LookinUp

Definitely understand the command piece. The rest of this is certainly more nuanced than I knew going in. I just see a very athletic, very competitive kid with explosive stuff. I'm certainly not actually projecting that he'll be another Kershaw, but I do think he could be a dominant starter for us.

I'm no expert on Mancini's trade value, but I think his bat would have been valuable to either of the World Series teams, for example. (not that he'd necessarily fit on either team) I think the bat plays on pretty much any team, and where there are teams that need offense, he would have real value. I'm certainly in no hurry to trade Mancini absent a package that reflects a team seriously valuing him.

I'm kind of surprised you'd rank Mountcastle with the top 3. IMO, that's the cutoff. Maybe (like our previous discussion) with Mountcastle sort of in a category of his own. I do agree that if the plate discipline pans out enough (doesn't have to be perfect) and his athleticism makes him an average or slightly better LFer, the bat puts him up there. I guess that's really the bottom line of what you're saying...the bat is very legit. This guy will hit. The end. Gotta love that. And by the way, I think this write-up was particularly thoughtful about the player's strengths and weaknesses/unknowns.

Yeah. It's hard to imagine limiting his ceiling. He's 19, right? We know he's a big, physical, extremely talented kid. He could mature into a beast in ways that even the most seasoned evaluator could never predict. MOR is just a logical place to project him or just about anyone who's really talented at this stage of development.

I tried to think of who is if it's not him. I guess we'll find out. On upside, Harvey and Gunnar make sense, but I personally think they're both below the 3 I mentioned for different reasons. Either way, this is a fun learning experience for me. Love the new information that comes through these write-ups every year.

Confession of my orange colored glasses: If it clicks for Hall, I think the real debate will be between him and Rutschman, not him and Rodriguez, and that's if Rutschman maintains his lofty profile. Both Tony and Luke mentioned TOR upside in his profile. I'm not sure we all understand that they don't use those words lightly. TOR is an ace. It's a game changer. It's Sherzer, Mussina, Beckett, Kershaw. I understand that's a best, not very likely case, and it's correct for Tony/Luke to note the risk. Articulating risk is a ton of the value they provide. It keeps expectations grounded. For this kid, mine clearly are not grounded. I'm betting on his arm talent, competitiveness and excellent athleticism to help him make huge strides. I think he's a gem.

I was actually about to make this point, but I was already too long winded. I do think I'd nitpick and argue that you have 3 similarly ranked guys, and then Kremer almost in a group of his own. That's my opinion. Will look forward to reading your more informed opinion.

I decided to try not to guess what you're thinking and just go with what I might think. The options are Diaz, Hays, Baumann and Kremer. Hays has demonstrated an advanced hit tool and above average defense in CF. Injuries, and resulting consistency, are his problems. Also, not great OBP. I think I compared him to an Adam Jones about 6 months ago. I actually think he might have better contact rates and defense, but somewhat less power than AJ. His ceiling might be there, at least. A former top 100 prospect who still has that talent, IMO. Diaz is a big, strong, RH hitter with advanced plate discipline. He has performed as a young player, but has hit a bump in the road since the trade. Still, his overall numbers this year compared to the league were strong, and (as Frobby noted elsewhere) that came while still looking injured even when he was playing. Another former top 100 prospect who still has the talent. Baumann prospect status is floating on helium. He was awesome this year and held velocity through complete games. If he comes up with a 3rd pitch, he's got huge upside. Still, he has #4/5 starter/reliever risk in the profile, I think. Luke made the case that he could be compared to the #99 prospect on another list. He's a very nice prospect. Kremer also didn't have a great year. He was rated highly on this board last year and really came on toward the end of this year and in the AFL. I really like the profile and think he might just stick as a decent starter. Still, he doesn't have the upside of the three above. I picked Diaz and Hays. The first because of his advanced approach and what I think is power on the come. The second because he has real positional value and a really nice hit tool. If you tell me Baumann is #6, I won't be shocked. I'll actually be surprised if he's not at this point. His star has risen, and for good reason. Kremer would be a surprise to me at this point in the list, even though I think he's a future rotation piece who could slot above Akin and Lowther. I'd be surprised if he slotted above Baumann at this point though.

I'm shocked Baumann isn't an option at #5. I think some would have taken that bait. Maybe me. Still not sure how I'll vote.

Maybe. Diaz is a thick dude. Not sure he's going to age that well as a fielder. I could definitely be wrong though. I'm mostly stereotyping based on his body type more than anything I've observed or heard.

Wow. It's impossible to know (from that article) if he has an uber-careful coach who's protecting his player or if he's fragile. That really stinks. I personally want Hancock to be our pick, though I'm sure anyone we take will be a significant upgrade who will figure prominently in the org's future.

I'd say that's a pretty lofty opinion. I tend to agree. Love the approach and physicality. Has a little more positional value than Mancini even if the hit tool doesn't quite get to the same level. I do think more power is coming. I blame his issues on health, but again, fear make-up is an issue just based on things (small hints, never specific) I've seen on the interwebs.

