Keith Law takes another shot at the O's

[Tony-OH]

I am not saying Keith is correct -- I have no idea where he is getting his info. The snippet posted reads like every "the team I cover told me these great things about this kid" report you find on a local beat.

I mean, everyone here realizes that other teams scout South Korea, right? And that it isn't like the Orioles have had this entrenched position on the Pacific Rim for a couple of years? Just because no blog has video or a half-assed scouting report on a player doesn't mean that the baseball community isn't all over that player. And, again, while I have no reason to support or speak out against Keith's particular take here, I think people might consider that Law might actually speak to some international scouts.

Yep, and that guy (I doubt he knows a slew of South Korean scouts) may have given him that report, but at the end of the day, the Orioles have different reports. You and I both know they are not giving 550K to a 5'9" lefty who throw 83 MPH. They obviously feel he's got some projection in him and if their scouts say high 80s with good secondaries and projection, then 550K is not a terrible offer. Honestly, I have no idea whether this guy is any good or not, but I do know that spending money internationally is better than not spending money, even if you just describe to the blind squirrel theory.

[byrdz]

This was beaten to death when Lacava turned down he Orioles. It's obvious that since DD took over, very good baseball people with excellent resumes are willing to come and work for him and the Orioles.

Yeah, I was going to say that DD has pulled some good guys, from the Red Sox no less.

[Tony-OH]

Obviously I am talkign about salary. It will cost Baltimore a lot more than $550K to pay for this young pitcher over the next twelve months, as well, right? Unless players are now covering their own travel, equipment, lodging, etc.

Anti-DD bias is laughable, sorry. Would you like to tell me with a straight face that folks in the organization have never put a rosy spin on a player when discussing kids with you?

You can keep talking about advance scouting -- I think it's pretty obvious you can cut there without losing much. Of course, you're ignoring the actual impactful change in having fewer eyes on the minors. But whatever.

You're preaching to the preacher with a chunk of the rest of your post.

I don't think we know what the plan is for this and honestly, its the one question I want to ask him if I get a chance tonight. Trust me, I'm all about having scouts in the minor leagues. I have a feeling that DD is not going to have the minors unscouted while increasing our scouting presence elsewhere.

[Stotle]

Yep, and that guy (I doubt he knows a slew of South Korean scouts) may have given him that report, but at the end of the day, the Orioles have different reports. You and I both know they are not giving 550K to a 5'9" lefty who throw 83 MPH. They obviously feel he's got some projection in him and if their scouts say high 80s with good secondaries and projection, then 550K is not a terrible offer. Honestly, I have no idea whether this guy is any good or not, but I do know that spending money internationally is better than not spending money, even if you just describe to the blind squirrel theory.

I would doubt Baltimore spends $550K on a 5-9 lefty throwing 83. I also have no reason to think that the Orioles have somehow covertly put together a top notch international scouting machine which has unearthed a top-3 rounds quality high schooler in S. Korea that no other org knew about.

So, logic tells us that the truth is probably that he's a "college kid" that Baltimore either 1) likes more than do the rest of the scouting teams, or 2) signed to help to establish reputation in the region.

[Miller192]

Last I checked, we were a last place team with a mediocre/bad minor league system when he took over and we were a bad major league team with a medicore/bad minor league system when he left. I really don't see how anyone can argue that point. That doesn't mean every move was bad, it means that the sum of his moves did not improve the organization's fortune for now or into the future really.

CJ Wilson and Mark Buerle aren't coming to a team like the Orioles unless we overpaid to the point that they would have been a financial burden. So if they aren't coming, then how do you improve the Orioles roster and with whom?

Honestly, I just don't know of the players that we could have gotten that would be these long term players that we can build around. We need Matusz and Arrieta to step up this season. We need Britton to take another step forward and not take a step back. We need Chen to be a solid major league starter. These are all things that need to happen before the Orioles are in a position to hit the free agent market for that guy that puts them over the top.

To get to the point, I would trade Jones, Hardy, Guthrie, Reynolds etc. and I would build around guys like Machado, Shoop, Britton, Arrietta, Wieters and Bundy....maybe Matusz.

It's probably 2 years before that team is together. We're probably not going to compete in the next two years anyway and then we'll start seeing guys like Jones get as far away from Baltimore as he can.

Or we can just wait for the bell to ring at the top to tell us its time to spend on free agents.

[33rdst]

For years now some people on this board have complained that the Orioles aren't aggressive enough, don't take enough chances. Now we seem to have a guy who, at least on the international level, is very aggressive and is willing to take risks. I would much rather have him spend 500,000 on a young, raw, Korean prospect, the waste millions on Gregg or Atkins. And BTW what is wrong with establishing your brand in Korea. If this move is getting as much attention in Korea as it's getting on this board, the 500,000 has been well spent regardless.

[Stotle]

For years now some people on this board have complained that the Orioles aren't aggressive enough, don't take enough chances. Now we seem to have a guy who, at least on the international level, is very aggressive and is willing to take risks. I would much rather have him spend 500,000 on a young, raw, Korean prospect, the waste millions on Gregg or Atkins. And BTW what is wrong with establishing your brand in Korea. If this move is getting as much attention in Korea as it's getting on this board, the 550,000 has been well spent regardless.

This is a straw man. Signing an undersized Korean teen does not prevent Baltimore from making poor decisions with its ML roster, and vice versa.

Setting up a flag in S. Korea is a good thing. It can be debated as to whether throwing money at a long shot prospect is the best way to do it. So I'd say simply labeling it "money well spent" is probably not looking at the issue in enough detail.

