Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tony-OH

2018 Orioles Top Prospect List

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

I think our deepest list preceded the 2009 season.   I don’t recall the whole list, but the top 4 were Wieters, Matusz, Tillman and Arrieta.    Britton I think was somewhere in the top 10.   Down in the teens or low 20’s were guys like Bergesen, Hernandez and Berken.     Reimold was somewhere.   I’d love to dig that list up if Tony has it stored away somewhere.  

My computer died that had all my old lists, but I have them backed up on some external harddrive but don't really have the time to go an find them. I did find this though:

http://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2009/12/composite-orioles-top-10.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

My computer died that had all my old lists, but I have them backed up on some external harddrive but don't really have the time to go an find them. I did find this though:

http://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2009/12/composite-orioles-top-10.html

Yeah, that was a year later and the talent a lot thinner after numerous 2009 graduations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, weams said:

 

Imagine having 10 top 100 prospects, and a pretty good major league team, like Atlanta.    

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Imagine having 10 top 100 prospects, and a pretty good major league team, like Atlanta.    

And they are defending division champs!  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought:

I was just looking at the number ratings in the OP of this thread. Man, an evaluator would really have to have some cajones to grade someone as a 75 or 80. I suppose certain tools, like speed, could be graded there, but I can't even imagine a prospect being graded that highly. Not Harper. Not Machado. Trout maybe? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LookinUp said:

Random thought:

I was just looking at the number ratings in the OP of this thread. Man, an evaluator would really have to have some cajones to grade someone as a 75 or 80. I suppose certain tools, like speed, could be graded there, but I can't even imagine a prospect being graded that highly. Not Harper. Not Machado. Trout maybe? 

According to this from May 2012, BA had Harper at 80 and Trout at 75.   https://www.google.com/amp/s/mlbreports.com/2012/05/03/trout-harper/amp/

I think grades above 70 are exceedingly rare for a prospect, though.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frobby said:

According to this from May 2012, BA had Harper at 80 and Trout at 75.   https://www.google.com/amp/s/mlbreports.com/2012/05/03/trout-harper/amp/

I think grades above 70 are exceedingly rare for a prospect, though.   

Baseball America's grades are generally higher than other publications because they don't bake risk into the equation. They often rank lower grades above higher grades that have more risk. 

 

3 hours ago, LookinUp said:

Random thought:

I was just looking at the number ratings in the OP of this thread. Man, an evaluator would really have to have some cajones to grade someone as a 75 or 80. I suppose certain tools, like speed, could be graded there, but I can't even imagine a prospect being graded that highly. Not Harper. Not Machado. Trout maybe? 

The issue is that an 80 means that the median outcome for a player is a top 5 player in baseball. I'm not sure if you can reasonably say that's the median outcome for anyone. There are a few prospects who have a reasonable 80 ceiling, Vlad Jr, Forrest Whitley, and Royce Lewis come to mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's anyone's guess what this list might look like at the end of this year, but it sure would be nice if we could add a new #1 (Rutschman), another top 10 guy from the draft and a third top 10 guy from the international market. I don't know if that's at all likely (probably not, particularly internationally), but that sure would be a nice piggy back on top of what has already been a good year for many of our prospects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

It's anyone's guess what this list might look like at the end of this year, but it sure would be nice if we could add a new #1 (Rutschman), another top 10 guy from the draft and a third top 10 guy from the international market. I don't know if that's at all likely (probably not, particularly internationally), but that sure would be a nice piggy back on top of what has already been a good year for many of our prospects.

I'm thinking the 2018 list isn't going to change.  😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2018 at 11:57 AM, Tony-OH said:
Rank Name Current Grade Future Grade Ceiling Grade
1 DL Hall – LHP 25 60 65
2 Grayson Rodriguez – RHP 20 60 60
3 Ryan Mountcastle – 3B 40 55 60
4 Dean Kremer- RHP 45 55 60
5 Yusniel Diaz – OF  40 55 60
6 Austin Hays – OF 40 50 55
7 Hunter Harvey – RHP 35 50 60
8 Zac Lowther – LHP 35 50 55
9 Blaine Knight – RHP 25 50 55
10 Brenan Hanifee – RHP 25 50 55
11 Keegan Akin – LHP 40 50 50
12 Luis Ortiz – RHP 40 45 50
13 Ryan McKenna – OF 35 45 50
14 Branden Kline – RHP 40 45 55
15 Drew Rom – LHP 20 45 55
16 Zach Pop 40 45 50
17 Dillon Tate 40 45 50
18 Rylan Bannon 35 45 50
19 Adam Hall 20 45 50
20 Michael Baumann 25 45 50
21 Alex Wells 25 45 50
22 Jean Carlos Encarnacion 20 45 55
23 Cadyn Grenier 20 45 50
24 DJ Stewart 45 45 45
25 Jean Carmona 20 45 50
26 Cody Carroll 40 40 45
27 Brett Cumberland 30 40 45
28 John Means 40 40 45
29 Cameron Bishop 20 40 45
30 Matthias Dietz 20 40 50

To me the big upward movers in the first half were Rom (15), Wells (21) and Stewart (24), all of whom had great first halves.   Probably Baumann (20) too, not purely on numbers but also reports on uptick in his stuff. Then there’s Means (28), who moved himself right off the list by sticking in the majors all season so far and doing extremely well!

