay Bruce or something.

There are many guys in the system that I really like and am excited about, but like Jacksonian said, there seems to be a real lack of depth, and I would add, an apparent lack of superstar-caliber talent.

[jbm]

Tsk. Tsk.  I specifically referenced only the lowest levels.  The upper levels are a different animal.

My swipe was at the "records of all affiliates" post, but still, is there evidence of a correlation between the records of a GCL or DSL team and the eventual talent they bring to the majors?

Again, you know this better than I do, and you must have a better feel than I do, but I still wonder how one can predict the eventual talent of those who populate the DSL, GCL, or the APPY league.  

[jbm]

Come on. I'm not saying none of those players will ever pan out, or none will resurrect their careers after a sluggish start, or anything like that. There's always going to be players ala JD Martinez from the lower rounds of the draft who end up surprising, so of course we can't pronounce a final "grade" on the 2008, 9, 10, or '11 classes. But by that same logic, we can't yet pronounce a grade on the 2005 draft, because hey, Bogusevic could be a late bloomer, he could turn into the next Jay Bruce or something.

There are many guys in the system that I really like and am excited about, but like Jacksonian said, there seems to be a real lack of depth, and I would add, an apparent lack of superstar-caliber talent.

My logic is that 2010 is way, way out of focus, and 2009 and 2008 aren't much clearer.  Take 2008 for example, if Castro is a major league regular for 6 years and Lyles turns into a frontline starter, is that a successful draft?  What if Seaton blossoms also?  What if one, or two, or three of the 19 year latin kids pans out?  The fact is that none of us know the answers to those questions and since we don't know, why would we answer with a resounding "no."

Same issue with superstar talent.  Do you really know that no one from those drafts (or latin signings) will be a superstar? 

[Jacksonian]

My swipe was at the "records of all affiliates" post, but still, is there evidence of a correlation between the records of a GCL or DSL team and the eventual talent they bring to the majors?

Again, you know this better than I do, and you must have a better feel than I do, but I still wonder how one can predict the eventual talent of those who populate the DSL, GCL, or the APPY league.  

That's not exactly it.  Keep in mind that raw talent is not developed talent.  What I am talking about is that the more naturally talented players you have the more likely you'll have one that gets to the show.  There's a lack of depth of raw talent which means there's a smaller pool of top talent to develop than many other teams have.  There is evidence in the won-loss record, but my analysis (which I did not further explain) goes beyond that.

I did not get into development of the talent which is a messy thing at those lower levels.  And I am the first to admit that the most naturally talent player may never make it without proper development.  The opposite is true as guys like Martinez exist.

[Travis]

That's not exactly it.  Keep in mind that raw talent is not developed talent.  What I am talking about is that the more naturally talented players you have the more likely you'll have one that gets to the show.  There's a lack of depth of raw talent which means there's a smaller pool of top talent to develop than many other teams have.  There is evidence in the won-loss record, but my analysis (which I did not further explain) goes beyond that.

I did not get into development of the talent which is a messy thing at those lower levels.  And I am the first to admit that the most naturally talent player may never make it without proper development.  The opposite is true as guys like Martinez exist.

Do you mind explaining your analysis of the lower levels?

[pots]

Have you compared the draft classes with other team's draft classes?  I'd be curious to know how well they match up.  It's not like they had top 5 picks.  So given teams with similar picks, how do they stack up?

[Reuben]

My logic is that 2010 is way, way out of focus, and 2009 and 2008 aren't much clearer.  Take 2008 for example, if Castro is a major league regular for 6 years and Lyles turns into a frontline starter, is that a successful draft?  What if Seaton blossoms also?  What if one, or two, or three of the 19 year latin kids pans out?  The fact is that none of us know the answers to those questions and since we don't know, why would we answer with a resounding "no."

Same issue with superstar talent.  Do you really know that no one from those drafts (or latin signings) will be a superstar? 

