Jump to content

Baseball America's 2014 O's Top 10 Prospects


VeveJones007

Recommended Posts

Nick, any insight as to why Ohlman wasn't included on the BP Orioles top 10, and why Hart was included? Also, any thoughts generally on Berry and Davies?

Yes. Ohlman is a corner profile for a LOT of evaluators, and while the performance was strong in 2013 there are upper-level tests ahead and the bat will really need to play up for Ohlman to have Major League value at the nine or three spot. Good strong season, but stat chasers (including certain front office folk) seem more impacted by the numbers than the folks in the stands watching him. Still a good follow for 2014 with a chance to increase value with a strong offensive showing at Bowie.

Hart is a better baseball player than the debut showed. Playing in the Gulf Coast League is a tough assignment (because of the degree the weather impacts your routine) and Hart was coming off an incredibly long high school season. He's a heady ballplayer that should have no issue sticking in center with a shot at being an above-average defender there. Good physicality. Needs reps to smooth out approach some, but has shown well against good competition in the past. Scouts' kind of player -- good tools that a dev staff should really enjoy working with.

Davies is back-end guy. Double A will be a big test, since he has almost no margin for error. Good approach on mound, and solid execution of arsenal, so most believe he has a Major League future ahead in some role. It's just a low ceiling.

Berry is similar to Davies in that his stuff isn't eye popping, but he has a little more projection to his game and is left handed. Solid average stuff could be a couple plus pitches (FB/CH) and a solid breaker if he continues to develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Yes. Ohlman is a corner profile for a LOT of evaluators, and while the performance was strong in 2013 there are upper-level tests ahead and the bat will really need to play up for Ohlman to have Major League value at the nine or three spot. Good strong season, but stat chasers (including certain front office folk) seem more impacted by the numbers than the folks in the stands watching him. Still a good follow for 2014 with a chance to increase value with a strong offensive showing at Bowie.

Hart is a better baseball player than the debut showed. Playing in the Gulf Coast League is a tough assignment (because of the degree the weather impacts your routine) and Hart was coming off an incredibly long high school season. He's a heady ballplayer that should have no issue sticking in center with a shot at being an above-average defender there. Good physicality. Needs reps to smooth out approach some, but has shown well against good competition in the past. Scouts' kind of player -- good tools that a dev staff should really enjoy working with.

Davies is back-end guy. Double A will be a big test, since he has almost no margin for error. Good approach on mound, and solid execution of arsenal, so most believe he has a Major League future ahead in some role. It's just a low ceiling.

Berry is similar to Davies in that his stuff isn't eye popping, but he has a little more projection to his game and is left handed. Solid average stuff could be a couple plus pitches (FB/CH) and a solid breaker if he continues to develop.

I've never seen Hart play, but the concern we had and the reason he was so low on our list is the fact that the player development and some pro scouts that I talked didn't see those tools. Maybe the injury effected his overall game, but other than defense, I didn't get a good report on him through the GCL season or instructional league. Hopefully it's just a slow start and though tools will show back up next spring.

I may be in the minority, but I still think Davies has a higher ceiling than most. The stuff I saw wasn't fringy this year, but he'll need to overcome his lack of physicality of course. My issue with Berry has always been the same - lack of movement on his fastball and the fact hitters seems square up his fastball regularly. I was encouraged by his AFL season and think he could settle in as a major league reliever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be in the minority, but I still think Davies has a higher ceiling than most. The stuff I saw wasn't fringy this year, but he'll need to overcome his lack of physicality of course. My issue with Berry has always been the same - lack of movement on his fastball and the fact hitters seems square up his fastball regularly. I was encouraged by his AFL season and think he could settle in as a major league reliever.

I have a bias towards heady command guys like Davies, as I've always liked pitchers who have the knack of getting guys out without blowing them away. So, I hope you are right about him. From watching Berry in the AFL championship game, his mechanics are a bit jumpy for my taste -- they may work to his advantage on those days when he's hitting his spots and getting ahead, but on a lot of days, they'll prevent him from throwing quality strikes. Of course, I've only seen that one outing, so it's just my first impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never seen Hart play, but the concern we had and the reason he was so low on our list is the fact that the player development and some pro scouts that I talked didn't see those tools. Maybe the injury effected his overall game, but other than defense, I didn't get a good report on him through the GCL season or instructional league. Hopefully it's just a slow start and though tools will show back up next spring.

