LookinUp

Well, isn't that your problem with Elias' draft strategy? He's playing the odds by picking COFers instead of high upside high school SS's and pitchers. I do wonder if there's ever a time where Elias deviates and takes several pitchers in the top rounds or if he's always just going to flood our system with position players.

Just to add, if the O's picked Green anytime between 1980 about 2018, I'd think it was a terrible pick. It's only because I have some confidence in their player dev approach that I'd be happy if they take him now.

If we pick...my grade is: Jones, Holliday - A Green - B+ but intrigued Lee - C+ Johnson - C- I'd need to see some crazy lofty over slot (like Rocker) to be happy with Lee or Johnson, but you could talk me into Green being the top talent with the right player development people.

NelsonCruuuuuz...how about you just take the L, rep the man's posts and pick a fight with a poster who's less capable of destroying your snark?

Lol. I saw 69 IP and figured he wasn't a full time guy. Then you posted this and I remembered that thing they call a pandemic.

Help me understand. What's this guy's upside? I see he's been in the majors for several years now with meh success.

We have Stowers who's already ready, Cowser in AA and Kjerstad who's starting off nicely. Not to mention Vavra, who may end up in the OF. You don't trade Santander because you want to dump him. You trade him because he has value and potentially better guys ready to take his spot.

My best guess is Mike Trout.

You do have to wonder if there's a maturity issue here. He's such a supremely talented guy and his set backs are often injury related. Hopefully he rises above this adversity, or I'm just wrong and he really did realize he's badly tipping pitches.

Sure, but most of those guys aren't netting you much. I'd be interested to see if Mayo would be on the block if we draft Holliday or Brooks Lee. I do NOT want to trade Mayo, but could imagine him and Cowser being two big chips we have if we dealt from the minors (assumes Grayson, Hall, Henderson and Westburg are off the table). Mancini, Santander, Hays and Mullins (plus Lopez and Tate) all have value too, so big deals could be in the offing. There's just a lot of directions Elias could go.

Apparently he said we’re in the market for starters with 2+ years of control.

Just don't see us taking on salary. Would be pleasantly surprised if we did.

Did anyone hear Elias on 105.7 the Fan yesterday? I heard he said we'd be both buyers and sellers. I just don't know what I'd even want for Lopez and Tate. Are we trying to build a winner for next year? If so, aren't they part of that? I honestly have no idea what type of deal I'd like.

Can't make my mind up on Holliday. Seems like a tremendous athlete but not necessarily going to stick at SS. That would be huge for me. Doesn't seem that different from Gunnar Henderson, to be honest. Does seem like the defensive upside is with Jones and Greene, but Holliday and Jones are my pref.

And sometimes these kids turn into Juan Soto. Hoping for that tbh.

We've already had this discussion in this thread. Definitely not at 1-1. I'm not so sure he doesn't fall to 33 though.

Just thinking on this kid some more. He'd make a lot of sense for an org that wants to infuse a great arm in the next couple of years. High risk, so I agree with Law that the O's aren't likely to be that team, but damn if he wouldn't slot in nicely in our system.

I honestly just don't want them to draft a 2b. I get that you don't draft for need, but this org has a lot of guys who can play 2b and theoretically will hit. Draft a true SS or CF. That's what I'd do with all else being equal, and I'd pay a little more for it for sure. Now if Termarr Johnson turns out to be a Robbie Alomar like player, he's worth it. I'd need to hear that to be sold though.

In 3 years we'll all be talking about where we were when Tony created a thread for this kid out of the blue.

I think it's worth articulating why what SG is saying here could be the right strategy in general, even though I'm not always on board. The difference between Colton Cowser and a player like Druw Jones is a perfect example to think about. Cowser likely has a high probability of some success, and a pretty good probability of being a Markakis like player. We'd all take that. Druw Jones probably has a much wider range of probabilities just because there's less data. He comes with more risk, but his overall projection of value might be similar to Cowser. The difference is if they really hit with Druw Jones, you might end up with a 100 WAR player for all we know. The upside is great CF who hits great. That upside is worth extra $ now, IMO. It's why I don't want to draft a 2B or a SS that reminds me of JJ Hardy (probably not fair). So while I do get both sides, at #1 overall in particular, I'm actually on board with the probability + upside strategy. Jones or Holliday for me.

I do think there's some value of giving the kid enough time to fail. See if the league (AAA) adjusts and how he handles it. But he's making it hard to be patient, particularly with the left side of the ML infield. For me, he's not even under consideration for a promotion for another 2-3 weeks, and more likely August 1. And even that's fast and assuming he continues to rake.

To me, there are just too many unknowns to draw conclusions. 1. Was Lawler the #1 talent at any of those spots by a significant margin? 2. Was the difference in dollars enough to justify saving money to upgrade later? 3. Is the player falling because he's made a deal to a preferred destination that isn't the O's? 4. Has the player told the O's he doesn't want to go there? 5. Are there other factors that we're not privy to, such as attitude, work ethic, things picked up in scouting or data that McDaniel and Law don't have access to? My assumption is that the O's have a mathematical model that spits out a range of outcomes and probabilities for those outcomes and they try to follow that model to maximize the output from a draft pool. That model is clearly not biased to spending x% more on a player that might be the best, but not by very much. So the question is whether you think their model is good enough or is it better to be really simple about it and take the scouts #1 player at the top even if it's close between #1 and #2/3. With all of that said, I hope the O's take Jones or Holliday because plus graded SS and CF are hard to find and I believe they already have very good bats that can play 2B.

My post pushing back against your posts are just as valid as anything you're posting. It's our opinions in both cases, you just don't like it when people point out that, in the absence of saving money, your opinion is quite literally you believing in your intuition more than the ability of the O's to scout and draft talent. I think that's silly with this group because they have had some success. And I don't write off Norby, Trimble, Rhodes and Tavera yet. Willems has a big step to take, but even if he crashes and burns, it doesn't mean the rest of that draft is a failure. But yeah, in hindsight, I'm sure we'll be able to chart out a scenario where any team could have done better using your methodology. That's the benefit of hindsight.

I'm quite sure that Elias and company can make bad decisions. I'm sure that taking the BPA at #1 can be the right decision or the wrong decision. I'm sure we all have opinions, I just don't think they're necessarily valuable opinions. And I don't poo poo historical data. I do recognize that they're working with much better data than a linear list of total WAR in the modern draft era. They understand what's available at the top of the draft and later in the draft. They know what's available later in the draft and what those players are asking for. And they'll build a model that attempts to optimize the total value in the draft. And you don't. I don't mean to shut down discussion, and I think your thoughts are usually thoughtful and interesting, but my bottom line is the same. I'll defer to a group that employs the most modern methodology ever.

A couple of things are true. 1. The O's are not "saving money" by taking a cheaper guy at the top. They're allocating dollars differently. 2. The idea that internet posters looking at historical WAR distributions know more than a data driven organization with deep insight into the players and their demands, is ludicrous. Opinions are fine, but there's zero chance I'd trust anyone on this board more than Elias.