Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tony-OH

Who are the #19 and #20 Prospects?

Who are the #19 and #20 Prospects?  

30 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Who are the #19 and #20 Prospects?

    • Adam Hall and Kyle Bradish
    • Darrell Hernaiz and Adam Hall
    • Darrell Hernaiz and Brenan Hanifee
      0
    • Brenan Hanifee and Kevin Smith
    • Kevin Smith and Kyle Bradish


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Philip said:

No, I think that’s hyperbole. There are a lot of guys in the organization that are just filler, they know it, we know it, and for whatever reason they are willing to hang around for a while. So the answer to your question is, “no I don’t think everybody in the minors should be brought up,” But yaz wasn’t just filler. And when he went to the Giants he did not become a mere stopgap, he became a star that anybody in the National League would like to have. I agree with all the people who say that that indicates that something is wrong with the process. However I’ve made my point multiple times, and it’s all water under the bridge anyway. So it doesn’t matter. Let’s just hope Whatever mistake happened does not reoccur.

Yaz was the exact definition of filler.  

Share this post


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

Apparently not.

Your entire argument is all about hindsight.  That’s wrong.  The info at the time said he was nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Your entire argument is all about hindsight.  That’s wrong.  The info at the time said he was nothing.

My entire argument is about finding solutions. He had potential, we didn’t even believe it existed. He went somewhere else, and they flipped the switch. 
Good teachers find the right switch. That’s it.

Andnthats my last on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Philip said:

Well, if I may continue my musician comparison, I’ve had many students come to me with problems that the previous teacher had not solved. And I have solve those problems. So the question is why did not the previous teacher solve those problems? Again, it’s all water under the bridge, and there’s not really any reason to rehash It, but I stand by what I said, and I’m not the only person who thinks that way.

I guess my question is, do other teachers sometimes solve a student problem you were not able to solve?   With baseball coaches, some players mesh with them and thrive, others don’t.   Classic example was Leo Mazzone when he was here.  Erik Bedard and Jeremy Guthrie both thrived under Mazzone, while Rodrigo Lopez and Bruce Chen regressed badly.   A coach can fix one guy and break another.    I do think some are better than others, of course.    But nobody’s right for everyone.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Frobby said:

Tony, I think your points about the players Elias has brought in off waivers not producing much Is stronger than the point about Yaz. It’s not like they had a lot of time to evaluate Yaz.    Basically, a few weeks in the spring when he showed very little, to go with his mediocre track record.    

The point I'm trying to make is Elias brought in all these technologies to try and get the advantage. do we just assume Yaz just outperforms his metrics? Perhaps, I don't know. I do know he has outperformed his expected stats at the major league level so far, but the EV has been pretty good. 

I agree that Yaz did nothing to show what he would go on to do. I never had him on a prospect list even though at times I kinda thought he might be able to be a 4th outfielder, but every time he would come back and just not perform.

Who knows, but so the only facts we have so far for Elias evaluating nearly ready talent outside of his organization (I'll include Yaz since he was so new to the org) are not positive for him and his process. 

Say what you want about Duquette, but Nunez is the kind of waiver claim that has worked out well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, RZNJ said:

Good stuff, Moose.  However, I tend to believe the Orioles current regime believes in the same hitting approach espoused by the Giants.  I agree a poor team should be giving guys chances but there are only so many spots on a team.  We gave chances to similar players like Alberto, Ruiz, Severino.   They missed on Yaz.  I still file it as one of those things.  The light bulb went on.  Do you believe the Orioles current organization doesn't encourage not expanding the zone with two strikes and taking your normal swing with two strikes?

Well, thanks.  Wish I could have replied sooner, was out all day.

Good points on Alberto, Ruiz, Severino.  And you're right, it's one of those things and we can't be expected to get all the moves right.  No one bats 1.000. 

14 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Still waiting on a reason why Yaz SHOULD have had a chance.

