LookinUp

Very interesting.

Bolded is the bottom line with me. Coming in he was considered a hit tool guy who didn't take walks. Kind of a Mountcastle profile without as much power. Then the hit tool left him and he still didn't walk enough. The optimist in me says what Tony says. It's his first year here. First time focusing on swing decisions like the O's want. First time trying to unlock power the way the O's want. First time being moved all around the field. First time seeing this level of pitching. So maybe there is still upside here. I don't know, but it's possible. Still, I think he might be most valuable to the O's though as a 4th/5th piece in a big trade. Other teams might really value this kid.

This is so true. We get snippets during the season, but there are a lot of people who rank guys based on stats or national guys. I feel like I'm way more informed after reading Tony's takes. My weakness is the belief in future development. To me, every failed QB can be Geno Smith if they have the tools, even though I know it's not true. Every Drew Rom can eventually get the feel for that change up and fix his profile weaknesses. Every Estrada can fill out enough to hit for power and learn to play 2b. But they're all prospects. Some that we don't expect will flourish and others who we expect to be really good will be traded away and flail. That's the sport.

Obviously the physical growth will be important. He'll have to get stronger and refine his defensive game. That said, you have to love the hit tool. The O's tend to favor guys who already have a hit tool and then add power to the profile. So Estrada seems to fit perfectly. So we hope he grows, sures up the defense and fits the hitter development program. If Maikol Hernandez had this hit tool, you'd be looking at a top 10ish guy. But it's hard to teach the hit tool.

I think it's just about money.

Totally agree re: the bb% and the lack of games/PAs. I really wish these guys were more visible and getting more reps in these leagues.

It's impossible to (fairly) nitpick who's ranked where at this point. The depth is such that a lot of guys can make a case. In the end, you have risk and upside. This kid has a lot of both. Just like Carter Young (though very different profiles of course). My only frustration is we're liable to see this kid with a very similar write-up next year. It's similar to Basallo. I can't wait until they get to full season ball and really start to show what they're made of.

Interesting that you note his intangibles twice. Hopefully the O's can develop him, and hopefully he carries himself like a real professional. Falling in the draft can be humbling. Getting $1.3 million can drive the ego though.

I think they run it back one more year. LaRussa is determined as the reason they stunk last year. This year, with a new manager and the same talent, they go for it. If not, definitely worth exploring their assets.

Still good prospects on the list. For me, I'd rank Baumler higher than this. Great talent. High risk. But I'd rather have his upside than a lot of what's in the system, even with a great system. I go Baumler and Rom here. Rom is still young and has a future in the bigs, I think. I still think there's upside, but maybe that's orange colored glasses.

I was where you're at, but after reading Tony's profiles I'm starting to think it's time to cash in on the prospect shine through trades while getting bona fide stars in via FA. We're more likely to win with bona fide stars than we are with emerging good players. But I freely admit those bona fide stars might not actually be stars moving forward, and it's possible our prospects actually turn into stars. That's why we pay Elias I guess.

I think this is low key a great profile with real upside. A high-contact approach can be built on. Likewise, defensive issues can often be cleaned up to become at least passable. If he fills out, this could be a really nice prospect.

I remember someone calling it into question. Not sure if it was excuse making for Fabian or something real. I'm sure that all college hitting programs are not created equal. That's for sure.

I *almost* miss the days when this offseason discussion was more obvious. Could Wells be a starter? Of course? Could Wells be a high-leverage reliever? Sure. Could the O's do 50 different things? Yes. It's a great problem to have, but so hard to talk through this offseason stuff before it takes shape.

You sign Correa and trade three of Urias, Mateo, Vavra, Ortiz, Westburg and Norby.

Kid has everything but the hit tool. The question is whether that's a function of Florida's program or something that's a deeper problem.

I didn't realize he was so young. So that's good. It's a nice profile and he could theoretically progress to be ready for the majors by the end of 2024, or at least 2025, when he's 22/23 years old. All of these 22 draftees will be interesting follows. Makes sense to have them in the 11-20 range by potential. We'll see how they perform in a full season.

Some interesting bullish comments in this thread. I wasn't impressed by the player, but concede two points: 1. It is a long season for a younger prospect. 2. His profile isn't fully baked. The hope is that this org can take him to the next level. That might be with velo, developing the curve, etc. At this point, it feels like he might be the perfect type of player to get into our player development system.

I'm a fan of Young as a prospect. But with Hernaiz, Bencosme and Baumler still not on the list, I feel like you have to go with them over the guy that we barely got a look at and know needs a swing change. Deepest top 20 ever for this org, barring some 1965 type list that didn't even exist at the time.

I like this kid and I feel like if he's legitimately our #12 prospect, our system is loaded. We know they won't all succeed, but what a profile for #12.

I'd personally have Beavers here, but you got to love the offensive upside and still very young age. There's just a lot of risk at his age and level, which is why I'd have him below Beavers.

I'm probably most curious about the Basallo write-up. As Tony has said a million times, their placement on the list matters less than the report. This kid is still very young and about to be a lot more visible to us.

See, I'm offering a third option, where the first two are: 1. It's best to play these young guys because they have the most upside to compete. 2. It's bad to play these young guys because they're not ready to compete. Option 3 is: 3. It's best to play these young guys now so they can work out the kinks and make the future of this org the best it can be. Option 3 doesn't prioritize competing in 2023. It just hopes for 2023, but it still prioritizes the future. Note: this assumes we don't make trades to improve the current and future. Obviously, that's a real option.

Is it fair for the organization to want to build on all of these prospects accepting that might mean 2023 is another growing pains year and 2024 is the goal for contention?

Yup, but if they do one I think they have to at least gesture for the other.