Rajisch to focus on 12 players

[Sports Guy]

Orioles scouting dir. Gary Rajsich said he'll compile a list of 12 players to heavily scout as O's begin to focus on No. 4 pick in June

I assume this means for their first round pick?

[Can_of_corn]

I assume this means for their first round pick?

I would certainly hope so.

[Hooded Viper]

If not he should be fired immediately and not allowed to take part!

[Stotle]

Yes -- 1st Rd. We will be starting up a weekly piece at Camden Depot that updates readers on our high follows for the O's 1-4 pick. Right now my list is 15 deep for 1-4 consideration, and I think that is what we'll move forward with:

College arms
Appel (rhp)
Gausman (rhp)
Zimmer (rhp)

College bats
Morrero (ss)
Zunino (c)

HS arms
Fried (lhp)
Giolito (rhp)
Smoral (lhp)
Weickel (rhp)

HS bats
Almora (of)
Buxton (of)
Cecchini (ss)
Correa (ss)
Dahl (of)
Trahan (c)

I've seen all of these kids multiple times so far, and will be seeing about half of them in the coming month, as well.

[Br10n]

Stole, can you *slot these guys into 3 groups based on where they are today as prospects? Group 1... *Elite prospect not likely to get to us at 4. *Group 2... The prospects with the talent to be taken with the 4th pick. *Group 3... Guys to keep an eye on between now and June but today are not worth a *pick that high. *This would be based on talent and not finical consideration.

[tilgaham]

Yes -- 1st Rd. We will be starting up a weekly piece at Camden Depot that updates readers on our high follows for the O's 1-4 pick. Right now my list is 15 deep for 1-4 consideration, and I think that is what we'll move forward with:

College arms
Appel (rhp)
Gausman (rhp)
Zimmer (rhp)

College bats
Morrero (ss)
Zunino (c)

HS arms
Fried (lhp)
Giolito (rhp)
Smoral (lhp)
Weickel (rhp)

HS bats
Almora (of)
Buxton (of)
Cecchini (ss)
Correa (ss)
Dahl (of)
Trahan (c)

I've seen all of these kids multiple times so far, and will be seeing about half of them in the coming month, as well.

I can say from watching Appel pitch against Rice that he is absolutely filthy. He struck out 14 when we played them, and had good movement on his fastball, which is encouraging [although it wasn't so great to watch as the visitor]. Stood in contrast to Kubitza, who has been off all season.

[eb45]

Last year at #4, I think I can remember about ten names being in the conversation around this time:

Cole
Rendon
Bundy
Hultzen
Starling
Lindor
Springer
Jungmann
Jed Bradley
Gray

Bauer and Archie Bradley made late rises IIRC, so they'd probably also count, which makes 12. So yeah, this seems about right.

[Stotle]

Last year at #4, I think I can remember about ten names being in the conversation around this time:

Cole
Rendon
Bundy
Hultzen
Starling
Lindor
Springer
Jungmann
Jed Bradley
Gray

Bauer and Archie Bradley made late rises IIRC, so they'd probably also count, which makes 12. So yeah, this seems about right.

Just curious -- why would the number of targets from any given year give insight into the expected number of targets for another year?

[Stotle]

Stole, can you *slot these guys into 3 groups based on where they are today as prospects? Group 1... *Elite prospect not likely to get to us at 4. *Group 2... The prospects with the talent to be taken with the 4th pick. *Group 3... Guys to keep an eye on between now and June but today are not worth a *pick that high. *This would be based on talent and not finical consideration.

As of today, there isn't enough separation for there to be any players unlikely to get to Baltimore. Appel, Zimmer and Gausman are all showing top 5 stuff. Giolito may have been unlikely to drop to Baltimore had he not been shut down. Potential injury questions mean he can't be any sure bet to be off the board at 1-4.

There is potentially some insight to be drawn from looking at the history of the teams picking 1-1 through 1-3, but that is even up for debate this year, particularly considering the new "bonus allotment" structure of the draft.

As far as players that could jump into top 5 status, Trahan, Almora, Weickel and Cecchini have gotten more love in the industry than I have seen show up in Baseball America/Perfect Game/Keith Law coverage. And I think all five are potential top 5 candidates based on the composition of the draft class.

[RZNJ]

Stroman. Not top 10 worthy? Top twenty? Nice mechanics. Good arm. Looks like a shutdown closer at worst with upside of a solid starter. Putting up some impressive numbers on Friday nights against top teams. Was dominant as team USA's closer. Undersized by height but solidly built. I like him.

[allstar1579]

Stroman. Not top 10 worthy? Top twenty? Nice mechanics. Good arm. Looks like a shutdown closer at worst with upside of a solid starter. Putting up some impressive numbers on Friday nights against top teams. Was dominant as team USA's closer. Undersized by height but solidly built. I like him.

Only seen a tiny bit of him for USA, but I did like what I saw of him as a RP. Could be a fast rising RP/CL and me personally I'd leave him in that role, but that's with the caveat that I haven't done a bunch of HW on him.

[Stotle]

Stroman. Not top 10 worthy? Top twenty? Nice mechanics. Good arm. Looks like a shutdown closer at worst with upside of a solid starter. Putting up some impressive numbers on Friday nights against top teams. Was dominant as team USA's closer. Undersized by height but solidly built. I like him.

Likely top 20 for me. Maybe top 10 if you are looking to free up some extra cash for later in the draft. I don't think I'd have him in consideration for 1-4 simply because I think he's a reliever, long term. If he shows enough growth with the change-up over the spring, and shows a better ability to command his pitches on the whole, I could be swayed.

[eb45]

Just curious -- why would the number of targets from any given year give insight into the expected number of targets for another year?

Given the same draft slot, I'd assume a team would want to scout a pool of a similar size each year. Obviously there's going to be some variance based on the draft pool, but if you're going to narrow it down to a select group of targets to heavily scout to begin with, you're not going to want to expend your resources in vastly different amounts year-to-year.

[Stotle]

Given the same draft slot, I'd assume a team would want to scout a pool of a similar size each year. Obviously there's going to be some variance based on the draft pool, but if you're going to narrow it down to a select group of targets to heavily scout to begin with, you're not going to want to expend your resources in vastly different amounts year-to-year.

I don't think that makes much sense. If there are 15 guys that, based on an organization's reports, grade out about the same, why would you just decide to exclude three or four of them from cross-checker/scouting director review? Likewise, if you are drafting 4th and there are five or six guys that grade out about the same, and maybe another two or three signability guys you like as fallback options, why would you look to add more players to your "target list"?

I don't think Baltimore is looking for a set "top 12" each year -- and if they are, they should stop it.

Also, this is a different scouting director, so he'd be tying the length of his target list to decisions made by a different SD last year? Again, doesn't seem to make much sense.

[eb45]

Well yeah, 8-15 seems about right, but 25? 30? That's more what I was talking about. 12 seems to me like it'd be a manageable number while also accounting for the likelihood of players rising or falling. It's in the ballpark of what I'd expect them to be doing. If they were focusing on four names, or forty, I don't think that would make a ton of sense.

I used last year's class as an example because it was one where I was fairly familiar with all of the top names, and had followed them for several months before the draft, giving me an idea of who was ranked highly in March and who actually carried it through to June. I was wondering if 12 would be too few, not if it was exactly what had been done last year.