Bundy or Starling?

[LookinUp]

Doesn't this argument cut both ways, though? No team is going to be able to fill every hole with in house options. At least not with in house options worth a damn. So you've got to plug some holes with free agents. So while it's true that pitchers carry more of an injury risk, is that really a good argument for choosing a hitter over a pitcher on draft day? I don't believe so, because to frame the question of risk between Starling and Bundy (or whoever else) takes the whole scenario out of context. If the Orioles decided to take more hitters than pitchers due to attrition, then they'd soon find themselves having to fill their rotation and bullpen with free agent pitchers, which, obviously, also have a higher attrition rate. It's no secret that free agent pitchers rarely live up to their value, at least relative to free agent position players. So you're going to have to take on that extra risk either way, you just have to decide whether you're going to do it on draft day, or on the free agent market.

Preferring position players over pitchers in the draft doesn't evade the problem. It just kicks the can down the road. And, as I said on the previous page, considering the realities of free agency for Baltimore, it actually makes more sense to take the risk on the front end, and draft pitcher heavy, while pursuing free agent bats.

These are fair points. First, note that I'm talking about similar talents/ages in my post. So, it's not like I'd advocate taking Starling over Bundy if I thought Bundy's upside was really higher. I don't.

My position is really based on 1st round talent alone. I don't want to miss on the top-end talent guys. After that, I could be convinced to go many directions based on talent available, cost and organizational need. If I went position player in round one, I might give several additional picks to pitchers to compensate, as long as I'm not missing out on a positional talent we value very highly.

[Sports Guy]

This is a tough one for me.

On one hand, I say Starling without even thinking about it.

OTOH, I feel the chances of the Orioles developing Bundy are much higher than them developing Starling.

[McNulty]

Six videos of Starling at the DiamondScape Scouting scouting report page: http://diamondscapescouting.com/scoutingreports_2011_starlingde.html

How do you and others feel about the hitch in his swing?

[Stotle]

How do you and others feel about the hitch in his swing?

I don't think much import is assigned to his current mechanics.

[eb45]

Bundy's upside is just a tick lower, if at all, and the probability is significantly higher, to the point where as great as Starling could be, I would still take Bundy, and in ten years not regret it even if Starling becomes Carl Crawford and Bundy becomes Adam Miller.

[Sports Guy]

Of course that's not the only reason. It might not even be the main reason but I'm sure plenty of people, including myself, like that angle. A HS pitcher wouldn't be my choice with all of the good college arms available, but Bundy's high upside, along with the fact that we have his brother in the system, make him an interesting pick.

Why does this carry weight for you? Is it because you feel JJ may have seen more of him than usual?

'

[eb45]

It's a nice story, plus I'd imagine there's a good chance Bundy would be more likely to sign with the Orioles than he would with any other team.

[allstar1579]

It's a nice story, plus I'd imagine there's a good chance Bundy would be more likely to sign with the Orioles than he would with any other team.

No, he's more likely to sign with whatever team pays him $6-7m, cause that's what it's going to take.

[EddieEddie]

We better be willing to shell out $6 mil regardless of who we take. We can NOT afford to miss with this pick.

I see why Starling is so highly thought of. A guy who can run like that at 6'5" is pretty special. I wonder how much power he will develop.

I also really like Bundy. From what I've heard he seems to really have that drive to be great. He also is much more advanced than a typical 18yo pitcher.

[Frobby]

This is a tough one for me.

On one hand, I say Starling without even thinking about it.

OTOH, I feel the chances of the Orioles developing Bundy are much higher than them developing Starling.

I'd pick Bundy because our track record in developing pitchers is better, especially since Starling is something of a "raw" talent. We haven't proved to be very good at developing those types of position players.

[Scrat1]

I'm very firmly in the draft-a-pitcher-unless-Rendon-is-available camp, but just out of curiosity, what separates Starling from Tate? I feel like I've seen this narrative before. The tools are so eye-popping you don't have to worry about anything else like swing mechanics, etc.

[Stotle]

I'm very firmly in the draft-a-pitcher-unless-Rendon-is-available camp, but just out of curiosity, what separates Starling from Tate? I feel like I've seen this narrative before. The tools are so eye-popping you don't have to worry about anything else like swing mechanics, etc.

Starling is a better athlete and he doesn't have the same performance flaws you saw with Tate on the circuit. He was consistently a beast through the summer/fall. Starling is just a better baseball player.

[McNulty]

Another issue with Starling is his football abilities. He's committed to Nebraska as a quarterback.

[Stotle]

Another issue with Starling is his football abilities. He's committed to Nebraska as a quarterback.

The benefit of that is you have the option of breaking up his bonus over five years, rather than one.

[allstar1579]

Another issue with Starling is his football abilities. He's committed to Nebraska as a quarterback.

A decent career at NEB could mean a LOT more money in 3 years than if he went #1 overall even with baseball then. Depends on how this rookie wage scale and hard slotting thing play out.