LookinUp

Re: the Sun article, it's not clear to me that any of those teams will improve that much, or that incremental improvements from within the Orioles won't do more for the O's than those other teams are gaining with some mildly costly FAs. I'm not arguing that the O's will be good, but I don't think they're the shoe in for the #1 pick that is being portrayed. Shoe in for top 5? I'd say yes. The details do matter, but I agree that he won't be able to continue tearing down the ML team and replacing players with lottery tickets after 5 years. He will have to invest in a core to be built around. Hopefully most of that will come from our own system, or players acquired from trades in our system, but it has to happen. He can't always be looking 3-5 years down the road. At some point, the 3-5 years arrives.

Yeah, the odds have to be very low. The reason I'm mildly optimistic about stuff like this generally is I think it's new to a lot of the Orioles who have likely not had the focused training to unlock their talent. So there might be a forward jump that several guys "have in them" but have not been able to unlock. Maybe this will help.

If I were in charge? Stash the money so you have cash on hand to spend in a competitive range.

I'm not getting into a peeing contest on the internet, provocation or no. My position is clear and it's not one that supports screwing the fans.

Honestly, what I really want in this draft is a prospect who is legitimately good enough to keep us from taking Torkelson. I'm sure I'd love the guy, but I want players that give positional value or #1/2 starter value. Bat only guys, while they can be awesome (see Fielder, Prince), just don't excite me.

You can be as snarky about it as you want. We've had this debate on this website for years now. Do you want to be a franchise that spends now and is always caught in the middle or do you want to have a plan for something great, or do you want to try to do both? Maybe it's possible to do it both ways. Perhaps their ownership is willing to float the difference. I just know that the Orioles were in the middle for 20 years, and while we did have a few years of relative success, we were never able to take a Detroit-like approach and turn it into a powerful contender. Maybe that was about the people in charge more than the process, I don't know. But to act like I'm just in favor of screwing the fans is disingenuous and should be below a poster with your knowledge and experience on this site.

Magic of goat farming aside, I think this concept isn't a different way to the same goal, it's an additional path to a larger goal. If every team has a direct path to 10 prospects, Detroit theoretically just created a path to another 2-3 prospects that wouldn't otherwise be there. This could be considered a wise move if 1) they're taking advantage of all of the other paths and 2) anything lost w/r/t having a better team (e.g., draft slots, team cash) is outweighed by whatever they gain through future prospect trades. My problem isn't that Detroit did this, it's that they did it for Schoop (low OBP, low BA guy) and Cron (1B). The market for these two isn't going to be massive, so I really doubt they get good prospects back and this works out from a pure FV standpoint. I essentially think they just blew a few million on a few more wins to shut the fans up.

What you're describing is bad analytics, understanding that bad really just means incomplete. People think big data is the end all, be all. It might be in baseball, but just because data exists doesn't mean it's the right data. This stuff isn't easy. It will take time to get closer to perfect. See defensive metrics, for example.

Today, one of these guys just completed another great workout. Something has clicked. His balance at the plate. His pitching mechanics. His arm strength. Something. We just don't know who that is yet. The board might look pretty different in 6 months.

No they don't. The marginal cost of finding someone a little worse to fill in on a very bad team is probably less than the gain of keeping an arm that has a more than negligible chance to stick. The truth is that the choices will likely be between two guys with a marginal upside versus marginal present value description. E.g., low value versus low value. There's a certain freedom that comes with that, which is nice I guess.

One of my least favorite athletes is RGIII. It goes back to Washington, but continues to this day with his nauseating twitter feed with tone-deaf motivational/resistant type of lines. Not saying this guy's feed is like that. Not saying it's not. I'm just saying.

Not to re-start a debate that isn't really a debate... but I think Hall is the guy I want for the future, whereas Rodriguez might be the guy I want starting a game tomorrow. That scout's opinion was interesting. Looks like Hall is essentially less physically (probably better said as mechanically) mature. It's not a given that he gains that body control and consistency of mechanics to develop much better command, but I'm less worried about it than I would be a 25 year old, for example.

It's an interesting exercise to rank the bottom of the 40 man, but I don't think the decisions will be particularly meaningful. When they choose to DFA person x instead of person y, I'll shrug and assume there's a good chance that person won't be claimed anyway.

I'd like to point out that I appreciate that we beat a lot of topics to death. My opinions are much more fully formed because of it. For example, now I know that I wouldn't rate Alex Wells highly as a prospect. I think the OH list is even too high on him. I may not be right, but I've read the arguments ad nauseum and am at least informed on the topic.

Aberdeen.

I just completely disagree with the bolded. I'd wager many more commuters go from Frederick to DC than Baltimore. That DC team is on a many-year run and is just gaining a foothold. The O's will need to compete for these people over time, and do so with lower revenues. Remove a minor league affiliate and I'd wager that will become harder. If Keys ownership, Frederick or Harry Grove are a problem, the O's should be motivated to find a way to fix the problem, not just get up and leave.

Random responses. 1. Water is a profit center now. We'll never go back to water fountains again. They're costly for the owner (stadium) or government (public) to maintain. It is a little crazy that even a bar wouldn't give you a water though. 2. Yeah, diabetes has massive co-morbidities associated with it. Of course, diabetes itself is very often associated with an unhealthy lifestyle, so they're typically a more expensive population.

Whether it's worth spending more money for a few more wins and a more "entertaining" product.

Ryan Mountcastle's BB rate.

I understand the rationale. I just think it's penny wise and pound foolish. Frederick and it's surrounding areas is 1) pretty large 2) not getting smaller and 3) geographically proximate to DC and even Pittsburgh, to a lesser degree. The O's need to think 5-20 years down the road. If I'm the O's, an investment in Frederick is an investment in the Orioles.

I think his statistics in comparison to the league were actually very good. It wasn't the perfect year, for sure, but "struggled horribly" just isn't true.

Does anyone still look at the defensive zone rating (??) stat? I'd imagine LJ would have trouble catching and throwing, but his range could be outlandish. Put him in CF. It's easier than SS.

I think you also have a good take re: familiarity.

I think I'm probably sleeping on him a bit. It was an underwhelming debut. Of course, if AR weren't AR, I'd be sleeping on him too based on his debut (raw statistics). Does the fact that he showed up to this meeting have any significance at all? I mean, could David Hess just show up? Does it mean he was invited for some reason?

This fact tempers my enthusiasm. Fewer obvious fixes for our guys, I'd wager. He might be what he is. They all might, of course, but I love the idea of getting a guy with a good arm who hasn't had these approaches yet and helping him take a big step forward.