LookinUp

I'm all for it if he helps us get from 58 to 62 wins next year. Oh wait. No I'm not. Rule V or Martin, IMO. Stay cheap. There's a time to spend a bit to shore up SS. This isn't the team to do that.

On Baumann...yeah, but the velocity is there and his 2nd pitch is on point too. I don't think that's necessarily close. On Lowther, I kind of agree. I totally understand having him higher because results matter, but it's not like the physical talent blows away Kremer.

Of the names on that list, I wanted to see a Rom/Hanifee choice. I didn't. If Wells in in there, I wouldn't be shocked. I went with Rom and Stowers though. The names I wanted to see were Adam Hall and Hernaiz. Just shows that I get out of my depth pretty quickly at this point in the list. I do think the range of probabilities for these guys are wider than they are towards the top of the list. Some could click big time. Most are more likely to miss altogether (compared to guys higher on the list). I personally like Hanifee more just because I think you need to be an exceptional pitcher to succeed without much velocity. Rom and Wells each have that issue, but each might actually be pretty exceptional at the non-velocity part of the game. Hanifee has more natural arm talent, but didn't have a good year. He's probably unlikely here, but I like the upside if it's still there.

I'm not seeing a ton of difference between Lowther, Kremer and Akin in terms of FV. Hopefully 1 of the 3 hits his ceiling and another turns into a nice swing man. Really like having several of these guys in the system. Throw in Harvey and Baumann and I think you have the makings of a solid future staff. Let's hope the top guys turn into what we hope they can.

I think if you look at the substance, Tony's take here is very defensible. It's not like he wrote the kid off. He said the ceiling can be a mid-back end starter. That's a good ceiling, but it's apparent the velocity needs to tick back up and the secondaries need to improve. To project all of that to happen would be wish casting more than forecasting. I don't think it's unreasonable to think he can get the velocity back, but command and secondaries are tough roads to hoe. Thinking about it another way, if you "wish cast" every player above Kremer on this list, he probably jumps one guy (Lowther). The rest, if they hit their ceiling, would likely be better than Kremer with the possible exception of Harvey, because you might take a #3/4 starter over a lock down bullpen guy. Even that's debatable. Looking below Kremer, I'm guessing a wish cast of Hall and Hernaiz and probably another guy or two would also jump Kremer, understanding they're really far away.

I agree that he's his own worst enemy, but don't think it's because he thinks he's in a slump. I think he has a guaranteed contract and is unwilling to work to earn it. Can't wait for him to be gone, regardless of his laudable charitable donations.

I've been seeing this term "vertical spin axis" a lot lately. What exactly is that? How does it affect the pitch? Just a random "you're a good poster here" note to you, @wildcard. You really generate a lot of discussions, regardless of whether I agree or don't with your thoughts. Keep it up!

?

I remember really having hope for all of these guys. Klein and Henry were injury guys, IIRC. Adams may have been a knuckle head. Tim Berry's last name was Berry, and that was big at the time, lol. A family member's boyfriend grew up with Drake, so had to root that way. Crazy how many of these guys with decent talent washed out. That list is a case study in what we're hoping Elias fixes.

Yeah. I was a little surprised to see they listed his ceiling as a 1st division closer. I wonder how much debate went into that. Can't argue with the logic. If they simplify his plan, there's no reason he can't refine his remaining pitches more and let his stuff really play up out of the pen. Nothing wrong with that. *whispers...I still hope he starts 2020 as a starter in Norfolk even though I doubt that's the plan.

I think you're right. Our hopes for Hays are really built on the 80-90% case for him, not the 50-75% case. As much as I think Jones was always over rated (and I do), he was still a good player who played a lot of games and accumulated a fair amount of counting stats. That's not as easy as it sounds. I'd love to see advance defensive data on Jones. To me, he looked fast, but wasn't really. He rarely chased down gappers. He had a strong, but pretty inaccurate arm. I don't *feel* like he got great jumps or closed the gap with speed. I always felt this way since he was young and dropping fly balls while blowing bubbles. Always thought his reputation was better than his production, and my impression was always based on the eyeball test, not objective data. This is certainly true. Jones has a head start and played a lot of games. Hays' best hopes to surpass Jones are 1) stay healthy, 2) surpass expectations by a fair amount and 3) don't hit the age wall like Jones did. With that said, I also always thought Jones had physical tools to be a better all around player, but not the org to get him there. I hate saying that because I think Buck has a knack for winning, but I saw very few player development wins under his tutelage. Hopefully Hays' career takes place in a better developmental environment. For example, I'd wager that the O's did more with Hays' approach last year in AA and AAA than Jones ever had the benefit of. I remember some middling changes for Jones, but never the focus on improving his approach that I think the org should have done for him.