I'm not talking about hits and misses.  I'm talking about (as Jacksonian is) a depth of raw talent.

If Lyles or Castro develop into a star, it'll mean the Astros got lucky, because the attrition rate for prospects is high. If Altuve or Martinez becomes a star, it'll mean the Astros got really lucky, because by all accounts those are guys that were brought in more as organizational players. The Dodgers got lucky on Mike Piazza. The Astros got lucky on Roy Oswalt. Those things happen. All teams need some luck on their side in the draft, because very few players pan out. But the greater core of raw talent you bring in, the better your chances.

As to the superstar comment, of course you never know (see Piazza), but looking at who's in the system right now, does anyone stand out to you as having superstar potential?

[pots]

I'm not talking about hits and misses.  I'm talking about (as Jacksonian is) a depth of raw talent.

If Lyles or Castro develop into a star, it'll mean the Astros got lucky, because the attrition rate for prospects is high. If Altuve or Martinez becomes a star, it'll mean the Astros got really lucky, because by all accounts those are guys that were brought in more as organizational players. The Dodgers got lucky on Mike Piazza. The Astros got lucky on Roy Oswalt. Those things happen. All teams need some luck on their side in the draft, because very few players pan out. But the greater core of raw talent you bring in, the better your chances.

As to the superstar comment, of course you never know (see Piazza), but looking at who's in the system right now, does anyone stand out to you as having superstar potential?

Just asking, because I don't know.  How many players from 2007 earlier make up the average farm system today? (percentage wise, at each level) 

[jbm]

I'm not talking about hits and misses.  I'm talking about (as Jacksonian is) a depth of raw talent.

If Lyles or Castro develop into a star, it'll mean the Astros got lucky, because the attrition rate for prospects is high. If Altuve or Martinez becomes a star, it'll mean the Astros got really lucky, because by all accounts those are guys that were brought in more as organizational players. The Dodgers got lucky on Mike Piazza. The Astros got lucky on Roy Oswalt. Those things happen. All teams need some luck on their side in the draft, because very few players pan out. But the greater core of raw talent you bring in, the better your chances.

As to the superstar comment, of course you never know (see Piazza), but looking at who's in the system right now, does anyone stand out to you as having superstar potential?

It is all about hits and misses.  If you hit frequently enough, it doesn't matter if all of your other picks are terrible.  

I personally don't suscribe to the idea that there is some subset list of prospects, from which some will "miss" and some will emerge, and it is therefore beneficial to have a bigger list.  Every year, every team has a similar list; it is those players they signed one way or another.  There is no subset.  In other words, for each year, when you look back from a reasonable distance, the entire pool you signed were your "prospects" for that year, not some list by BP or BA.  

If Castro or Lyles become just a useful everyday player, it is not that the Astros got lucky, it is that they did a good job.  If it turns out that they get little from these years, they will have done poorly.  The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding hasn't even been served.

As to superstars, I don't know.  Having solid players is a more achievable aim and I assume the Astros feel they have lots of players who fit that mold, otherwise they would not have signed them.

[Mr. Happy]

I'm convinced. Run them all off and start over with a new GM.

[chuck]

I'm convinced. Run them all off and start over with a new GM.

And then let's file a class action suit citing emotional stress seeking punative damages.

[Mr. Happy]

And then let's file a class action suit citing emotional stress seeking punative damages.

SFN

[Navin R Johnson]

I'm convinced. Run them all off and start over with a new GM.

Does anyone think this is not going to happen? 

[Ron Brand]

Does anyone think this is not going to happen? 

Anyone talk to Lisa Gray lately?

[austro]

Anyone talk to Lisa Gray lately?

What does she have to do with thinking?

[Navin R Johnson]

Who is Lisa Gray?

[Mr. Happy]

Does anyone think this is not going to happen? 

I fully expect that to happen. What I am saying is that there is a substantial case for firing them all and such would not be simply a decision to go with your own people.

[austro]

Who is Lisa Gray?

