Jump to content

MASN: Steve Meleswski with Brian Graham - We are absolutely one of the premier development systems


weams

Recommended Posts

I think you are too tough on yourself. An Omelette is pretty good if you don't burn it, or leave it too runny. Spend your money on something delicious then. Like a reliever going down the stretch. Or a nice power bat off the bench. We will always have fond memories of Jim Thome and Andrew Miller. They are always there if you have the money. Unlike the Blue Jays.

It was a bit runny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Well, that's good enough for me.

And seriously, again, talking about what the O's system has done in a vacuum is pointless (which is basically all the article does). I made an omelette for breakfast today, and I think it turned out pretty well. Does that make me a good cook? Should I go pro? Or is it worth investigating how well other people perform the same feat before concluding that I'm actually good in the kitchen?

Talking about what the O's have done without comparing their accomplishments to those of the rest of MLB over the same period doesn't accomplish anything. And from what HAS been added to this discussion in that regard, it seems like the O's continue to fall short. Graham's protestations notwithstanding.

Not a shot at Baltimore at all -- I'm just putting together deep scrubs on low-minors systems right now and...I mean come to the Midwest League and take a look at the LoA clubs that the Cubs, Blue Jays, Diamondbacks, Cardinals, Mariners are putting on the field. It isn't even necessarily about future Top 100 prospects or MLB all-stars. Just the depth of talent is really impressive and the good clubs seem to pull from so many different acquisition points.

I don't think Baltimore is a mess or anything like that. But I believe it's much more accurate to say "our acquisition and development isn't preventing us from doing what we need to do in order to be competitive at the major league level" as opposed to "we do this as well as anyone."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a shot at Baltimore at all -- I'm just putting together deep scrubs on low-minors systems right now and...I mean come to the Midwest League and take a look at the LoA clubs that the Cubs, Blue Jays, Diamondbacks, Cardinals, Mariners are putting on the field. It isn't even necessarily about future Top 100 prospects or MLB all-stars. Just the depth of talent is really impressive and the good clubs seem to pull from so many different acquisition points.

I don't think Baltimore is a mess or anything like that. But I believe it's much more accurate to say "our acquisition and development isn't preventing us from doing what we need to do in order to be competitive at the major league level" as opposed to "we do this as well as anyone."

The Red Sox appear to be a notable omission based on some of your recent comments over the past few years. What happened there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Grahm really believes his statement to SM, than I think it should be grounds for dismissal.

I would hope that the O's development staff has some metric that they do self evaluate themselves against the competition, and if so Grahm hopefully knows that his statement is undefensible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Red Sox appear to be a notable omission based on some of your recent comments over the past few years. What happened there?

Red Sox aren't in Midwest League (Sally affiliate) -- they are very much stacked in the lower levels. With Moncada signing we have them at fourth best system in baseball right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a shot at Baltimore at all -- I'm just putting together deep scrubs on low-minors systems right now and...I mean come to the Midwest League and take a look at the LoA clubs that the Cubs, Blue Jays, Diamondbacks, Cardinals, Mariners are putting on the field. It isn't even necessarily about future Top 100 prospects or MLB all-stars. Just the depth of talent is really impressive and the good clubs seem to pull from so many different acquisition points.

I don't think Baltimore is a mess or anything like that. But I believe it's much more accurate to say "our acquisition and development isn't preventing us from doing what we need to do in order to be competitive at the major league level" as opposed to "we do this as well as anyone."

I would like to separate out talent level in the organization, drafting/acquisition ability, and development. I think they are three separate things. Talent level depends in part on where a team has been in the draft order in recent years, and whether the team either has lost picks or traded away MiL talent. I think the BA rankings are intended to assess talent level now available in the minors, and that seems to be mostly what your post is addressing.