Yep. That's the transcript of what I heard for sure. I think I literally turned the radio on at the beginning and off an the end.

Putting him at 9th certainly shows he has better probabilities than a toolsy kid ranked at #23. The basis for much of that just happens to be pre-draft scouting and internet videos; not GCL stats.

Nitpicking about where this kid was ranked misses the point. There's certainly worthy debate about how to rank guys who are at such different points on the same list. What is neat is that a lot of people seem to love this kid's tools. It's not just Tony or Elias. Various baseball people have been online saying he has a ton of potential. He's done nothing yet. Does that mean he should be below Bannon or Alex Wells, who are 1 step away from the majors? Doesn't matter to me where he's put. He deserves discussion.

I think his great starts are reason to hope (even if not predicting) that he could build mechanical consistency and repeat those results instead of being totally off one day and great the next. I agree that the probabilities of success for him are much higher in the pen, but isn't that the case for everyone? I'd make sure he's not a starter first, personally. Maybe they feel like they already have. I really don't know.

I have no idea where to put Lowther. I just fear the velocity while loving the results. Just like Wells, even though I get that they're different guys.

Not sure if it's posted elsewhere, but I heard Elias on the radio last night saying Davis was on some programs and, while he probably wouldn't get back to what he used to be, they expected him to be better than the last 2-3 years. (paraphrase) So he's doing something in coordination with the front office.

All reasonable points. For what it's worth, I saw Harvey live in Bowie one time last year and he was dreadful. People were squaring up that 98 mph and landing it on the wrong side of the fence. I actually thought we over rated his Baltimore bullpen time too. His command wasn't very good, in my estimation. With all of that said, I am very sympathetic to the argument that he can be better, much better. He missed a TON of time. He essentially spent a developmental year usually split between A- and A+ ball in AA, AAA and the majors. So, while I haven't read the write-up on him yet, there's at least some hope that he's actually a lot better than what we saw last year, even if the likelihood is quite low of him hitting that ceiling. Long story short, I pretty much agree with your ranking rationale.

Wow, really? His pitch grades look better than Hunter's, to me. Of course, I may be remembering a later version of Hunter. That said, Baumann actually gives up more fly balls, according to fangraphs. That was a surprise to me. The hope with a kid like this is that he's still in the middle of his development curve. The arm and the frame are there. If he hits his 90th percentile, he could be special. I feel like Tony and Luke typically stay safely (and smartly) in the 75th-25th range of probabilities. As with last year, I'm holding out hope that our new development programs will get more out of these kids than the O's historically have. They've already helped Baumann significantly.

Yeah, along the lines of Frobby's post, I think his performance in September represented a hot streak. His OPS is more likely in the .750-.850 range over time, if healthy and not a failure.

I have no idea what Tony and Luke will pick, but there's at least a chance they still keep Harvey very high. I know Luke wasn't sold on his move to the bullpen being permanent. If it isn't, he's still a very high upside starter, even though his 2019 performance didn't warrant it (which was his first consistent work in years). Also, I know Luke mentioned his scoring criteria in another thread, but comparing a guy like Harvey to a guy like Gunnar and rank ordering their prospect status is slightly less easy than putting an elephant on the moon. I hate to be the fun sucker, but the order here really doesn't matter very much. I just love that we're tossing around the names of several guys who have legit claims to being high level prospects or near term contributors even going past #10.

The O's fan in me wants to blame the struggles of Diaz and Hays on injuries primarily. I'm hoping that's the cause.

Interesting line to me: I was thinking his hit tool had more upside than this implies. I love the approach and, just by build alone, thought power is on the come. Of course I really had no idea that his swing changes resulted in the problems they did. Injuries aside, it seems like he's talented and still working on things.

It's almost unfair to both Jones and Hays to compare them. Jones progressed very fast. Hays might have too, but injuries. Jones played for dinosaurs. I hate to point that out, but his approach never got the scrutiny and development that Hays will benefit from. Jones, for all of his accolades, always seemed less capable (to me) than his hype. That was frustrating, because he was certainly very good. I just don't think things like gold gloves really reflect the type of fielder that he was (or wasn't). Hays has some really nice physical tools and will hopefully be groomed by modern approaches. In that sense, he has a chance to be better than the very good, but not exactly great, Jones...IMO. Whether he actually turns into that player is another thing altogether. I expect Hays' 2020 production to take a step back from what we saw. The question to me is, how much? We'll see.

Will be interested in the Rom write-up for sure. IIRC, average at best velocity was a problem with his projection. Another athletic kid though. Good pitchability, if I recall.