To me, using the word should implies that he earned it.  It implies that he proved to the organization that he was a MLer and they overlooked him and didn’t give him that chance.

Is that what people believe?

I don't believe he SHOULD have had a chance, I just question the move for DSJR.  I don't think DSJR was a significantly better upgrade.  For me, a 4th outfielder should be able to field really well and be decent (not amazing with the bat).  Yaz, by all accounts, has a good glove.  DSJR does not.  If the argument is that DSJR is younger, well that's fine.  

14 hours ago, Frobby said:

I think the issue here isn’t whether Yaz should have gotten a major league shot based on his MiL performance, but whether the Orioles’ development team hindered his performance by trying to force him into a box regarding his approach at the plate.   That’s what Yaz has said.    I can’t really blame Elias’ crew for failing to pick that up in the few weeks they had to look at Yaz before he was traded.    It’s on the old regime if Yaz was poorly coached.  

These are good points worth considering, too.  Even if we brought Yaz up, I don't think he performs here like he did in SF so it's a moot point despite this being a fun, spirited debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a teacher, and one of my mantras is”we collect solutions”

Im constantly dealing with rigid Dogmatists-idiots- who insist on one way of doing things.

I don’t know what thing are like here, though teaching is teaching regardless of the discipline. But there’s no justification for dogmatism in any discipline. It’s the coach’s job to find what works. And with Yaz, it’s obvious that SOMETHING worked. And it’s equally obvious the Orioles didn’t find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Philip said:

Im a teacher, and one of my mantras is”we collect solutions”

Im constantly dealing with rigid Dogmatists-idiots- who insist on one way of doing things.

I don’t know what thing are like here, though teaching is teaching regardless of the discipline. But there’s no justification for dogmatism in any discipline. It’s the coach’s job to find what works. And with Yaz, it’s obvious that SOMETHING worked. And it’s equally obvious the Orioles didn’t find it.

The article I read parts of suggested that many of his homeruns over the last year came on two strike counts because he went from being a defensive hitter who expanded his zone to an agressive hitter looking for a strike to drive.  Since we actually complain about most hitters in baseball not cutting down their swings with two strikes, I tend to think it was more of Yaz deciding to change than some newfound miracle advice but I guess it's possible that the Giants just have better coaches.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Philip said:

No, I think that’s hyperbole. There are a lot of guys in the organization that are just filler, they know it, we know it, and for whatever reason they are willing to hang around for a while. So the answer to your question is, “no I don’t think everybody in the minors should be brought up,” But yaz wasn’t just filler. And when he went to the Giants he did not become a mere stopgap, he became a star that anybody in the National League would like to have. I agree with all the people who say that that indicates that something is wrong with the process. However I’ve made my point multiple times, and it’s all water under the bridge anyway. So it doesn’t matter. Let’s just hope Whatever mistake happened does not reoccur.

There was nothing in existence at the time to support the emboldened statement.  Certainly not his minor league career, nor his performance in the few weeks of spring training that Elias could see.  You are basing everything you say on hindsight.  Please provide your evidence that shows that Yaz was something other than what he had shown himself to be in the minors BEFORE the trade was made.  Until you do that, I'm afraid that you just aren't convincing anyone.  That others, most of us in fact, in hindsight, wish we hadn't traded Yaz is quite obvious, but that doesn't mean Elias failed in any way at the time, given the information available to him at the time.  There was simply no outcry from people upset about the trade at the time.  It was pretty much a ho-hum deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Number5 said:

There was nothing in existence at the time to support the emboldened statement.  Certainly not his minor league career, nor his performance in the few weeks of spring training that Elias could see.  You are basing everything you say on hindsight.  Please provide your evidence that shows that Yaz was something other than what he had shown himself to be in the minors BEFORE the trade was made.  Until you do that, I'm afraid that you just aren't convincing anyone.  That others, most of us in fact, in hindsight, wish we hadn't traded Yaz is quite obvious, but that doesn't mean Elias failed in any way at the time, given the information available to him at the time.  There was simply no outcry from people upset about the trade at the time.  It was pretty much a ho-hum deal.