As to drafting/acquisition ability, I like what I've seen during the Duquette era. Hunter, Sisco, Walker and possibly Brian Gonzalez all look to have outperformed expectations based on their draft slot. I think the O's have done a nice job of finding players from other organizations to improve the upper level minor league teams and have guys who can fill in at the major league level in a competent manner. I don't think the Orioles get spectacular grades here, but I feel they've done better than average.

The final piece is player development -- do they take the talent they're given, and develop guys who can or eventually will help the major league team? Overall, I like what I've seen the last three years. They've put a lot of emphasis on defense and playing the game the right way. Buck sends the MiL teams weekly tapes of things that occurred in the Oriole games to illustrate how the Orioles want things done. There seem to be fewer pitchers getting hurt, and a lot of pitchers seem to be getting good results. There seems to be a good work ethic among the coaches and players in the minors.

If I were to separate out these three pieces, I'd say the talent level is the weakest component but the other two are pretty good. We might very well have one of the stronger player development programs going these days -- certainly, it seems to be well ahead of where it was when Duquette took over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were to separate out these three pieces, I'd say the talent level is the weakest component but the other two are pretty good. We might very well have one of the stronger player development programs going these days -- certainly, it seems to be well ahead of where it was when Duquette took over.

A lot to take in but focusing on this -- what is the evidence of Baltimore having one of the stronger player development programs going these days? And that's not to say things haven't improved, but if Baltimore were one of the better player development systems in the game wouldn't we see a lot more depth across the levels with a large number of kids exceeding expectations? What about claims that there is a disconnect between the day-to-day instruction players are receiving and the instruction they are getting from the roving instructors (basically Duquette's guys) that rotate through?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agenda alert!

The man wants evidence, but then uses unfounded claims to support his argument.

You're aware the word "claim" isn't synonymous with "lack of evidence". Unless you believe the only kind of claim is an unsubstantiated claim...is that what you believe?

Frobby laid out specific examples for the rest of his analysis (e.g. acquisition of Harvey/Sisco/Walker) but didn't provide anything with respect to the developmental side. Did you have something to offer up, or just an unsubstantiated claim that there is doe sort of agenda driving my question?

EDIT -- I'm pretty sure Frobby's response would be that he likes what he's seen with respect to the process (which is really what he's getting at in his post) even if we don't yet have firm evidence that he process is producing a constant stream of in-house contributors to the major league club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agenda alert!

The man wants evidence, but then uses unfounded claims to support his argument.

What agenda does Stotle have other than telling it like he sees the situation? Same thing happens to me if I don't paint an "everything is rosey" picture. If you prefere the Melewski/Graham view of the system, great, but I don't think it's fair to tell people who have some other information that they have an agenga.

I'll "battle" with Stotle when I disagree, but I always value his opinion on here and he brings the unique national view to this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot to take in but focusing on this -- what is the evidence of Baltimore having one of the stronger player development programs going these days? And that's not to say things haven't improved, but if Baltimore were one of the better player development systems in the game wouldn't we see a lot more depth across the levels with a large number of kids exceeding expectations? What about claims that there is a disconnect between the day-to-day instruction players are receiving and the instruction they are getting from the roving instructors (basically Duquette's guys) that rotate through?

I certainly am not competent to judge the comparative merits of the Orioles' player development program vs. other teams. And Tony's recent report that there is some disconnect between the day-to-day coaches and the roving instructors is certainly a concern. I do feel like I see a lot of Oriole prospects making good progress in the minors these days. I pay zero attention to what goes on in other team's MiL organizations, so I couldn't possibly compare them to other teams. So, when I say "we might very well have one of the stronger player development programs these days," I'm not saying that we do, just that I'm not ruling that out merely because the overall talent level is mediocre at present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What agenda does Stotle have other than telling it like he sees the situation? Same thing happens to me if I don't paint an "everything is rosey" picture. If you prefere the Melewski/Graham view of the system, great, but I don't think it's fair to tell people who have some other information that they have an agenga.

