LookinUp

Judging by the rep on this post, you might have struck a nerve with a relative. I've been there.

Meh. I'd say barely adequate, but maybe it's because of whatever put him on the IL for a few weeks. The goal isn't to be a good AA starter. If that was the goal, I'd agree he's been adequate.

I'd very seriously consider bringing him up soon, but you do wonder where Bradish and Zimmerman fit into this season's ML plans, and what downstream effect they will have on the staff.

So his k rate almost doubled for a month + after getting hit in the face. Interesting. I'm not shocked by him doing better in AA because it sure seems like a much better hitter's league for whatever reason but also because I think he was due to hit his stride again. IIRC, his ops was mid .800's before being hit, so it's not like he was struggling up until that moment.

To me it just means the cap is a feckless tool that is just giving certain owners an excuse to save a few bucks. The real cap is 105% of your allocation.

Yeah. If everyone's doing it, I agree. I didn't realize so many were.

I agree that need does factor, ever so slightly, into the #1 pick. It's particularly true when the guy you might target with an under slot strategy might not be better than what you already have in-house at the same position. I'm not saying Johnson won't end up better than Norby, Westburg, Prieto, Vavra, Hernaiz or whomever at 2B, but I think the odds of that aren't as strong as people might assume. No way I'm taking Johnson if I'm the O's.

I had never even thought of going over as a serious consideration. I know it's all the rage this year, particularly with Mets conversation, but I think the teams themselves don't want all of the teams doing that because in the end all it will do is raise the price across the board. That said, yes, I wish Elias went over by 5%, but no, I don't think ownership supports doing so. These soft caps + penalty have been effective across sports with the exception of the richest teams. I don't see the MLB draft being much different, but I could be wrong.

That's a different discussion altogether. They're putting a strategy in place given a budget. If the owner's not giving him more budget, that is what it is. I just don't blame Elias for that.

I want to engage in this, but now's not the time, so I'll try to summarize. The GM's job isn't to maximize any given pick. It is to maximize value over all of the picks they get. So Cowser might not end up as valuable as Lawlar, but 5 Cowsers (Kjerstad, Stowers, whoever) very well might end up more valuable in the aggregate than 5 high potential high school short stops. You can have egg on your face over a single pick. That can happen to anyone, but the statisticians up there are not playing your game. They're trying to maximize total value, and that takes things like risk into account. Darn. I got into it. fin

Hyde wanted to fight Chris Davis. I'm sure there are other things that are important to a manager, but that gives him a leg up in my book regardless of how good Buck Britton is.

They major league team could use a couple of arms about right now...

It was Henderson. Freddie Freeman is also famous for his left center approach.

When on his game, he's unbelievable.

Juuuuuust a little premature to be saying this.

Interestingly, Andruw Jones' offensive profile kind of reminded me of our own Adam Jones. Powerful and good overall, but not a high OBP guy and always a guy who seemed to have trouble laying off that slider low and away. Looking quickly at BBref, Andruw Jones career OPS+ was 111. Adam Jones was 106. Andruw's career OBP was 337. Adam's was .317. Andruw's career OPS was .823. Adam's was .771. So maybe similar, but Andruw was clearly the better offensive player (and defensive too).

I don't really have a dog in this Lawler fight, but he's 19 years old and prospects regularly improve a lot in the field around that age. I don't think the defensive book is written on him yet. Heck, I don't think any book is written on him yet, but I'd be more interested in his athleticism and arm strength than pure fielding % stats at this point.

I think people also remember Markakis' arm after several years in the major. I think it went from plus or plus plus to more like above average/plus, if that makes sense. He didn't maintain great arm strength, but by memory at least I think he had it for several years.

I get the feeling they updated the list with big moves like Henderson's, but for most it was just about moving up because other people moved out. So I don't think they really re-rated Westburg and Cowser as much as moved them up because others left or have bombed so far.

I just posted this in another thread, but Cowser had a .962 OPS in June. I think his slow start made people think he's not as good as he is. I'd wager he'll have as much or more value as Westburg even without a positional bump. And I like Westburg. Just saying, Cowser's on these lists for a reason. He's a really good prospect.

Not to nitpick because I don't know how good Cowser's arm is, but it has to be very good to be "slightly weaker" than Markakis'. I do think he can have higher defensive value than Markakis, who was steady in the outfield but didn't have great range. But it'll be hard to have that throwing ability. Can he be the same hitter? That would be wonderful and makes for a wonderful profile. For those not aware, Cowser had a .962 OPS in June this year. His slow start ended. That said, his July has started slowly, but it's early and he is adjusting to a new league.

Ha. Touche. I was referring to what the podcast said, but ok.

I just don't agree with the spin embedded in your response. Feeling the "need" to go under slot. I think it's more about opportunity than need. Like RZNJ said, they might just like a guy for the money more, but it's unlikely they're passing on guys they really like a lot more because they feel a need to do so. In this draft's case, as I posted elsewhere, I'd be happy with any of Jones, Holliday and Greene because I see them all as elite upside guys. If the O's agree and can save a buck and take Holliday for example, that would seem wise to me.

Or, they saw the opportunity to get a player they really wanted and not have to pay full slot to do it.

Kinda interesting. One opinion of interest is that because the O's have the largest bonus pool, they may not even need to go under slot at #1. It's been mentioned other places, but if this isn't a draft with a ton of depth that's another reason to no go under slot at #1. Then there's the opportunity to select under slots for several rounds as a way to save money. It really seems to me like it's a three horse race between Jones, Holliday and Green.