LookinUp

You always hope that people can identify one relatively simple change to "fix" a player. I'm a skeptic, but I also think Castro has some real natural ability, so hopefully he can make mechanical changes to become what I hope he can be. I really like that arm. Unfortunately, I don't love the probabilities.

Whatever guys. I really like your takes, @Luke-OH, but I was just trying to continue the player comp discussion that I didn't even raise. If all I have to do every time I post about something two other people are talking about in the same thread without any problem is go back and see 3 old articles and do a message board search for the last 6 months then I guess that's not too much to ask.

Maybe you can read this thread again and tell me whether anything's changed? It's a thread that is based on his hot start. Luke talked about a change to his swing. There's clearly some impressions being made. Or maybe you can read the post that you originally reacted to again. Yes, I asked about FV which was in the prospect write up, but the rest of my entire post was continuing the conversation about a player comp and I simply tried to take it a different direction since the physical comp seems to be really tough with this guy. You can call it/me lazy all you want, but I think you're the one being both lazy and snarky. I'll move on, but I think you're in the wrong here.

Frobby can like it all he wants, but this was uncalled for. I don't try to be one of the idiot posters. You should know that by now. If I'm not welcome here, just say so. The prospect lists were made last fall after a limited look at guys. Maybe opinions haven't changed. Maybe they have. Sorry for asking questions.

How about a player value comp instead of a tools comp? Is he a 40, 45 or 50 FV guy? Who else fits with his description? Sounds like maybe an average regular with a little positional flexibility that might make him an attractive super sub type, assuming he wouldn't be terrible as a corner outfielder. Maybe a Ryan Flaherty type? Little better bat? Note, these are all questions. I dont' know enough to make any predictions.

What's your point? Under payed players have leverage. Are you denying that or not?

You can't be telling me that holding out for a new contract is a new concept for you, right? They have a right not to play and not to get paid. Teams can either agree to a new contract, trade them or let them sit out and likely lose service time or whatever contract credit they're getting. MLB players have it pretty sweet with guaranteed deals, so you don't see this like you do in football, but what's to stop them from doing it if they're worth $30 million a year on the open market and only getting paid $10 million?

The next phase of baseball contracts is when players who are under contract refuse to report until they get a new contract. I'm guessing the rules make that hard, but players will leverage their rights if/when it turns out some of these deals are woefully underpaying the talent.

Hate to go back to derailing what will hopefully be an awesome McKenna thread by the end of this year, but range isn't a quality that only plays against lower competition or in games that matter. That video showed he has good range. I actually agree with your Mullins take (even if he's a starter, he's unlikely to end up a 1st division starter), but his range should be a nice plus in his profile. McKenna also has great range. Hopefully between the end of last year and this year, he's exhibiting a better hit tool than Mullins. The arm should certainly be better.

From your link...

This opinion is biased to production as soon as it's able. I think Elias is biased toward production 2-5 years out. The more we spend on promoting guys now, the more it will cost in our realistic window. There's perfectly reasonable debate on this board about what is best, but I have to admire Elias on this. He's essentially planning this organizational development with cold mathematics. It won't make for 2019 being quite as quality as it could be, but I do believe he will put us in a better position to compete in 2020 and especially beyond that.

Analytics or not, the O's have the the benefits of low expectations and time. Practically, that means they can identify parts of a player's game that need to be further developed and keep them in the minors to focus on that development. In that sense, I'd wager that the org's perspective on Hays isn't that he's not ready, but that he's not as ready as they want him to be. In terms of what this means for the 2019 Orioles, I now think they'll be even worse than I had previously expected. I think there's a cavalry of sorts that we can defensibly say are "ready," but that will be held longer than I had expected. That includes hitters and pitchers, so expect more Mike Wright and Joey Rickard and less Hays and Kremer/Akin types.

Seems like a very good comp for Hays (from a FV perspective). Apparently the Rays think it's a good idea.

The fetish is because it usually leads to a hitter swinging at poorer pitches (people who walk more swing at fewer balls), and ML pitchers can victimize hitters who swing at poor pitches. But now we're back to talking about Adam Jones and Jonathan Schoop.

I actually could even see him being better if everything goes right. I will always think AJ should have been better too. Maybe it's because he didn't have the advanced data perspective that he wasn't able to really work through his flaws (offensively and defensively). Hays won't have that anchor on his career. I agree though...would be absolutely thrilled if Hays has a AJ-like career.

The crazy comp I think of for Austin Hays is ... Adam Jones. Decent CF. Good power. Not great BA/OBP spread. Maybe hits for more average. Flame away. That's probably your 80th percentile for Hays, with somewhat more upside than what Adam actually produced*. *Noting that I think Adam's upside was certainly higher than he ever produced too. Most people don't hit their ceiling.

In hindsight, I think you'd have been wrong. With that said, I'm talking about a Wieters-type of player. Hays has never reached that lofty prospect status.

Either way, you're operating with players who have a sense of what changes are coming too. That goes into the equation. Right now Hays would take that deal. A year from now he may not. You're saying the risk is worth it. I'm saying I'd rather wait the year.

You wouldn't have paid Wieters a Longoria-like contract? The O's should have, in hindsight, right? If we pick Rutschman, I'm paying him the day he reaches the majors even knowing that he just got a fat signing bonus.

Are you assuming that FA is happening sooner under the next CBA? If so, I think that does suggest that teams should try to lock top guys up even more than they do now. Either way, I think the O's have a little time to make that decision. Part of the OP reflected that the Phillies could play the guy without service time issues. I'm not THAT motivated by service time with Hays at this point in his development or at this point in our rebuild.

I agree with the thinking, but am not to the point where I have high confidence in the FV of Hays. I think his floor is much lower than what you're allowing for, and while I hate to say it, I think the chances of him being closer to that floor are too good for a long term commitment right now.

Reasonable people can probably disagree on this one. The money isn't huge. His upside is pretty substantial. Elias et al are in a much better position to make that determination though. Another way of thinking about this is to put Hays in a Red Sox uniform and say he turns into what you think is his most likely FV. Does he crack their World Series starting lineup? I'm not saying he doesn't. I'm just not sure he does. Is that the guy we want to lock up early?

I"m not against it in concept, but don't believe Hays is the guy you do it for, at least not right now. I get that he stood out in spring training, but he's coming off a bad year and hot streaks happen all the time in baseball, especially in spring training, and I'm not sure his OBP profile is what we're going to want long term if he isn't a really dynamic hitter. I think of it more as the Evan Longoria treatment than the Scott Kingery treatment. If you have a unique talent, you absolutely try to lock him up as early as possible. I really like Hays, but I still have to think he has a fair chance of busting too, so I'm not going there. Same with Diaz. I like him, but he may not have the power stroke to be the threat we all hope. So I guess what I'm saying is I'm all for it, but for better prospects. One last thing, the best dealers in the world buy low and sell high. If the O's see a top 20 type of prospect, they should do it. I just get the sense that Hays' probabilities are too low to make that plunge.

In a perfect world, we would have perfect safety information to know what is harmful and what might be perfectly healthy. In the FDA world, even some of the safest drugs have safety labels. Heck, Aspirin probably wouldn't be approved if it came out today. It is far more harmful than most approved drugs. With large enough samples, pretty much anything we ingest can be hurtful. The problem is that there is no objective criteria for evaluating what is and isn't harmful, so the league has basically said that if it's a pill/shot/cream and it's meant to improve performance beyond your biological baseline, it's banned. So I think Aglets' post is basically correct.

Appropos of nothing, I heard Hyde talking about Young on 105.7 this AM. Either he or the radio guy mentioned that Young wants to get into coaching.