[Fan4Life]

I'm sure the snarkiness will never go away until the Orioles start to win again, and I fully understand that, but too many comments are being blamed on things prior to DD taking over. I'm not about to erect a statue in his honor, but to me he's taking the right steps in order to change the organization's direction. Only winning at the major league level will ever fully confirm that DD made the right choices, but in the end, I can at least see he was willing to try something other than the same old same old that didn't work.

:clap3::clap3::clap3::clap3:

Well done sir.

[Lucky Jim]

For years now some people on this board have complained that the Orioles aren't aggressive enough, don't take enough chances. Now we seem to have a guy who, at least on the international level, is very aggressive and is willing to take risks. I would much rather have him spend 500,000 on a young, raw, Korean prospect, the waste millions on Gregg or Atkins. And BTW what is wrong with establishing your brand in Korea. If this move is getting as much attention in Korea as it's getting on this board, the 500,000 has been well spent regardless.

I can't speak for everyone, but going from refusing to take good risks to taking bad risks wouldn't be a positive shift to me. Spending-for-spending's-sake carries little weight with me. If we do it, we should do it right. I want to see a smart approach to risk and reward. This has always been my take.

I would doubt Baltimore spends $550K on a 5-9 lefty throwing 83. I also have no reason to think that the Orioles have somehow covertly put together a top notch international scouting machine which has unearthed a top-3 rounds quality high schooler in S. Korea that no other org knew about.

So, logic tells us that the truth is probably that he's a "college kid" that Baltimore either 1) likes more than do the rest of the scouting teams, or 2) signed to help to establish reputation in the region.

I agree with this, sort-of. [Actually, I pretty much wholly agree with this. That said...]

I certainly think it's possible that we got on a HS-age kid at the right time. But clearly (1) and (2) are likely factors, too.

I'll ask again, in general: isn't 16-17 an age that we might expect to see an uptick in stuff?

[Fan4Life]

I would doubt Baltimore spends $550K on a 5-9 lefty throwing 83. I also have no reason to think that the Orioles have somehow covertly put together a top notch international scouting machine which has unearthed a top-3 rounds quality high schooler in S. Korea that no other org knew about.

So, logic tells us that the truth is probably that he's a "college kid" that Baltimore either 1) likes more than do the rest of the scouting teams, or 2) signed to help to establish reputation in the region.

It was reported that the kid is the highest rated prospect coming out of high school. Now, I don't know who does the ratings system there but you'd have to think as you pointed out that more teams than just us were interested in this kid.

[33rdst]

I can't speak for everyone, but going from refusing to take good risks to taking bad risks wouldn't be a positive shift to me. Spending-for-spending's-sake carries little weight with me. If we do it, we should do it right. I want to see a smart approach to risk and reward. This has always been my take.

I agree with this, sort-of.

I certainly think it's possible that we got on a HS-age kid at the right time. But clearly (1) and (2) are likely factors, too.

I'll ask again, in general: isn't 16-17 an age that we might expect to see an uptick in stuff?

On what basis do you get that this was a bad risk.

[Stotle]

I'm sure the snarkiness will never go away until the Orioles start to win again, and I fully understand that, but too many comments are being blamed on things prior to DD taking over. I'm not about to erect a statue in his honor, but to me he's taking the right steps in order to change the organization's direction. Only winning at the major league level will ever fully confirm that DD made the right choices, but in the end, I can at least see he was willing to try something other than the same old same old that didn't work.

:clap3::clap3::clap3::clap3:

Well done sir.

Except that you don't need to "win" to change people's perception of the organization. Texas, Tampa, Milwaukee, Washington and Kansas City all earned praise from writers and the baseball community prior to fully righting the ship. Heck, writers were highly complementary of Baltimore and the direction of the organization entering 2010. The org just shot itself in the foot and, from that point, has continued to prove criticisms and concerns from third parties to be accurate.

[BaltOriole]

Since we seem to be throwing money at youngins, lets lock up both of Fielders kids for the next 30 years. Good Baseball genes seem to run in that family :beerchug1:

[Lucky Jim]

On what basis do you get that this was a bad risk.

I didn't say it was. My point was, it's not "fine" simply because it's a deviation from a prior method you disagree with. It requires more granular analysis. Which we're trying to provide.

[Stotle]

I can't speak for everyone, but going from refusing to take good risks to taking bad risks wouldn't be a positive shift to me. Spending-for-spending's-sake carries little weight with me. If we do it, we should do it right. I want to see a smart approach to risk and reward. This has always been my take.

I agree with this, sort-of. [Actually, I pretty much wholly agree with this. That said...]

I certainly think it's possible that we got on a HS-age kid at the right time. But clearly (1) and (2) are likely factors, too.

I'll ask again, in general: isn't 16-17 an age that we might expect to see an uptick in stuff?

Uptick in stuff is generally tied to uptick in physicality in some form. That said, you can have a kid who matures structurally but doesn't necessarily get that much bigger or stronger.

The problem comes when you take that kid and force him to work harder for each pitch and throw way more often and for a longer season than he has ever had to throw. So, let's say this kid as an 18 or 19 year old is 5-10/180, sitting 89-92 with two average to tick above average secondaries by the time he's done with the complex league and Aberdeen. There's still a fair chance that as he sees his velo decrease as he progresses through the minors, simply because of lack of physicality.

I'm not saying this is what will happen, but it is the type of mental exercise you step through depending on the specifics of a player that young.