I may be in the minority, but I still think Davies has a higher ceiling than most. The stuff I saw wasn't fringy this year, but he'll need to overcome his lack of physicality of course. My issue with Berry has always been the same - lack of movement on his fastball and the fact hitters seems square up his fastball regularly. I was encouraged by his AFL season and think he could settle in as a major league reliever.

We'll see re: Davies. Double A, Triple A, and Major League hitters have a tendency to expose shortcomings, and Davies' lack of plane on his pitches and average grades across the board (maybe a tick above for the changeup?) doesn't leave a ton of wiggle room.

Berry was a surefire top 7 guy in the system for us. I believe that's where our cutoff was. There's more projection than Davies and it's coming from the left side. In short bursts we had confidence he has a nice safety net as a solid lefty reliever.

I think judging Hart on his limited pro showings is problematic, starting with the fickle nature of the GCL as noted above. He's far from low risk, but it wasn't an accident he received almost twice as much as Sisco upon signing (and almost three times as much as Tarpley) -- there's legit track record at the amateur level, he had a strong spring out of a good Georgia high school, played well for a storied East Cobb program, and has tools/physicality to develop (plus speed, solid arm strength with improving mechanics helping it to play up, broad frame with projectable build, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll see re: Davies. Double A, Triple A, and Major League hitters have a tendency to expose shortcomings, and Davies' lack of plane on his pitches and average grades across the board (maybe a tick above for the changeup?) doesn't leave a ton of wiggle room.

Berry was a surefire top 7 guy in the system for us. I believe that's where our cutoff was. There's more projection than Davies and it's coming from the left side. In short bursts we had confidence he has a nice safety net as a solid lefty reliever.

I think judging Hart on his limited pro showings is problematic, starting with the fickle nature of the GCL as noted above. He's far from low risk, but it wasn't an accident he received almost twice as much as Sisco upon signing (and almost three times as much as Tarpley) -- there's legit track record at the amateur level, he had a strong spring out of a good Georgia high school, played well for a storied East Cobb program, and has tools/physicality to develop (plus speed, solid arm strength with improving mechanics helping it to play up, broad frame with projectable build, etc.).

Did you see Davies this year? If not, who did because I'm not sure what they saw. Davies has good armside run and some sink on his fastball and his curveball became a plus pitch at times with good late bite so unless I'm misunderstanding "lack of plane on his pitches," I would say I disagree. Honestly, your scouting report of Davies sounds a lot like what I would have said after last season, but his stuff took a step up last year in Frederick. Again, I may be in the minority here and I know other scouts that like Berry more as well, (although I'm far from the only one with a higher opinion of Davies) but this is a situation where we'll just have to see how they both do.

As for Hart, we obviously understand the amateur scouts saw more in him and that's why he was selected where he was and was the given the kind of money that he was given. Unfortuntaely, I've seen guys before come in with high draft statuses and bonues fail and the reports I go from mulitple sources that saw him as a pro did not give him very high marks. We don't rank guys solely on draft status and obviously Rajsich and his staff believes in Hart, but at the same time, my concern was over the lack of tools observed by player develop people and some scouts who saw him this summer. Again, it may have been the injury or may have been the "hot weather," but to me, he'll need to prove it on the field before he gets such a high position in the prospect list.

But, as we all know, to each is own. I do not know one person I talked with would have put Hart in their top 10 outside of probably Rajsich who I did not ask for a top 20. It's way too early to have a strong opinion on any of these 1st year players and I generally don't like putting them in the top 10 unless they've shown some great tools or production to get them there, but regardless of the "issues" you mentioned, I can't see putting a guy who put up a .588 OPS in the GCL in the top 10 based solely off how much money he got and what his "tools" supposedly are, especially when several other professional baseball people didn't see those tools.

I guess though that's what's makes this fun. In the end, I guess we'll see who is right and as always, I reserve a strong opinion until I see them up close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you see Davies this year? If not, who did because I'm not sure what they saw. Davies has good armside run and some sink on his fastball and his curveball became a plus pitch at times with good late bite so unless I'm misunderstanding "lack of plane on his pitches," I would say I disagree. Honestly, your scouting report of Davies sounds a lot like what I would have said after last season, but his stuff took a step up last year in Frederick. Again, I may be in the minority here and I know other scouts that like Berry more as well, (although I'm far from the only one with a higher opinion of Davies) but this is a situation where we'll just have to see how they both do.