A six-sigma outlier on the distribution curve of blogger talent. On the wrong end of the curve.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

A six-sigma outlier on the distribution curve of blogger talent. On the wrong end of the curve.

You do realize the target audience for this joke is small, right?  Sadly... I'm in that audience... damnit.

[EasTexAstro]

You do realize the target audience for this joke is small, right?  Sadly... I'm in that audience... damnit.

I barely understand the reference, so that probably means I resemble that remark.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

I barely understand the reference, so that probably means I resemble that remark.

Maybe... but you aren't missing much.  And by no means is it a 3% thing, at least not in my experience (eta: or as it relates to me...).  

[Andyzipp]

You do realize the target audience for this joke is small, right?  Sadly... I'm in that audience... damnit.

+1

[OregonStrosFan]

Per Heyman, so take it for what it is worth... LINK


Before making [the recent deadline deal trades], Astros ownership hired an independent scout to evaluate their entire minor league system. The scout identified fewer than five players who should even play in the major leagues.

Immediately after that bullet point was the following:

[In defense of Wade's trade with PHI] one scout sent an email titled, "In defense of Ed Wade's integrity.'' ... [R]egarding the Hunter Pence trade [1B] Jonathan Singleton "has a chance to be a monster,'' and went on to say, "he's extremely athletic for a player with such a naturally intimidating physique,'' and "I would put him on the short list of power-hitting prospects.'' The scout compared Jarred Cosart's "big arm'' to those of Daniel Bard and Brandon League and further opined that Josh Zeid "will be a useful relief piece relatively shortly.''

[Navin R Johnson]

That sounds more like an indictment on Bobby Heck than Wade.  I wonder if their report included, Paerdes, Altuve and JD?  And I would be interested in knowing who his 5 are.

[MusicMan]

That sounds more like an indictment on Bobby Heck than Wade.

I agree.  The drafts have been hugely disappointing.  I understand the major league team getting to this point, that was almost inevitable.  But the minors, pre-trades, were not dramatically improved.

[jbm]

Wow, this guy should be drafting for his own team with such clairvoyance.  "You, you will be in the major leagues one day.  You...not a chance."  Drayton, I count five.

He said ownership hired this scout.  I assume we are talking Drayton. 

[jbm]

I agree.  The drafts have been hugely disappointing.  I understand the major league team getting to this point, that was almost inevitable.  But the minors, pre-trades, were not dramatically improved.

Really, Corpus was just as full of help the day before wade arrived?

[MusicMan]

Really, Corpus was just as full of help the day before wade arrived?

Let's see, we've called up:

Altuve - undrafted FA, deemed unlikely to contribute within the organization.
Martinez - 20th round pick, deemed unlikely to contribute within the organization.
Paredes - acquired via trade
Carpenter - acquired via trade
Bogusevic - pre-Heck draft flop
Durango - claimed via waivers
Lyles - supplemental pick!  Winner!

So, no, Corpus isn't full of a lot of help that Heck has drafted.

[jbm]

Prior to Heck, what was there?

And Heck and the scouts get no credit for their evaluation of talent in trades, waiver claims, rule V?  Drafting is the only way to acquire talent?  What about Lyles or Castro, do they count.

As I've said before, it is way too early to evaluate Wade/Heck and it is a fucking joke for some independent scout to say that there are five players who should even play in the major leagues.  The whole idea that even the most knowledgable and astute person could make that claim is a joke.  Anyone who uses it as an indictment against Wade/Heck is either very naive or will accept any information which supports their preconception.  Really, just contemplate it, how would anyone fucking know that. 

Maybe it was some jackass stat geek looking up each player's record on BR and divining the future.  BB per nine, K per nine, BABIB, BABIB, regression, luck.  Oh, he's gone.  Look how many Ks in A ball, might be the next Pedro.  I'd love the guy if the GB/FB ratio was different. 

Jackasses poring over stat lines, acting like they have real insights.  That seems to be what prospect analysis is these days.

