Drew Hunter: 13:56 today

Videos of the race are available here: www.pausatf.org

Jimmy The Macedonian wrote:

GOBBLE GOBBLE MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!

I'm a homeless person. I have nothing to eat or gobble. I don't even own this computer I'm typing on, I just found it.

Ivy Leagah wrote:

Oh, please. The fellow who won NYC is not 20 years old - I can guarantee you that much.

I've spoken with a junior world champ who told me to my face that he was 25 at the time of his win.

Hahaha No you haven't. If you actually did you'd include his name. But hey, keep trolling and see how many people you can get to believe you!

Fidel's last words:

"Drew Hunter... su forma... ¡No es Alberto Juantorena!

¡Ugggggggggggggggggggggggg!

I bet Ingebrigtsens are all on the same "medicine". Filip Suddenly improved dramatically after he found the right "medicine" for his "health problems", as well as Henrink for his "lung problems". All Norwegian endurance athletes should be banned.

Lets look at how baseball works with young talent... Does anyone really think that every single 17 year old who has a rocket for an arm will automatically turn into the next Roger Clemens? No! Teams know that there's about a 5-10% chance that such a talent will eventually become an all-star level starting pitcher but that's the gamble they have to play. They pay 1-3 million signing bonuses for someone who "projects" to be great, but they won't really know for 5-7 years. Once signed, these 17-18 year olds are technically professional baseball players but are they ready to take on major league hitting? Of course not! They need to develop!

So, with so much risk, what's in it for the baseball team (or Adidas, in the case of Drew Hunter)? If (and that's a sizable if) they do turn into great players (or runner) that 2 million dollar signing bonus (or 10 year contract) is chump change compared to what he'll be worth as a dominant starting pitcher (or becomes the next great American distance runner).

TL;DR

(1) There's high risk in signing someone that young/early but also potential for very high reward.

(2) Talent development is a long-term approach.

(3) Just because you're a "professional" does not automatically mean you have to be world class the instant the ink dries on your contract.

Excellent points, Opiate for the Masses. Your perspective on developing a young pitcher, and the gamble involved, and the time potentially involved until there is a return on the investment, directly correlates to Drew Hunter. DIRECTLY. But such a measured analysis won't convince most of the demanding public. If there was a minor league for Drew, he'd be able to develop quietly. Not gonna happen because of message boards and ridiculous, uninformed, and unrealistic expectations by those, mostly anonymous, who post here.

I believe the minor league, for better or worse, is the NCAA, just as it is for football. That's unfortunately not an option for Hunter, but I'm sure he'll be fine. I was watching the Silicon Valley 5k video that flotrack shared and I noticed that 1. Morgan Pearson has pretty ragged form and is doing just fine and 2. Hunter's form seemed much better from the snippets I saw. It certainly looks like he's working on it.

The NCAA is ONE of the minor leagues...except that the minors in baseball are PRO leagues, unlike the NCAAs (in theory). There's more than one way to develop talent, and that applies to all endeavors. You can go to a community college, not Stanford, and still end up with a PhD on your resume. In fact, you can be a high school dropout and then become a millionaire CEO. You can be a pro runner at 18 and still climb the ladder of success. Those who think that success in running only comes from one narrow avenue of approach -- following the "puppet on a string" route in Div I of a major university -- are kidding themselves. Drew Hunter is breaking new ground as the first HS distance runner to go pro. Just because it wasn't done before doesn't mean the outcome is predetermined! To Drew I say: "Go, Cat, Go...but don't you step on my blue suede adidas."