As for Hart, we obviously understand the amateur scouts saw more in him and that's why he was selected where he was and was the given the kind of money that he was given. Unfortuntaely, I've seen guys before come in with high draft statuses and bonues fail and the reports I go from mulitple sources that saw him as a pro did not give him very high marks. We don't rank guys solely on draft status and obviously Rajsich and his staff believes in Hart, but at the same time, my concern was over the lack of tools observed by player develop people and some scouts who saw him this summer. Again, it may have been the injury or may have been the "hot weather," but to me, he'll need to prove it on the field before he gets such a high position in the prospect list.

But, as we all know, to each is own. I do not know one person I talked with would have put Hart in their top 10 outside of probably Rajsich who I did not ask for a top 20. It's way too early to have a strong opinion on any of these 1st year players and I generally don't like putting them in the top 10 unless they've shown some great tools or production to get them there, but regardless of the "issues" you mentioned, I can't see putting a guy who put up a .588 OPS in the GCL in the top 10 based solely off how much money he got and what his "tools" supposedly are, especially when several other professional baseball people didn't see those tools.

I guess though that's what's makes this fun. In the end, I guess we'll see who is right and as always, I reserve a strong opinion until I see them up close.

Lots of eye witness accounts weighing in on Davies. He may be highly thought of in the org -- outside of it he is not getting the grades your listing. Doesn't mean we got it right, but the writeups are consistent with how he's being written up by a solid number of other orgs. We had two of our evaluators covering Carolina League.

Re: Hart, I don't think any player has enough opportunity to show tools/production in short season ball to earn anything. Sample size is too small. I certainly respect not wanting to commit to any strong opinions until you have a history with a player, but then I question ranking any draft guys at all (which is a valid approach to be sure).

For me personally, the whole history matters. Hart's performance through June matters, and played into his rankings. Nothing to do with draft status, but the round he was drafted and the money he was given is reflective of track record. If you don't want to take his previous showings into account, that's fine. It'll shake out however it does as he tries to work his way through the system. I'll say it is seldom that a player's profile suddenly changes dramatically between May and July. It happens -- usually as a result of injury or a sudden growth spurt -- but more often than not it's just a case of small sample size.

I can say I'm 100% confident our team rankings across the game and the player writeups are the best around. Not a shot at anyone -- I just really trust the process in place. We have a good team of evaluators on staff and have seen (I believe) almost everyone multiple times. In addition, Parks in particular hits the pro scouts hard. Feedback from front offices has been great. Duquette seemed to like the list (I think it discussed it with Roch or Melewski at some point -- don't remember. Someone sent me a link).

EDIT -- Also, I don't think it much matters where you line them up after the top 7. There just isn't much sexy about this system outside of potential impact up top. Even if you loves Davies' stuff, what can you reasonably project him as? A good number 4? Sisco is like four years away and still learning how to catch. Ohlman isn't likely to catch and will likely need to take a good year in high A as a 22 year old and turn it into a legit Major League corner offensive profile. It's just not much to get excited about. Here's hoping some of the lower level guys make some big jumps in the coming year(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of eye witness accounts weighing in on Davies. He may be highly thought of in the org -- outside of it he is not getting the grades your listing. Doesn't mean we got it right, but the writeups are consistent with how he's being written up by a solid number of other orgs. We had two of our evaluators covering Carolina League.

Re: Hart, I don't think any player has enough opportunity to show tools/production in short season ball to earn anything. Sample size is too small. I certainly respect not wanting to commit to any strong opinions until you have a history with a player, but then I question ranking any draft guys at all (which is a valid approach to be sure).

For me personally, the whole history matters. Hart's performance through June matters, and played into his rankings. Nothing to do with draft status, but the round he was drafted and the money he was given is reflective of track record. If you don't want to take his previous showings into account, that's fine. It'll shake out however it does as he tries to work his way through the system. I'll say it is seldom that a player's profile suddenly changes dramatically between May and July. It happens -- usually as a result of injury or a sudden growth spurt -- but more often than not it's just a case of small sample size.