Dang. Didn't realize Hancock had an injury history.

Yep. There's no doubt that guys like Baumann and Mountcastle had better years. It was kind of a lost year for Diaz. I give him a bit of a pass because of injuries and I think he was good late in the year. His story is kind of like Hays' to me. Not that they're the same types of player; just that there's more to their profiles than their performance has demonstrated in the last 1-2 years. Of course, that's good reason to knock them down a notch. It's not like the people coming up with the rankings are damning them for life. They'll just reflect the reality of what's happened.

Another write-up I can't wait to see. I'm wondering if he has make up problems. On essentially box scores, I'd consider him for #4 for sure. It's just this internet thing that makes me think there's more going on that I can't know about.

That really is a fascinating possibility. We let a very good player walk away for nothing because he's getting moderately expensive, and we expect to be a bad team, and we assess that he doesn't have high trade value. A pure money based decision. I'm not saying that won't happen, but I think the pure money plays are easier when you don't already have the guy (e.g., avoid signing Villar types in FA). It would be pretty crazy for the O's to just let him go for nothing and accept the certain downgrade to the lineup. It would make sense financially, but I don't see them going that far into the money ball/analytics/cold front office direction.

I'm always suspicious when age/production deviate like that. I am also aware that people do have great years sometimes out of nowhere. He's definitely a thick man. Don't recall if that was always the case. It'll be interesting if he shows up at a 5 year celebration having shrunk like Bonds or McGwire.

Means had a very nice year. I'm happy he's one of our guys. I would trade away Means' full year for Alvarez' half year. There's really no comparison in my mind, regardless of what WAR says.

And has about 60 pounds less muscle mass. Lol.

Baumann had a hell of a year, and it wasn't smoke and mirrors. He has a chance to be VERY good, but it's a high bar to get to the top. I think he's working primarily with 2 pitches, for example, and he really excelled in a pitcher's league (AA) so there's still risk in the profile even though it's a very nice a profile. No doubt Luke and Tony like the kid. It's just a matter of how much.

I look forward to the write-up on Akin. My uninformed opinion is he could be anything from a fringe #3/4 guy if it comes together to a AAAA type. I do think he has some minor fitness issues, which I assume eventually he'll get under control. For this org, he's been a bulldog for the last 2 years at least. By that, I mean a guy who fights on the mound and gets through innings/doesn't miss a ton of starts. He's not an elite arm, but might have a make-up that improves his odds. It's also worth remembering that his stats this year should be compared to other AAA stats from this year. He was toward the top of the league in several, even though they weren't impressive. Norfolk in 2019 was a pretty extreme hitting environment. None of this means he'll have ML success. I think your doubts are probably shared by many to varying degrees, but I also don't think he's a profile without a chance to stick.

I'm also on Hall (who I had as 2) and Mountcastle. It's kind of neat that guys like Hays, Baumann and Diaz - if things go right for them - could belong in this conversation. But I do think at this time there's really only two guys who fit here based on 2019 information. I am wondering if they sneak Baumann up to #5, but that's a conversation for another day.

I'm also not a scout, but I remember Wieters first at bat in Baltimore. His bat looked slow even then. It's incredible to me how a guy can be such an elite hitter until the very top of the ladder. I do wonder if different coaching and/or analytics could have helped unlock him at the ML level. That's not as much of an "he was over worked" opinion as it is a "the O's might have been outsmarted" opinion. I think your ideas that either Grayson or AR get promoted very aggressively are likely wrong. Elias has been very conservative in that regard. With that said, the truly elite often have a way of forcing the organization's hand a bit. It's possible both move faster than any of us (except you, lol) could have imagined.

Great profile. Pretty encouraging when you say he'd be one of the top pitchers in college if he went, not to mention the potential for 3-4 plus pitches. Aside from the typical developmental stuff for a young pitcher (command, refinement of secondaries), it seems like the one concern is about the delivery/holding his stuff. Keith Law rears his head again. Lol. By the way, that picture with his circle change grip is crazy to me. I know kids are learning it now instead of throwing curve balls earlier, but it is such a foreign way (in my mind) to grip and throw a baseball. I love that his change came through so much this year. It's a a game changer if it really sticks.

Very nice write-up Tony and Luke. I would absolutely have drafted this kid at #1 and I'd absolutely rank him as our #1 prospect, but your "what we don't know" should be noted. We don't know how the bat will handle upper level stuff. That's not a knock. It's literally unknowable, though I'm sure scouts can project reasonably well, as you mention when talking about his bat speed. I really think I have PTSD from Wieters. I know he was a pretty good all around player, and an elite throwing catcher in his prime,, but I want (and the O's need) Rutschman to be better overall. Hopefully last year's relatively slow start for AR was more a function of mono, moving several times, wood bats, etc., and less a sign that his bat isn't elite.