[Reuben]

The scout identified fewer than five players who should even play in the major leagues.[/i]

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what this even means. "Should" "play" in the big leagues? The scout must mean "Should be regulars", right? Lots and lots of guys in every team's system currently will play in MLB at some point. They might just be back-end relievers (think Del Rosario), or 5th OF types (Durango, Bogusevic), or stopgap infielders (Sanchez, Maysonet), but I guarantee more than five (as opposed to "less than five") guys who were in the org prior to the deadline trades will play in the big leagues. As to "should" they? I dunno- if your team has a backup utility IF get injured, SHOULD you call up someone who can fill that role? What a stupid statement.

[Navin R Johnson]

Let's see, we've called up:

Altuve - undrafted FA, deemed unlikely to contribute within the organization.
Martinez - 20th round pick, deemed unlikely to contribute within the organization.
Paredes - acquired via trade
Carpenter - acquired via trade
Bogusevic - pre-Heck draft flop
Durango - claimed via waivers
Lyles - supplemental pick!  Winner!

So, no, Corpus isn't full of a lot of help that Heck has drafted.

You should add Castro.

[Jacksonian]

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what this even means. "Should" "play" in the big leagues? The scout must mean "Should be regulars", right? Lots and lots of guys in every team's system currently will play in MLB at some point. They might just be back-end relievers (think Del Rosario), or 5th OF types (Durango, Bogusevic), or stopgap infielders (Sanchez, Maysonet), but I guarantee more than five (as opposed to "less than five") guys who were in the org prior to the deadline trades will play in the big leagues. As to "should" they? I dunno- if your team has a backup utility IF get injured, SHOULD you call up someone who can fill that role? What a stupid statement.

I think the idea was everyday players and starting pitchers.

[MusicMan]

You should add Castro.

Fair enough.  Two first rounders have made it.

[jbm]

Fair enough.  Two first rounders have made it.

And you were expecting how many by now?

[roadrunner]

Why is it so hard to believe this independent scout?  Look at the results.  Losing records at every level, historically bad big league team, the best prospects were literally acquired less than a week ago.

And all of those 5th OF, stop gap relievers, etc. named in that post above all play for the worst team in baseball.  So in reality maybe they are considered players that should not be major league players.

[MusicMan]

And you were expecting how many by now?

Out of four years of drafting?  I'd expect more that could help.

[MusicMan]

Why is it so hard to believe this independent scout?

Other than the fact that we should discount everything Heyman "reports", jbm has told us this is actually some stat geek who didn't even look at the players.

[jbm]

Why is it so hard to believe this independent scout? 

Like I said above, if you believe anyone who says they no know many players, in any organization at any moment of time, will eventually be major league regulars or backups, then I think you are being naive. 

I have no idea if it was a stat geek.  I just said that because I find it hard to believe anyone in the scouting profession actually believes they can make an equivocal statement like that as they know the unpredictable nature of their profession.  I can certainly believe that an independent scout would tell Drayton "Hey Drayton, Bobby is a fucking idiot, can his ass" but I doubt they would quantify the number of future major leaguers.  I can also believe there are independent scouts out there who would say "Hey Drayton, Bobby knows his shit, keep him."

[jbm]

Out of four years of drafting?  I'd expect more that could help.

You expect someone from the 11 draft to be on the big league club by now? or the high school guys drafted in 09 and 10?

[MusicMan]

Like I said above, if you believe anyone who says they no know many players, in any organization at any moment of time, will eventually be major league regulars or backups, then I think you are being naive. 

The biggest part of a scout's JOB is to say "this guy will make it" or "this guy won't".

It's guesswork, but it's EXACTLY what they're paid to do.

[Hornstros]

This all can't help but make me think of Bob McNair hiring Dan Reeves as a consultant for the Texans back in '05 and Reeves determining that David Carr was not the problem with the Texans

[Lurch]

So this scout said there were five... how many should an organization have?  8? 20? ... 5?