I can say I'm 100% confident our team rankings across the game and the player writeups are the best around. Not a shot at anyone -- I just really trust the process in place. We have a good team of evaluators on staff and have seen (I believe) almost everyone multiple times. In addition, Parks in particular hits the pro scouts hard. Feedback from front offices has been great. Duquette seemed to like the list (I think it discussed it with Roch or Melewski at some point -- don't remember. Someone sent me a link).

EDIT -- Also, I don't think it much matters where you line them up after the top 7. There just isn't much sexy about this system outside of potential impact up top. Even if you loves Davies' stuff, what can you reasonably project him as? A good number 4? Sisco is like four years away and still learning how to catch. Ohlman isn't likely to catch and will likely need to take a good year in high A as a 22 year old and turn it into a legit Major League corner offensive profile. It's just not much to get excited about. Here's hoping some of the lower level guys make some big jumps in the coming year(s).

I really enjoy this kind of back and forth. There's always going to be room for differences of opinion about guys and it will be fun to revisit this next year.

As to your point about the relative weakness of the Orioles' system, it's hard to disagree. Heck, even though you refer to the "top 7," we really don't have unanimity in the 6-7 slots either. Really we haves top five and then the debate begins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of eye witness accounts weighing in on Davies. He may be highly thought of in the org -- outside of it he is not getting the grades your listing. Doesn't mean we got it right, but the writeups are consistent with how he's being written up by a solid number of other orgs. We had two of our evaluators covering Carolina League.

Re: Hart, I don't think any player has enough opportunity to show tools/production in short season ball to earn anything. Sample size is too small. I certainly respect not wanting to commit to any strong opinions until you have a history with a player, but then I question ranking any draft guys at all (which is a valid approach to be sure).

For me personally, the whole history matters. Hart's performance through June matters, and played into his rankings. Nothing to do with draft status, but the round he was drafted and the money he was given is reflective of track record. If you don't want to take his previous showings into account, that's fine. It'll shake out however it does as he tries to work his way through the system. I'll say it is seldom that a player's profile suddenly changes dramatically between May and July. It happens -- usually as a result of injury or a sudden growth spurt -- but more often than not it's just a case of small sample size.

I can say I'm 100% confident our team rankings across the game and the player writeups are the best around. Not a shot at anyone -- I just really trust the process in place. We have a good team of evaluators on staff and have seen (I believe) almost everyone multiple times. In addition, Parks in particular hits the pro scouts hard. Feedback from front offices has been great. Duquette seemed to like the list (I think it discussed it with Roch or Melewski at some point -- don't remember. Someone sent me a link).

EDIT -- Also, I don't think it much matters where you line them up after the top 7. There just isn't much sexy about this system outside of potential impact up top. Even if you loves Davies' stuff, what can you reasonably project him as? A good number 4? Sisco is like four years away and still learning how to catch. Ohlman isn't likely to catch and will likely need to take a good year in high A as a 22 year old and turn it into a legit Major League corner offensive profile. It's just not much to get excited about. Here's hoping some of the lower level guys make some big jumps in the coming year(s).

I honestly like Davies more than most, but let's not fool yourself into thinking I'm just regurgitatin what I hear from those within the organziation. I've also talked to several people outside of the organization and although they all express the same concerns about his size, the more I explained why I liked Davies so much the more they started to say, "You know, I might be a little low on him."

Again, we'll see, and I know I like Davies more than most, but I just like the way he pitches and feel if he was 6-3 with his stuff people would be talking him up much more.

I'm glad you feel so good about your rankings. Sounds like you guys do a lot of good work to prepare and I enjoy the back and forth. Saying that, I feel pretty good about ours as well. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly like Davies more than most, but let's not fool yourself into thinking I'm just regurgitatin what I hear from those within the organziation. I've also talked to several people outside of the organization and although they all express the same concerns about his size, the more I explained why I liked Davies so much the more they started to say, "You know, I might be a little low on him."

Again, we'll see, and I know I like Davies more than most, but I just like the way he pitches and feel if he was 6-3 with his stuff people would be talking him up much more.

