LookinUp

Just curious when folks think the O's will be competitive for any playoff spot again. I'm saying 2025.

For those not aware, Stowers hit a HR today. Had another loud out yesterday. I'm really rooting for this guy as much for validation of Tony jumping ahead of all of the other raters on him as for the O's.

This is where I'm at with Mullins and Mancini. I do think there's more risk with Mullins, as his 2nd half OPS was ~.100 less than his first half OPS last year. I think he'll be good, but don't think he'll sustain anything like 5.0 WAR. He's more of a nice 3.0 WAR guy, IMO. Hope I'm wrong.

Yeah. Definitely some weird placements. The one guy I can't get over, and it's not unique to this list at all, is Vavra. I just don't know almost anything about him, but on the surface he sure seems like he should be on this ML team very soon given his age/level and ranking.

Yup. This is from the same general timeframe as the Astros and Red Sox cheating. Surely it was going on before this too.

We can make assumptions about what other teams are doing. The Rays, Dodgers, Astros, Cardinals, A's, White Sox, and Braves are known to do things well. It's probably fair to assume that the Mariners do too at this point. Also fair to assume that the Red Sox have become a mess, Phillies aren't advanced, Nats, Mets and Angels come to mind as being pretty backwards. Yanks and Jays seem much more focused on the ML side. Hype aside, their systems are under producing as far as I can tell (probably unfair to the Jays considering who they've recently graduated). But the O's trajectory is as good as anyone's. Is it premature to say they're top 5-7? Probably, after thinking about other teams, but again I love the trajectory.

And now we come full circle to my point. Even a very cheap rebuild might be short-circuited by this ownership group. We better hope Elias gets what he wants (resources for an eventual ML team) and a valuable extension, otherwise he's gone and we venture back into the realm of the unknown. That is a worse scenario than just a very slow and cheap rebuild.

Perhaps true, though you have to like a lot of what you see, but there's no reason to totally discount 2020 is my point. The year lost delayed guys that were already in the minors. That much is true for sure.

Well, regardless of whether you think my ranking of them as top notch is premature, my point in making this thread is that I have no confidence that ownership will do what it takes to keep them around, and that introduces considerable risk to maintaining and continuing to improve upon what even you acknowledge is really positive change.

Kjerstad, Westburg, Mayo and Baumler were in that draft. It's not exactly a black mark on his resume.

It's certainly unusual for the Orioles. I guess time will tell whether this is sustainably great, particularly after AR and Grayson graduate. I'm bullish on it though. I expect both the international pipeline and the lesser known rule 4 draft guys from the last two years to make a splash this year. And no, I don't study other orgs. I still think this one is noticeably competent.

Several things. Part of it is intangible. Things I see and hear from players, coaches and ex coaches in interviews. Part of it is how open minded they are. Did you know they brought in Mike and Brian Roberts because they're trying to see if they can become efficient enough on stolen bases to make it worth it again? I think they number they need to get to is close to 90%, but they're still investigating it. That's the one example off the top of my head that shocked me, but there are others that prove they're leaving no stones unturned. I think their approach to swing decisions is very unique and data driven. I think their statistical targeting of players to draft is great. Henderson, Westburg, Norby and Mayo are all guys that look like really good picks who weren't top 5 guys. Others, like Stowers have a chance too. It makes me hopeful that a guy like Willems will be the next one to really show out. I think they're presenting firehoses worth of data to players, but not forcing it on them. It's essentially a library of information that's available at every level for players who like to think like that. I love how they've embedded data people with the teams so they can understand how to make it more practical. (a lot of data people love their products but don't relate it to players/coaches) I love how they've integrated instruction from level to level. Progression from A to AA isn't just about facing better competition, it's a new development plan with different things to focus on, but it's also integrated enough so that your continuing a player's story instead of totally starting anew with new names, faces and priorities. I don't take any of this for granted. We've not had it in forever and I feel like other teams aren't doing much of this to the same degree the O's are.

Completely disagree with the above. I'd wager the O's are top 5-7 in innovation in the minors. Maybe higher. I think we have a really smart approach for the first time in a long, long, time. I do agree though that the jury is out on pitching, which is kind of a huge deal.

I think Elias is under rated here because of the ML team. I love what he's doing in the minors. It's not just about drafting top 5 guys.

To me, this rebuild can be the slowest ever and still be a success if it results in a great organization that identifies and develops a great talent pipeline. The slowness is not ideal by any means, and I understand that people are frustrated by it all, but I really feel like Elias and Sig are critical to making that happen. Now maybe they have an understudy that we don't know about who would take over, but right now I think the biggest risk of being cheap and terrible, and really cheap, is the potential inability to keep the most important people to this rebuild.

I'm not sure what his contract is, but I'm thinking he won't be around for a second contract. He will be in demand. Will need to be paid significantly to stay. I don't think that will happen, and that really stinks to think about considering how much better this org seems to be at identifying and developing talent.

With so much hand-wringing about the pace of the rebuild, lack of free agent spending and even MASN's disgustingly cheap approach to all things, I have to wonder how long Mike Elias will be in Baltimore. He's had the chance to build an international program and rebuild the farm system but, absent a change in ownership, there's currently no reason to think he'll be given significant resources to put into the major league team. Isn't this a recipe for Elias to become our version of Andrew Friedman. A really smart guy who essentially used the Orioles like a minor league team for executives only to be plucked away by the Red Sox, Cubs, Giants or Nationals.

Unclear if all of these reports are referring back to the one guy actually saying this or not. Seems like they are.

Earlier I was about to write that I'd choose Hall over a safer guy like Cowser. Then I started thinking about Tony's list (Cowser's higher) and about what I thought at the time. Well, I was correct. I got 1-7 right in the votes, I think, which means I personally had Cowser over Hall as recently as a few months ago. Maybe I'm caught up in some of the Hall tweets or Orioles video releases, but if I were to re-order them today I'd go with Hall above Cowser and I don't really think it's close. I still get having Mayo above Hall based on the risk profile (though I might not personally), but the upside and near-term arrival for Hall really makes him a top prospect. Basically, I think the injury risk has subsided in my own mind, so maybe that's why I changed.

Hmm. I honestly just think it's egregious. As a random check, I decided to look up the pitcher I remember with the scariest injury profile: Chris Sale. He was only on prospect lists 1 year from what I can tell. He pitched in the majors almost right away. Anyway, he was rated 25 on MLB.com and 20 by BB America. Definitely an elite arm, and I'm sure the people have changed, but I doubt the injury profile is why they have him lower. I think it's the reliever risk.

So basically, you don't want to talk about it so I shouldn't either. Got it. Yes, you can justify a pretty wide range of rankings, otherwise there wouldn't be a pretty wide range of rankings. I think it's a bad methodology, personally. I'd take a near-ready elite arm, even with questions, over a safer profile (at any position) with good, but not great upside. But that's me.

That kind of goes without saying... But when rankings come out, we tend to discuss their merits.

I wonder what people would say Josh Hader should have been ranked, if they knew then what they know now (e.g., he's a dominant reliever, not a starter). Feels like he would be much higher than 90, which is where they have Hall. Feels like Hall, with upside much more substantial than Hader and a realistic (non-injury) floor being close to Hader, should be ranked much higher.

O's in the "No, Won't Be Here" category. One of 5 least likely teams, per this article.