[Uncle Charlie]

Here is a study done on position players: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/sports/baseball/15careers.html

From a math perspective, the study says a major league position player lasts 5.6 years.  If that is true, and you assume a 13 man team of position players, you will need to introduce 2.3 players per year.  Assuming 6 levels (Rk, A-, A, A+, AA, AAA), you would have to assume that an organization should have 14 position players in their minor leagues who can play in the majors.

However, the implication of the comment above is that these are starters in the MLB, not just players.  Of course, if only starts are considered, its easy to asume that the 5.6 years/career number goes up considerably (high rookie attrition rate).  The study says a player that lasts 3 years, will last another 6, totaling 9.  Since we know there are guys like J-Mike, who last longer than 3, but aren't starters, lets round that 9 up to 10 for the math.  So if there are 8 position starters on the team and they last 10 years, you need 0.8 position players per year introduced.  With the 6 levels, you would need 5 position players.

So, for the position side you should find in a typcial organization 14 players who will make the majors and 5 who will be starters.

The pitching side is a crap shoot.  I would guess the attrition rate is 2 or 3x higher due to injuries, but you need less starters (5 versus .  So maybe they need 10-15 MLB quality starters in the minors?

[Mike S.]

I'm not happy with the job Wade and Heck have done.  3 years on and the levels of the minors where only the talent they hired resides is awful.  DSL, GCL, Greeneville, and Lexington all lack talent.  All of them have drafted, FA, and international talent most if not all signed by Wade/Heck.  Lancaster is near there too.

Wade is obviously no longer around.  With the recent flurry of trades and the subsequent acquisition of minor league talent, however, it feels like a good time to revisit this subject.  Rereading this thread, one of the prevalent themes is the lack of organizational depth, which is something Luhnow addressed several times, openly, with respect to the players he brought into the fold. 

I have no idea whether the Astros are done trading.  I'm really keen, though, to hear other's thoughts on where the system stands now as opposed to a year ago.  To my eye, it certainly seems to be far better.  Yet, I'm also wondering whether the system is in a position to produce MLB level talent or whether the players acquired represent the proverbial flinging everything onto the wall and seeing what sticks.

[chuck]

Not only am I buying it, I've bought it. The team will have an effective payroll of $40MM.

So it turns out that uncharacteristically I was wrong. It's about half that.

[jbm]

You were wrong, this payroll isn't effective at all.

A couple of thoughts on the question:

The depth was improved before this year's draft and this flurry of trades.  Just look at the records of the clubs before those two events.  However, the draft and the trades certainly improved the depth, no doubt.  I suspect the draft might produce some stars or some solid major leaguers, and I hope the trades produce a few solid players also. 

As to the trades themselves, I guess it all comes down to whether these trades make the club better at their target date for decency.  In order to do that, these trades have to produce players above replacement; otherwise, they could have just added that type player once they got there.  Obviously, the sacrifice for that improvement is some amount of present and near future wins.  The fan base appears conflicted on the importance of those.

[roadrunner]

I think a big part of these trades for depth is to keep the winning atmosphere alive in the minors.  Obviously the guys down there are going to start pushing up to the majors to help Houston, so being able to replace them with the new "prospects" is probably a lot more advantageous than replacing them with crap.

I also think that "winning atmosphere" is a part of what has kept Wallace and to an extent Paredes in OKC.  The big league team isn't exactly enjoying a winning atmosphere right now.

[astrosfan76]

A trend that I've noticed is that Luhnow likes to pick up guys who were former high-round picks.  This goes back to his moves over the winter and obviously has continued this summer with guys like Asher, Borchering, and Dominguez.  Even if their star has dimmed, those are the guys he targets, hoping that they can show the promise that had scouts (himself included?) high on them in the first place.  If they develop into stars, or even regulars, great; if they just become interchangeable parts at the AAA/AAAA/MLB level, that's okay, also.  Within the next year or so, he'll have plenty of cheap options to fill in the gaps. Hopefully, guys like Singleton and Cosart and, a little further down the road, Springer and Santana, can fill in more prominent roles.  Free agency will provide some options, as well.  Not cornerstone guys, but I expect at least one starter/SP on next year's club to be purchased.