I'm glad you feel so good about your rankings. Sounds like you guys do a lot of good work to prepare and I enjoy the back and forth. Saying that, I feel pretty good about ours as well. ;)

Oh, the comment re: "in the org" was meant to be a statement about our rankings, not yours. I was right there with Davies as an undervalued draft pick, so I totally understand why folks like him. I certainly agree that were he four or five inches taller, he would be more interesting. I'm at the same place with Davies as I was with Hoes at one point -- liked him more than most anyone early on, but the ceiling has stayed the same, so he hasn't risen any higher as the years go on. That's good in that I feel like I squared up the eval early, but it also puts me on the side of looking like I'm arguing against the kid (when really I'm not).

No need to sell your rankings, that's for sure. There's a whole community of folks who clearly love them, and you've been formally covering the O's system longer than anyone I can think of. Sounds like solid credentials to me. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, the comment re: "in the org" was meant to be a statement about our rankings, not yours. I was right there with Davies as an undervalued draft pick, so I totally understand why folks like him. I certainly agree that were he four or five inches taller, he would be more interesting. I'm at the same place with Davies as I was with Hoes at one point -- liked him more than most anyone early on, but the ceiling has stayed the same, so he hasn't risen any higher as the years go on. That's good in that I feel like I squared up the eval early, but it also puts me on the side of looking like I'm arguing against the kid (when really I'm not).

No need to sell your rankings, that's for sure. There's a whole community of folks who clearly love them, and you've been formally covering the O's system longer than anyone I can think of. Sounds like solid credentials to me. :)

:) I really wasn't trying to sell my rankings. I respect you and the team of guys there at BP. I honestly think you guys have jumped to the top when it comes to be a national group covering every team. That's mind boggling hard in my estimation.

As for Davies, I know I like the kid more than most. He's either going to make me look real smart or look like the guy that couldn't just accept conventional wisdom which is there for a reason! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, the comment re: "in the org" was meant to be a statement about our rankings, not yours. I was right there with Davies as an undervalued draft pick, so I totally understand why folks like him. I certainly agree that were he four or five inches taller, he would be more interesting. I'm at the same place with Davies as I was with Hoes at one point -- liked him more than most anyone early on, but the ceiling has stayed the same, so he hasn't risen any higher as the years go on. That's good in that I feel like I squared up the eval early, but it also puts me on the side of looking like I'm arguing against the kid (when really I'm not).

No need to sell your rankings, that's for sure. There's a whole community of folks who clearly love them, and you've been formally covering the O's system longer than anyone I can think of. Sounds like solid credentials to me. :)

:) I really wasn't trying to sell my rankings. I respect you and the team of guys there at BP. I honestly think you guys have jumped to the top when it comes to be a national group covering every team. That's mind boggling hard in my estimation.

As for Davies, I know I like the kid more than most. He's either going to make me look real smart or look like the guy that couldn't just accept conventional wisdom which is there for a reason! ;)

We are very fortunate to have such great coverage here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have nothing to add to the great dialogue between Tony and Stotle, but I will comment on the whole BA Melewski thing.

I will preface this by saying that I don't pour through the content of other national coverages or read them often enough to be familiar with their process. As for BA, it seems obvious to me that the full-time staff can't handle all of the leg work necessary to put together the Prospect Handbook with the amount of information their customers expect and still have it based on up-to-date information. So Melewski is not the only local coverage guy who has been hired to help put together a team's coverage. St. Louis and Colorado come to mind as others from this year's coverage. However, this does not mean that they are working solo. They help by doing the leg work talking to scouts and front office people (always inside and outside of the organization) and writing up the team report and player scouting reports. Yes, Melewski is a reporter and not a scout, but what he's being asked to do here is gather information and present it... he's reporting. This then goes through the BA staff editors and they do make changes. So none of this work gets published without first being vetted by the BA staff.

My impression of this method, which is not new, is not all negative. I certainly prefer content from John Manuel, Matt Eddy, Aaron Fitt, and previously from Jim Callis, but the only aspect of the coverage that I find truly lacking is when the local guys are asked to give context/comparisons to other organizations/players in the chats.

And just an FYI regarding John Manuel's comments about doing the O's list. That was the plan originally, but assignments were shuffled around when Jim Callis left.

EDIT/PS: I can't believe I'm defending Melewski. He's usually way too much of an optimistic homer for my taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...