Jump to content

hoosiers

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    4,824
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

hoosiers last won the day on August 26 2019

hoosiers had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

819 Triple-A

About hoosiers

  • Rank
    Plus Member
  • Birthday 8/18/1968

Personal Information

  • Location
    New Jersey
  • Homepage
    http://
  • Interests
    Sports, Os, IU athletics
  • Occupation
    Senior Vice President of Finance
  • Favorite Current Oriole
    Matt Wieters

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Don't think this will do too much damage to the game's quality. Most teams generate $ from their pool to sign better players by taking multiple "senior signs" who sign for $5k-$10k. Getting five real prospects out of a five round draft (more if a team has supplemental picks) is pretty much in line with what the Os get in a regular draft. The losers here are the fringe HS kids who would sign after round 10 for around $125k-$250k. The lower signing bonus doesn't count against the draft pool, but kids signing at the higher amount would count about $100-$150k against the pool depending on the amount. Teams usually are looking at two or three of such signs each year. Some college players worth that round 11 and after $100+K would also be losers. I would prefer to see a 10 round draft with the signing bonuses for rounds 6-10 around $100k or so for the fringe HS prospects and decent college juniors. The proposal really squashes the leverage of those fringe guys.
  2. So, if one searches for the article, it is behind a Baseball America paywall, but on Bing the first sentence of the article is listed with the name Maikol Hernandez, SS. The top prospect lists and more are also behind the paywall so one can't see if this prospect made any lists. Anyway, the article appears to acknowledge the Orioles growing investment/success internationally (which might include a pretty highly rated prospect this year) which is certainly in sync with promises/efforts by our new front office.
  3. ZB was a classic "late riser" with his fastball velo improving dramatically at the beginning of the spring season of his senior year. Per MLB 2006 draft tracker, "he jumped on radars when his FB hit 94 early this spring". I remember the Baseball America pre-draft blurb on ZB and was pretty giddy when the Os drafted him. Have to laugh when the truth gets posted and someone tries to correct it.
  4. Have to hope that our front office is and has been preparing for the draft all of this time. The chaos or extra noise surrounding this draft should create an opportunity for those best prepared. I am sure it is an advantage that our first pick is so high. What I will say is that pre-spring lists are traditionally skewed toward college players - as has been the case this year, but that many high school prospects make up ground in the spring - especially the guys with good stuff who see their fastball velo rise from mid-low 80s to low 90s as happened with Zach Britton. It does not appear that HS players will get on the field nearly as much as would be preferred to properly analyze and compare. That said, our front office has a background with Houston and with us last year to lean toward college players with only a couple of HSers mixed in - and those mixed in were HS hitters and not as much pitchers. It will be an interesting draft.
  5. Both Hays and Mountcastle have at least minor questions about their offensive game to answer at the major league level. I would prefer to wait until after this year to make a longer term commitment to each. I don't like the risk/reward if they don't pan out and we are paying out $10M in five or six years to a non-producer when we are trying to be competitive. Hays is older and might be quicker to sign a deal that involves some decent security. I am a fan of both players, just wouldn't sign them to a Kingery deal right now.
  6. I didn't put out a list, but would agree with most of RZ's work above. I would be surprised, unless there is a complete fall-out stuff-wise, if we didn't keep both Rule V picks. We are still in talent acquisition mode and I expect we will give both of those guys every opportunity to make the team. I have been a Ruiz fan since we acquired him and his overall stats were bad, but IMO, he is better than he has shown and I thought he did fine in the second half.
  7. Really impressed with Zimmerman in that small sample size. He was hitting 94. The stuff I saw can get out major league hitters. The bloop and the blast were disappointing, but everything else looked good. Lots of swing and miss. The question IMO is whether the HR was a fluke or if the FB is too straight or ML hitters can square it up consistently. He definitely looked the part yesterday.
