Jump to content

What grade do you give the 2021 Draft?  

106 members have voted

  1. 1. What grade do you give the 2021 Draft?



Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Wow, the grades are all over the place. 

I can't give a failing grade since I do think the top 2 picks have a decent shot to be something and honestly, if he only hits on the top 2 the draft isn't a failure.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ScGO's said:

I also have a theory that the O's analytics department has identified the start of a trend towards a return of Tony Gwynn, Paul Molitor, George Brett type hitters.  Athletic, high average hitters that strike out less than they walk.  Hitters that can challenge the shift, put balls into play, make things happen.  Get on base, stay on base.  This will mingle well with the high OBP and power guys, which alone, result in too many K's.  I wonder if this draft is trying to get ahead of the curve on this potential change

While Cowser and Williams walked more than they struck out, it’s not true of the other college hitters in the top 10:

Norby: 33 BB and 34 Ks

Trimble: 19 BB and 46 Ks

Rhodes: 28 BB and 38 Ks

Burns: 19 BB and 42 Ks

Pavolony: 20 BB and 46 Ks

Higgins: 29 BB and 38 Ks

Cook: 12 BB and 43 Ks

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I'll give Elias & co. some credit that they clearly have a plan and executed it with no ambiguity.  Namely, draft college kids with a track record (i.e., data), draft positional players to be top heavy on that side and use some of them to trade for pitching later, and let other orgs pay for the pitchers' development.  But man alive, when your manager states the obvious and says the team is in dire need of rotation help, and you don't use the draft to stock up on future pitching talent, you're really putting all of your chips on the value you're hoping you are accumulating on the positional side.  AND likely forcing yourself later to pay high salaries for the established pitchers you trade for.  

Good point. I think that’s a lot what he’s doing. Elias is mitigating risk by not spending high value capital on Pitchers. I think he is letting the other orgs develop the pitching. It’s looking like his theory is to acquire “safe” NCAA bats and then use them as capital. 
 

Another pattern, even with his trades, is that he targets NCAA pitching from rounds 10 on. I don’t think he cares about age and that it is more about stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C- for what they drafted.

If I took it further and did philosophy, trying to lose, etc…it would be an F.

But I do think they landed 2 guys who could start soon and Trimble has some upside.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ScGO's said:

I wonder how trustworthy a lot of the national rankings were, especially since baseball was difficult to scout, let alone play, during Covid.  Maybe these are guys the O's scouts and data guys were able to observe more, or gain more info on than others.  They all seem really interesting.  The extra Covid eligibility explains some of the older players, but perhaps they used that extra year to figure some things out and can advance quickly.

I also have a theory that the O's analytics department has identified the start of a trend towards a return of Tony Gwynn, Paul Molitor, George Brett type hitters.  Athletic, high average hitters that strike out less than they walk.  Hitters that can challenge the shift, put balls into play, make things happen.  Get on base, stay on base.  This will mingle well with the high OBP and power guys, which alone, result in too many K's.  I wonder if this draft is trying to get ahead of the curve on this potential change

I also wonder if they are trying to save a little money in this draft because they will most likely have the #1 pick in next year's draft.  Our spending will be much more next year if we decide to take the best overall player like we did in 2019.

I'd be absolutely floored if the Orioles were ever considered trendsetting in something else other than sucking.

It'd be cool if you're correct.  But I'm nitpicking here, Molitor struck out more than he walked (but not by a huge amount).  Gwynn walked more than he struck out but certainly wasn't a walk machine.  Brett wasn't a walk machine, either, but still walked more than he struck out (but again, not by much).

Those guys all high for high averages though, something I wouldn't be opposed to.  While batting average is an antiquated stat, IMO it can still tell you a lot about the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ScGO's said:

I wonder how trustworthy a lot of the national rankings were, especially since baseball was difficult to scout, let alone play, during Covid.  Maybe these are guys the O's scouts and data guys were able to observe more, or gain more info on than others.  They all seem really interesting.  The extra Covid eligibility explains some of the older players, but perhaps they used that extra year to figure some things out and can advance quickly.

