So I will play devil's advocate because that is what I am "supposed" to do
While Stephen Strasburg has been incredibly dominant and has unquestionable stuff, we have not seen him do this at the Major League level. We have not seen him stand up to the scrutiny of the press. We have not seen him be in the locker room with 24 guys older than he, many of whom will not make as much money in their career as he has already made. We have not seen how he reacts to less success than he is used to. We don't know how the tolls of traveling will impact his stamina.
There is the "party line" from me and my fellow number crunching pundits.
But like my forum signature says, there is no ALWAYS or NEVER.
Most everyone has a tolerance level or a balance between risk and reward.
I can go into "Professor" mode (blast from the past for the long-time MB readers) and say something like "my style is for every one prospect that hits the ground running, there are 19 that fail. I am more than willing to NEVER pick up a prospect, comfortable in missing out on the one guy knowing I was not hurt with the other 19.
But is that REALLY the case? Or is it that even I have a limit for that 1 guy?
That is, am I not raving about Strasburg to make a point, hoping to somehow validate my analytical style? I mean, if he happens to struggle, I could have T-shirts made up with Strasburg on one side and I TOLD YOU SO on the other. With the Mastersball logo on there as well
Honestly? if asked do I THINK Strasburg will succeed, the answer is yes. It is obviously speculation, just like what everyone else is doing, but yes, from all the intelligence I can gather, my vote is yes.
But from a practical standpoint, I guarantee someone else will be more willing to be "that guy".
So I guess what this means is that while I will not have the privilege of enjoying any success he has on my fantasy teams, I am also not going to "make a point" and suggest "that guy" who has the risk tolerance to take the chance is "making a mistake".