LookinUp

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.

Lies, damn lies, statistics and eyeball tests! These stats surprised me, so I went back and looked a little more closely. Your stats are correct, of course. Interestingly to me at least, Jones K/game rate (which I made up) was just over 90% (442 Ks in 489 games). Mountcastle's is just over 80% (352 Ks in 436 games). That was the simple eyeball test I had done. As Corn points out and you just supported, more context is helpful. League rates, age/level, etc. all matter. Jones was 1-2 years younger when he first got to AAA, where he played the better part of 2 seasons in the PCL. His overall minors OPS was better too (all same caveats apply). Bottom line for me is this actually diminishes my view of Mountcastle. I still like his profile, but don't necessarily like it as much as I did before about an hour ago. Without positional value, he looks like a useful but not great player unless his production is still ascending.

I haven't done the very limited work it takes to confirm this is true, but my eyeball test says Mountcastle strikes out about 75% as often as Jones did in the minors. I think he'll have better contact rates than Jones had, which bodes well since he doesn't have the same positional value that Jones did.

Walk off grand slam. Sounds like it was a crazy game.

Not quite as sharp yesterday. 2 ER in just 4 IP with 5 walks and only 2 k's.

Because he was really hyped around this site (and probably others) a couple/few years ago. Production haven't met his physical stature yet. Hopefully that's beginning to change, but 4 years at a level is a tough prospect profile.

Gave up a few too many HRs in college. Was otherwise pretty dominant. I had heard he is working on a change up now. They apparently didn't throw many of them in college because they weren't needed (???).

I wasn't sure whether a new thread should be started or the old one edited to remove the reference to 2018. However, since I'm doing most of the talking about Knight on this board, I figured I might as well be the one to start a current Minors thread for him. His MiLB page and stats are here: http://www.milb.com/player/index.jsp?sid=t548&player_id=667421#/career/R/pitching/2019/ALL. The OH's prospect write-up is here: http://www.orioleshangout.com/2018/11/06/blaine-knight-rhp-2018-9-prospect/ So far this year he's had two starts. He gave up 2 ER in 5.2 IP during his first start. Last night he gave up 0 runs in 5 IP with 6 Ks. For those not aware, this kid absolutely balled out in college. Here's a BA write-up from July last year and some quotes. https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/blaine-knight-could-advance-quickly/

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.

[Edit: posted same tweet from Roch.] And, yes, that atomic post is beyond silly.

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.

I think there's one more possibility re: Wright that many here aren't really considering. He was one of our best pitchers for most of spring training. Hyde might have been thinking he's one of the better guys to get into the game. By now he better have learned that's not the case.

I think it would be easier to be benched. They should play him every home game. That wouldn't be fun for him.

Not sure why you posted a tweet from over a month ago.

Huh. Guess I was wrong in thinking Alberto would play SS with Villar staying at 2B.

Where are you finding his stats?

I think you're attributing a position to the Orioles, or maybe just commenters here, that they don't have. "Defense is important" or "we're focusing on defense" are very different than saying "we're going to field the best 8 defenders we can, regardless of trade-offs."

I'm assuming Davis is out of this discussion, right? In all seriousness, outside of him, how would the roster look different if we met your definition of defense first? I'm sure there's a track star out there somewhere ready to play CF, but Mullins has a good defensive track record minus the arm, and enough offsensive upside that he's worth playing, IMO.

I think you can make a case that Mullins and Davis are as good or better defensively than anyone on our roster at their positions. If not, it's damn close at best for their backups. Mancini/Nunez over Rickard/Mancini is not defense first, so coaches must like Nunez's bat. The elephant is Davis, who even with good D is a net negative, but he's a special case and we all know that.

Heard him once. Liked that inning or two that I caught him.

You created a thread for TBA v TBA. Love it! ?

I think this is a wonderful thread that stands alone in its brilliance. Kudos on the winning month of March, young Orioles!