LookinUp

Yeah. I think many of those guys are 1/2 season in front of your projections assuming health. I honestly felt terrible for the beat reporters out there during that interview. They're probably happy with the cushy assignment, but they get sent to winter meetings essentially for 3 days of nothing and then the rule V draft. Then some recent draftee, a good but not marquee prospect, shows up and they all go running to the kid like they're talking to Barry Bonds, Jr. It wasn't like Trout, Cole or Rendon showed up and was relevant to the O's. It was Stowers and they swarmed him because it's all they got.

Nice thoughts, Luke. Based on what you wrote, it seems likely that the O's will: Focus on spin axis to maximize the fastball. This might be an easy-ish fix that helps his FB play up. Give him a new curve/slider plan that might be as simple as ditching the slider. He seems like a guy who has a good arm and may be ripe for the O's pitching approach. Based on your notes, he seems like a very sensible pick from our perspective.

Before last season, I was hopefully predicting that the completely new pitching approach would help a few guys click that otherwise wouldn't have with the old regime. Seems to have happened with Baumann. I'm not sure the new guys can take credit for Means or not. Several of the younger guys had great years. Adding 8 guys with decent/good upside, most of whom haven't been exposed to this approach, really does give us a chance to end up with 1 or more arms that turns into a much better version of their previous self. It's quantity + development to help our odds of developing some good ML contributors. I love the approach.

Dang. Wish I voted yes. I remember wanting to keep him, but the price was high for sure.

Yeah. Wish I knew how I voted, if I voted. I didn’t post in this thread.

Would signing Franco be exciting? No matter what they do, it's not going to double attendance this year, that's for sure.

Seems too optimistic to me.

It's ok by me if you vent. I completely understand it. I accept the vision, so I'm not whining about the near term results. I'm embracing them as part of the bigger plan.

My interpretation, we'll definitely end up with 2 guys. My guess: pitcher first. However, while I understand draft and stash can tax a 40-man roster, certain rosters are more easily taxed than others. The 2020 O's would seem to be a fit.

I can't imagine there are many equals in terms of depth and insight anywhere in the public domain. Really nice list, Luke.

The only point I'm making is they didn't seem to value him that highly. Seems like a worthy flyer for our player development guys though.

Sounds like it, but Dodgers also a possibility.

So the Tigers valued 38-39 guys higher than this guy. Wild must be an understatement if he really does have a 60/60 top two pitches.

Same. Kid sports so I'm not available. I wanted to go too.

Pretty sure I'm agreeing with your post. I actually like threads like this because they demonstrate just how far away this team really is. I happen to think Drungo is slightly pessimistic (or maybe just incomplete) because he doesn't address potential internal help from Hays, Mountcastle and others, but even with crazy additions, we're probably still 150-200 runs away from where we need to be. So, yeah, this thread helps demonstrate that a rebuild and new foundation is the way to go.

I think if you want to blame MLB, you need to blame the revenue sharing model, not the fact that they gave one of the richest markets in the country (DC) a team. Teams like the O's tank and rebuild because their revenues simply don't support paying a large premium for talent. They can do so, but it has to be just right. The Yankees can have bad years, but they can always justify a thread like the one another poster put out there re: winning the world series. They're always "only" 2-3 major free agents away. The only constraints they face in this revenue model is the soft cap that taxes their payroll.

The Broncos are going to win 10+ games next year. Love what they’re doing.

I give the guy a certain amount of credit. He has strong opinions. Had passion about this baseball stuff and tried to build his own thing when it became clear this place wasn't for him. Now he's into politics, so I pity him. (kidding, sort of) I'm glad he has a thing.

Right. It reflects a gravitas about his scouting/player development chops. At some point, this process will have to include bringing in some high quality talent through FA or trade. Even Tampa isn't fully home-grown.

Trea loved Smoak. He hated that we took Matusz. In hindsight, that draft was pretty bad. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/draft/y2008/drafttracker.jsp

End of July you were getting a mid .700's poor fielding 2b/SS. This is a guy who was traded with another piece for Jonathan Schoop. End of year you're getting a guy whose arb # is $10 million and who had one great month but was otherwise mostly still the mid .700's average at best fielding middle infielder. I seriously think the O's made out big time just by letting him go. We'd be marginally better with him, IMO, at a cost of $10 m. I don't think he'll net a great return at all at this year's deadline, but I guess we'll see.

Yeah, he's @jtrea81. Lists his real name there (I assume it is).

Villar wasn't really in the midst of a career year at the trade deadline. His OPS was in the mid-700's in July. In fact, he only had one month with an OPS above .800, and that was August when his OPS was above 1.000. In other words, he didn't have much value last July.

I'd argue he can only have value if 1) what's expected to be a losing team somehow is not and/or 2) he somehow helps the bottom line. He can be a 10 WAR player next year and be waste if they lose, TV/stadium revenue don't increase or he doesn't get a valuable return in a trade.

Doesn't make it smart though.