I also have a theory that the O's analytics department has identified the start of a trend towards a return of Tony Gwynn, Paul Molitor, George Brett type hitters.  Athletic, high average hitters that strike out less than they walk.  Hitters that can challenge the shift, put balls into play, make things happen.  Get on base, stay on base.  This will mingle well with the high OBP and power guys, which alone, result in too many K's.  I wonder if this draft is trying to get ahead of the curve on this potential change

I also wonder if they are trying to save a little money in this draft because they will most likely have the #1 pick in next year's draft.  Our spending will be much more next year if we decide to take the best overall player like we did in 2019.

What does spending less money this year have to do with next year?  It’s not like you can carry it over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never grade drafts in any sport after they happen. I leave that for the writers and view it as purely an exercise in extracting as much content as possible from the draft. I do have two thoughts:

1. I like that the Orioles seem to have a very specific plan that I know is well-reasoned and based mostly on hard data. This is something that the Orioles haven't had for as long as I've been a fan. However, this doesn't mean the plan will succeed. I do have faith in it though after seeing the performances this year from the current FO's recent high draft picks (Adley, Henderson, Ortiz, Stowers, Haskin, Westburg, Mundy and others). 

2. If the Orioles leave a substantial amount of the pool I will be very upset. Local media guys seem to think that won't happen and Ciolek's comment about a "very large percentage" was just negotiation jargon. I think even after developing a plan on how to allocate the pool, teams still will try to save any money they can. But if it is an abnormal amount left unspent, it will put a huge damper on my feelings about this draft. 

Share this post


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

I agree with Froberto Duran.  I don't mind the Cowser pick and Norby picks, I'm also not in love with them either.  To borrow @Sports Guy's terminology, they're safe picks I don't mind a safe pick, especially during a rebuild that's off to a slow start.  If you're trying to stock the mid to upper minors, I get it.  Hopefully these two can advance quickly.

I'd have rather seen more upside/overslot pitching on Day 2.  While there are a couple of arms that were selected on Day 3 that are kind of interesting, I'm underwhelmed by the initial reports on these guys.  Drafting a bunch of senior signs, IMO, not very exciting and intriguing.  Yes, I know Covid played into that, some of these are guys that might have come out last year.  But that doesn't mean that there wasn't any younger, higher upside talent.

I posted this in the other thread:

Wouldn't have minded to see us do what the Angels did.  The Angels know what their problem is, they addressed it.  At first glance it looks like taking an M-16 to a mosquito, but that's perfectly fine.  If we're looking at this as a lottery ticket game, give me 20 scratchers for uncovering good pitching prospects all day, every day.

Could have done without the glut of outfielders.  More pitchers, more HS/upside talent.  

We’ll just trade somebody to the Angels for 3-4 of their guys that we like.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I can't give a failing grade since I do think the top 2 picks have a decent shot to be something and honestly, if he only hits on the top 2 the draft isn't a failure.

Exactly.  Same basic thought process for the picks themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My grade would be a U.  For uninformed.

I would have to say that the Orioles and their brain trust have a plan.  I would also say that what that plan is, is pretty difficult to comprehend from a fan level and from large portion of our group here and also some national writers.  1 HS player?  Very few pitchers?  I mean, it is clear the Orioles had a theory and ran it.  The question is what exactly drove that theory.

1). Was it to target solid everyday players who might blossom into something larger?

2).  Was it to target older, closer to major league ready bats?

3).  Was it driven by ownership dictating cash?

4).  Have the O's cracked a code?

5).  Did they simply extract value because of the 5 round draft last year?

6).  Is there a reason we did not take pitchers?  Obviously there is....right?

I don't know the answer but the answer to these questions will go along way towards filling in how Elias is doing.

I will say that this starts a clock that is going to be moving more along the lines of expecting a better showing at the MLB level...I think that was coming anyway, but this draft is going to speed that up.  

I personally, don't like the dearth of pitching.  I don't mind who they have picked or where.  Reading difiant criticism of how far off of mocks or rankings can be easily argued by simply pulling Fangraphs, who seemingly like the Orioles draft.

At the end of the day, most people are disappointed because there was very little sizzle to spark interest.  But the only pertinent question is did the Baltimore Orioles get better this weekend.  I think the answer is yes, but without the answers to the questions above, I just don't know.  And saying otherwise would be Uninformed.

  • Upvote 1

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.



Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2021 Minor League Depth Chart

2021 Prospect Power Rankings

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






×
×
  • Create New...