I’ve made multiple points multiple,times. I made the same points during the 47-win season, and I made them multiple times. I’m moving on..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Philip said:

I’ve made multiple points multiple,times. I made the same points during the 47-win season, and I made them multiple times. I’m moving on..

But being a 47 win team doesn’t mean you try out “old” mediocre players when they have done nothing to show you that they deserve that chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Number5 said:

There was nothing in existence at the time to support the emboldened statement.  Certainly not his minor league career, nor his performance in the few weeks of spring training that Elias could see.  You are basing everything you say on hindsight.  Please provide your evidence that shows that Yaz was something other than what he had shown himself to be in the minors BEFORE the trade was made.  Until you do that, I'm afraid that you just aren't convincing anyone.  That others, most of us in fact, in hindsight, wish we hadn't traded Yaz is quite obvious, but that doesn't mean Elias failed in any way at the time, given the information available to him at the time.  There was simply no outcry from people upset about the trade at the time.  It was pretty much a ho-hum deal.

So if I understand your position, Elias bares no responsibility for quickly evaluating and getting rid of Yaz. So how long does Elias need to have a guy in his organization before he bares some responsibility?

Share this post


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

So if I understand your position, Elias bares no responsibility for quickly evaluating and getting rid of Yaz. So how long does Elias need to have a guy in his organization before he bares some responsibility?

Yaz was in the minors for 6 years and a well known college player.  I'd say he was evaluated by many baseball scouts and evaluators for many years.  I don't think you'll find anyone who thought he was a swing change and philosophical change from being an impact player at the ML level.   You didn't have him ranked in our top 30 prospects.  What did you miss?

  • Thanks 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

So if I understand your position, Elias bares no responsibility for quickly evaluating and getting rid of Yaz. So how long does Elias need to have a guy in his organization before he bares some responsibility?

To be clear, do you think 3 weeks is enough?

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

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • I give you points for saying Please.
    • I don’t think the backup NEEDS to be anything.  Why does the backup have to be outstanding on defense?  Is that in the rule books or something?
    • Yes but the backup C needs to be outstanding on defense(Catchers who offer good offense are starters.)But neither of our current guys is a qualified backup. If AR were here now, he would still need a better backup then the two we have.
    • Why are we replacing Mancini? Rosario is probably a better defensive player than any LFer we will put out there but it would be dumb to spend money on an OFer with Diaz likely up.     This, again, goes back to the same type of conversation that has been had about Nunez.  From an offensive standpoint, Nunez and Rosario are similar, so you wouldn’t pay Rosario a lot more to DH when you could have just kept Nunez. And you wouldn’t clutter your roster (the argument used against Nunez) with another COer when you have so many options available both now in a few months into the season. In other words, couple our roster situation with the team unlikely willing to spend money and you can essentially lock this thread because there really isn’t much to talk about.  (Not saying mentioning him is bad, just doesn’t fit into the Os plans in anyway)
    • Yes, it is a fact that Mullins performed decent in a very SSS and that Hyde made those comments.     It also a fact that Mullins was a terrible player for the several years before that. It’s also a fact that he is 26, so while he is young, he also is at an age where you don’t expect guys to start getting a lot better.  Another fact that his OPS was driven by bunt hits.  That’s a skill, no doubt but not one I would want to rely on year in and year out as a reason a player hits for a decent average and gets on base at a decent clip.  
    • Well, the pitching did improve in 2020, albeit in a much smaller sample size than normal.  I think some of that stuff is overblown for the C position and these guys could help the pitchers by hitting better than a lot of C and contributing to scoring runs. They are all a stop gap for Adley anyway.
    • I would at least wait until he is actually nontendered before being interested. No way we would want to pay $9M for another OF. He could be a good replacement for Mancini while we are waiting for Kjerstad. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...