I'll "battle" with Stotle when I disagree, but I always value his opinion on here and he brings the unique national view to this forum.

Another reason why the Hangout is great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess where one person sees creative, another sees a GM giving... away a 4-5 WAR pitcher.

Does anyone really feel that Jake Arrieta had any more time left on his Orioles clock? On a team that was trying to compete and where wins actually meant something? I understand the other criticisms. But seriously. Jake is why we did not make the playoffs in 2013.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly am not competent to judge the comparative merits of the Orioles' player development program vs. other teams. And Tony's recent report that there is some disconnect between the day-to-day coaches and the roving instructors is certainly a concern. I do feel like I see a lot of Oriole prospects making good progress in the minors these days. I pay zero attention to what goes on in other team's MiL organizations, so I couldn't possibly compare them to other teams. So, when I say "we might very well have one of the stronger player development programs these days," I'm not saying that we do, just that I'm not ruling that out merely because the overall talent level is mediocre at present.

I think the anecdotal evidence you pointed to is certainly encouraging. I think the original article is a fluff piece, which is fine. I also think the Orioles are lining themselves up closer to the Astros' "We love our process; this is going great" school of public relations as opposed to the Cubs' "It's great to have folks call you the best system in the game but we all know we haven't won anything yet and all that matters is what we ultimately produce at the major league level" talking point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • Posts

    • Jackson Holliday is 20. At AAA, there are 2 batters that are 20. And Jackson Holliday is one of them.  There are only 6 players that are 21. If we consider all players at AAA with a minimum of 50 PA between the ages of 20-22, there are 34 of them. Some are no longer at AAA (ex: James Wood). Jackson Holliday among those 34: 3rd best OBP 14th best SLG 8th best OPS 15th best AVG 15th best ISO 16th best K% 7th best WOBA 12th most HR 1st in 2B 6th in SB What does this tell me? Well, he's really f'ing good for a 20 year old. Especially since nearly 80% of the guys on that list are 22. Even if you add the 23 year olds in the mix (total of 64 people 23 and under): 4th best OBP 28th best SLG 13th best OPS 26th best AVG 25th best ISO 29th best K% 11th best WOBA 20th most HR 1st in 2B 12th in SB The improvement between AAA last year and this year is also massive for him. Better average, OBP, slugging, OPS, he's stealing bases at a 3x pace, strikeout rate is better. And keep in mind he wasn't a slouch at AAA last year *as a 19 year old*!  His numbers at AA as a 19 year old vs. Basallo: Holliday: .338/.421/.507 - .928 OPS Basallo: .274/.338/.449 - .787 OPS So, yeah. Holliday is really f'ing good. 
    • Some of the GM's job is negotiating and shaving the small pieces, but big pieces and protecting our big 3, I do keep looking at Cowser #4 and Kjerstad #5, and wonder who says no to that 2-for-1. I know in the name of Andy MacPhail percolating, Scott Harris would be trying to drag that last Kam Mickolio out of Elias.   We seem to like Auburn pitchers, and I wouldn't mind seeing what Orioles player development could do with Casey Mize if the deal was expanded.   Or Mize as a surprise stand alone target.
    • Under what microscope?  He went 1-1. How many teams scouted him before the draft. Definitely not advanced scouts.  Advanced scouts figure things out. Ask Holliday about what the scouts already knew about his hitting. 
    • He was the one who shamed the front office when they did nothing, and then they got Justin Verlander a minute or three later.    Of course the rules were easier in those years.
    • And, just for the sake of balance... They are one starting pitcher (trade) away from losing one or a handful of their best* long-term prospects, for a short-term, high-risk gamble. * notably incl. some ranked among best in MLB
    • It's coming IMO. Tons of interesting guys from the last few drafts starting to pop this year.
    • This. is. fun.  I'm not sure we'll ever see another Mark Teixeira type craze here, but the joint is jumping nonetheless.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...