  8. Not a bad list. For me, while I like most everyone on the list, I think there is a noticeable drop-off in upside at 17 after Rom who is in front of Bannon and Sedlock. It seems likely or possible that we will lose Mountcastle, Hays, Diaz, Baumann, Kremer, Lowther, Akin and Harvey off the top of this list - seven of our top 12 unless the FO really slow-plays the promotions (or the guys don't produce and lose prospect luster). If our FO slow-promotes, it would be the clearest indication to me that we are likely in tanking mode again next season. Perhaps not full tanking, but more of a "we are promoting guys to the majors, but not supplementing them with quality free agents". Assuming the guys are doing fine or well in the minors, I sure would like to see Baumann, Lowther, Akin and Kremer tested in the majors this season. I think it is important for their development that they start their major league experience sooner than later if they deserve it and to see what we have in them entering 2021. If our 2020 draft has the same impact on the top 15 of the above list (see AR, Henderson and Stowers), then it seems likely that next year's list would be of comparable strength, but perhaps not a much stronger one without existing prospects (most likely candidates for that step up to include IMO Henderson, Adam Hall, Darell Hernaiz, Toby Welk, Drew Rom, Stowers and then perhaps a drop-off to Watson, Janvrin, Dashbach and a couple others) stepping up or some international prospects starting to impact the list or quality prospects received in trade (Mancini).
  9. 2020 is big for Hays. It has taken a while for AU to get to this point, but let's see what we got. An above average MLB OFer would put one building block in place for the next five years.
  10. One has to really like the top of the pitching talent that includes IMO GrayRod, Hall, Rom and MikeB and possibly Kremer. If we could get a 2 and a 3 out of that group, we will be sitting pretty. I saw Fenter pitch for Delmarva at Lakewood late last season and I am eager to see if the Os start to move him quickly if the conventional wisdom that we kept him in Low A so that he wouldn't be taken in the Rule V draft. We have lots of candidates for 4/5 and lot of possibly strong bullpen arms. It will be interesting to see what type of pitching we need to go out and acquire as the current crop moves towards the bigs and reaches their potential.
  11. Even when moving up a level, many of our best hitting prospects have performed much better offensively in Frederick than at Delmarva. It will be interesting to see who else from that end of year Delmarva roster gets moved to Frederick with Hall (AR - seems likely, Welk is a ?). I have high expectations for Hall based on last year's numbers at Delmarva. Any incremental improvement in terms of additional BBs/lower Ks could really be a boon to Hall's production in Frederick.
  12. Thanks for the reports, Eric. Neat to see the Aberdeen guys my son and I have seen when they visit Staten Island, Brooklyn and Hudson Valley continue to make their way through the system. The Os have some OFers who can absolutely fly in Watson, Janvrin and Stowers. We are big Adam Hall fans - he gave my son a signed broken bat in Aberdeen two years ago and when we saw Adam in Lakewood last year and mentioned it to him after a game near the team bus, Adam ran back into the clubhouse and gave my son another broken bat. My son also has a broken bat signed by Yusniel Diaz last year during his stint in Aberdeen. We met and spoke with Austin Hays two years ago when he was on rehab. My son yapped it up with JC Escarra and Yahn. He also tracked down Ironbird pitchers who were charting in the stands and has signed selfies with Baumann, Harvey and others. My son picked up multiple pictures and autographs from Adley Rutschmann last year in Lakewood. We watched a couple Ironbird games in Staten Island last year with Dashbach's father and had great access to Standord guys - Mark, Mav and Stowers. Nice to hear these names sprinkled throughout your reports. Is Jaylen Ferguson still with the organization? He looked like a plus OFer defensively, but couldn't put things together offensively. Also, hadn't noticed Kevin Magee's name mentioned. We spent a good 20 minutes talking to Kevin during a rain delay in Staten Island. Similarly, haven't heard Leonardo Rodriguez's name either. I believe he made a league Top 20 report last year. The guy was eating or looking for food every time we saw him.
  13. I don't think there is a basis in reality for the above statement. Elias has in fact said these opportunities would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The Os should be profitable in 2020 and should have the capacity to take on salary. Besides, any $ absorbed as incremental MLB payroll now should pay itself back with a cheaper payroll in the future.
  14. First, the article mentions a return of Quantrill, a top 50 prospect and a borderline top 100 prospect. I don't think a singular prospect is involved. Second, as I posted, if the Os send back a productive and cheap player like Mancini, the impact to the MLB payroll of absorbing Myers over the three years would be reduced by more than half due to the $ due to Mancini. So, I would agree that taking a risk of absorbing Myers $ for a singular prospect would be insane, but that is also not close to what was proposed in the article and there may be other ways to skin that cat.
  15. I have a couple of thoughts: - I wonder the extent that Astros players were protected from punishment by the players' union. If the union protected the Astros players, then IMO Nick should be taking up his issue with the union that protected one team's players at the expense of the rest of MLB. - I think the Commissioner did a very poor job with Astros investigation and should have also looked into the cheating or fair play of the remaining teams. Other teams should have been severely punished as well if they cheated also. - This is a separate issue, but if Nick is going to complain about the Astros cheating impacting lives, I am surprised that there was not a bigger uproar when foreign prospects who were lying about their age were taking bonus $ and prospect status away from other prospects.
×
×
  • Create New...