I understand. I just think he was decent here in 1990 and decent in Houston in 1991, I'm not sure why he wasn't more highly regarded by both teams. I agree he wasn't an obvious HoFer until his late 20s.
I think Finley was great. An OF of Brady, Devo and Finley in the 90s would have been borderline elite defensively. But he, too, really didn't kick into gear until his late 20s and early 30s. And while I don't think he was ever named in the Mitchell report, it wouldn't have surprised me if he was using.
Glenn Davis was very good, probably tied with Will Clark and Jack Clark as the preeminent slugging first baseman in the NL in the late 80s.
I don't think Schilling is a deranged lunatic. He has some unpopular opinions that he does a poor job of expressing. IMO, a deranged lunatic is someone who's dangerous to himself and others in society, I don't see Schilling being that guy.
That said, I'd gladly have whatever "stain" Schilling has over Davis. I'd take 26 Ty Cobbs (cue @DrungoHazewood "He wasn't that bad of a guy! The Al Stump book was lies!") on this team if it meant we would win.
No but it was short lived. He didn’t really become the obvious HOF pitcher (it’s absurd he isn’t in) until his late 20s.
Finley was good but you don’t regret losing him or Harnisch.
And let’s not forget, Glenn Davis was really good for several years before we got him.
I voted Glenn, but honestly didn't think through SG's point of likely failed development. I still think its Glenn though. We could have been a much different team heading into the mid 90s. The Chris Davis contract shouldn't be as big of a deal as it is. In modern MLB, you've got to be able to mitigate or fix these mistakes, and be willing to eat all/some of the costs.
While the contract itself was a disaster and a waste (I think most said that at the time), the team should have moved on in any direction at this point but we are a cheap, poorly run franchise who values staying afloat rather than building a competitive team.
I'm not sure I agree here. They developed Mussina just fine, but he was pretty polished coming out of Stanford. Gregg Olson was a high pick that was fantastic. Ben McDonald didn't turn out to be the guy anyone thought he would be, but he was still effective. Harnisch had improved from 1989 to 1990.
I don't think Schilling was regarded in that class of those first three guys. I don't know if they would have developed Schilling to what he became but I think he'd have had a chance to become good here. He was good in 1990, albeit in a small sample size.
Not second guessing. I said at the time that keeping Cruz should have been a no brainer. He was during his career, an RBI machine with a decent BA. A guy like that you have to keep until he shows real evidence of losing it. He did not show that when they let him go.