A number of guys have been minor or major disappointments, too, but I won’t dwell on them.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest mover (up) is Baumann unless they decide Rom moves above Lowther, which I doubt. I'm guessing Rom will be rated higher than Baumann, but am not sure and, if so, don't think it'll be more than a few spots unless they really love Rom. 

Just reading the posts here, I think Luke really loves Baumann and Rom. Encouraging for both, for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ortiz, Tate, and Kline (if eligible) are big fallers for me. Also JC Encarnacion, who is probably outside of the top 30 at this point.   Doesn't bode well for our return on the trades from last July.  McKenna's stock has to be down as well, but I thought he was ranked a bit lower than he should have been to start the season.  I'd still put him in the top 20.  

I'd add Adam Hall to the list of guys who should get a nice bump up the list. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post draft, the top 30 is going to pretty solid when compared to other organizations, but where I think are system is viewed as below average is in that top 31-75 range. Not saying that there are systems out there with 75-100 “prospects” but they got “guys”.

Having the #1 pick and the top bonus pool, should really help out our top 40. However, as much ground on the other MLB orgs as we just gained, we’re probably going to lose just as much when the international signings are announced. 

I don’t know what the trade outlook is going to look for us, but that could be another potential way to add to the top 75. 

Until the draft next year, we have a few ways to add talent. Intl signings. Trades. Waiver wire. Rule 5 MLB and MILB portions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats







  • Posts

    • Just don't give away tomatoes to the fans. 
    • I use cbd on occasion. It does seem to help me fall asleep, but doesn’t help with waking up wide awake a few hours later. 
    • I voted Mancini but I could have gone with Villar as well. I think Villar's lack of effort occasionally and base paths blunders is what shaded me towards Mancini for MVO. Saying that, if Villar did receive it I would not be upset as he clearly has the best WAR despite being forced to play out of position at SS a lot this year.
    • I think when he team is ready to win again if Davis is not preforming in a helpful manner then he  needs to go.   I don't see the O's being at that point yet.   Maybe in another year.    Players get hurt all the time.  As a bench player Davis can step in for them.   Also there are a lot of unproven players that the league may adjust to and they will may be sent down.  (see Mullins, not for Davis but because he is a example of an unproven player that needed to go down)    Davis may find playing time for those players also.   The 26th man makes it easier to keep Davis on the 26 man roster.
    • I have a lot of disconnected, disorganized thoughts on this subject.  I like Tony's suggestions, or at least the acknowledgment of the idea that there are alternate ways of developing players that might be more efficient or at least more cost-effective. A few points: - I've never thought that the current setup was optimal, but rather formed by a series of events more related to economics than player development.  In the beginning all minor league teams were just like major league teams except in small cities.  Only in the 1920s, and then accelerating in the 30s because of the Depression, did the majors start buying up the minors and turning them into development squads instead of teams trying to draw fans and win their pennant.  For 50+ years MLB teams didn't have any full-time affiliates.  That was probably less successful at wringing out all the talent, but MLB got along just fine.  The majors wanted to own the minors to keeps costs down.  They got tired of having to pay $100k for Lefty Grove after a protracted negotiation with Oriole owner Jack Dunn.  Much easier if they just owned Jack Dunn and all the rest of the Orioles. - I think one reason for the sprawling system we have today is MLB contracts, options, and related issues.  I think most good prospects would do just fine as part-time major league players at 20 or 22.  They spend that time in the minors because nobody wants to burn service time.  We've convinced ourselves that prospects would stall if they were utility infielders or relievers at 18 or 20.  But we don't know that, in fact we know many successful MLB players did just that in the pre-draft era, and some even became MLB stars as teenagers.  If service time wasn't a thing (for example, if everyone became a free agent at 28), I think lots of players would shoot through the minors in record time.  And there would be much less need for eight levels of affiliates. - Japan has one level of minors.  I don't know that this is seen as any kind of impediment to development.  Ichiro was in the NPB as a teenager.  They do have more teenagers in the NBP than we see in the US.  But they also don't get to free agency until something like eight or nine years in, so they don't care as much about service time. - Mexico, Korea, Taiwan, the rest of the world... no minors at all.  At least in any cases I know of.  Of course they top out at the equivalent of A or AA levels, so not quite the same.  But nobody else has the resources to have huge, sprawling development systems.  Maybe not optimal, but the world doesn't end when you regularly have 18-year-olds playing alongside 36-year-olds.
    • Obviously we are all hyper sensitive to any kind of soreness with Harvey. I do think this thing is bothering him still an the team wants to be ultra careful with him. At 75.2 IP, he is at twice the amount of innings that he threw in 2018 so he may be near the limit that they wanted to get him this year as well.  Honestly, I wouldn't be upset if they just came out and said they were going to shut him down this year. I have him penciled in as the closer next year and only an injury would get in the way of him having success in that role.
    • One, it's against board rules to call people including players and coaches idiots, so consider this your warning. Secondly, you do know that Harvey was a starter at the beginning of the year and had 10 games with 40 or more pitches. After converting to a reliever, he had two minor league innings where he threw 33 pitches in an inning and one in an inning and a third. Harvey is almost 25-years old. While I don't think anyone, including Hyde preferred that he stayed out there that long in one inning, I don't think Hyde was reckless or an idiot for doing so. If he's incapable of throwing a 30 pitch inning when things aren't going great, what is he then? I think your dislike for Hyde is clouding your judgement here. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion of not liking Hyde, you are not entitled to call him an idiot while doing so here on the Hangout.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...