[jbm]

Interesting point.  He has mentioned some of that when he is selling these trades to the public.  The fact that players were once highly thought of seems completely irrelevant to me, but there may be some logic to it. 

An analogy is stocks.  There is a price and it changes over time.  I personally don't see anything in the fact that a stock was once highly valued.  Old data and old perceptions, IMO.  However, Luhnow and his guys are into numbers and analysis, so it doesn't surprise me that theories like this hold some sway with them.

[astrosfan76]

Interesting point.  He has mentioned some of that when he is selling these trades to the public.  The fact that players were once highly thought of seems completely irrelevant to me, but there may be some logic to it. 

An analogy is stocks.  There is a price and it changes over time.  I personally don't see anything in the fact that a stock was once highly valued.  Old data and old perceptions, IMO.  However, Luhnow and his guys are into numbers and analysis, so it doesn't surprise me that theories like this hold some sway with them.

That is analogous to a degree, but there is a lot more to scouting than outside access to information, etc.  There is access to older information, but they have current first-hand information, as well.  They're not going to sign Matt Bush just because he was a first-rounder, in other words.  They'll still make evaluations based on upside, likelihood of different outcomes, changes they think they can make to the player to maximize the player's ability, etc.  It's probably easier to rebound a career than it is to rebound a stock, dependent on the field. 

I think there is a level of throwing crap and seeing what sticks, but, similar to Heck's mantra on pitcher sizes, if Luhnow misses, he wants to miss big.

[jbm]

We will never know, but I wonder how many of the recent acquisitions were driven by scouting information, or driven by quantitative analysis.  I remember reading recently where Luhnow indicated that they feel there are statistical tells (my words) that indicate a greater likelihood of future success.  I might have also read (or just made it up in my mind) that that type of analysis drove some of the picks in the draft.

In other words, much like the draft, I suspect that the scouts got to pick a few, and the decision scientists got to pick a few based on some esoteric stats or theories based on their past perceived ceiling.  I'd be real surprised if much more than lip service towards scouts was paid on some of those picks.

btw, this is not to be critical, I just think this is something Luhnow believes in, and he may be right. 

[OregonStrosFan]

I think there is a level of throwing crap and seeing what sticks...

IMO, Luhnow has said as much recently (without the term 'crap' of course)... My interpretation---> "All of the players we've received won't be stars, but you accumulate enough players who have been projected (with some sort of legitimate basis) as potential stars the odds are that a few of them might actually develop into their potential as stars." [/OSFInterpretationOfRecentLuhnowComments]

[OregonStrosFan]

Not only am I buying it, I've bought it. The team will have an effective payroll of $40MM.

So it turns out that uncharacteristically I was wrong. It's about half that.

Its not so much that your initial payroll estimate was wrong (may or may not be), rather your categorization of it as "effective". Just sayin'...

[Mike S.]

There are two things that jump out at me.  First, several of these formerly highly rated prospects are still young.  I have to believe that Luhnow still feels there's enough time to turn around their careers, to turn them into MLB starters or something decent at the MLB level.  That aside, were these trades driven by a belief that Houston's minor league organization lacks depth, or that because he's in the process of overhauling the Astros this is the right time to completely rebuild the system?

[juliogotay]

There are two things that jump out at me.  First, several of these formerly highly rated prospects are still young.  I have to believe that Luhnow still feels there's enough time to turn around their careers, to turn them into MLB starters or something decent at the MLB level.  That aside, were these trades driven by a belief that Houston's minor league organization lacks depth, or that because he's in the process of overhauling the Astros this is the right time to completely rebuild the system?

Yes and yes.