Jump to content

Which O's prospects helped themselves the most in ST?


wildcard

Recommended Posts

1) Trey Mancini - #5 prospect forced his way onto the major league roster.  Can't do much better than that.

2) Cedric Mullins - #19 prospect showed power and speed. May make the jump from low A to AA based on what he has shown this spring.

3) Chance Sisco - #1 prospect was thought to be held back by his defense but he showed well defensively which may have accelerated is way to the majors.

4) Jayson Aquino - Not on the prospect list prior to ST but is  now competing to be the #5 starter.

5) Stefan Crichton - Not on the prospect list prior to ST but showed he may be ready to help the O's in the pen whenever called on. Probably in the Norfolk pen.

6) Gabriel Ynoa - #12 prospect now competing to be the #5 starter.

7) Jesus Liranzo - #16 prospect showed a great arm  that could move fast to the majors. Begins the season at AA. 

8) Anthony Santander - #9 prospect showed the power that made the O's select him in the Rule 5 draft.

9) Chris Lee - #7 prospect showed improvement in his pitches and that he is healthy but needs to improve his pitch efficiency to move to the O's rotation.  Begins at AAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Tavarez. Caught in roster crunch but hit for OBP and showed SB potential. 

Rickard. Went from borderline to lock for platoon role, and could evolve to full time role. Kudos to wildcard for calling his development.

Tyler Wilson. End of last year there were many "he will never pitch in the Orioles uniform" posts. But it appears he may be back, albeit as the last longman and not because of anything in particular he did.

Aquino. Could emerge to make the active roster at some point this year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, weams said:

Probably the most positive writeup I've read on Mancini, certainly from a defensive perspective.  Would be great if he could develop into a serviceable RF, as I think his bat will play as an every day player.  

Melewski's blog (http://www.masnsports.com/steve-melewski/2017/04/more-on-mancini-and-props-for-the-tides-from-the-orioles.html ) today included a very interesting comment from Buck:

“I don’t know, it’s a baseball decision,” he said. “We’ve got Chris Davis at first base. Didn’t like him at shortstop, second, third or center. So that left the corner outfield. It is something we were wanting to do. Personally, I wish we had done it earlier. I thought we should have done it last year. As soon as Chris signed the contract.”

Hindsight 20/20, certainly would've been nice to have worked Mancini in at the OF a bit more, earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, weams said:

Who uses outstanding twice in the same sentence?

Quote

He played outstanding defense, especially in right field, where I saw him take extra bases away from a hitter with an outstanding running catch.

I had to stop and regroup myself before continuing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Who uses outstanding twice in the same sentence?

I had to stop and regroup myself before continuing.

He has been a professional scout for the Houston Astros and Seattle Mariners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ReclaimTheCrown said:

... a very interesting comment from Buck:

“I don’t know, it’s a baseball decision,” he said. “We’ve got Chris Davis at first base. Didn’t like him at shortstop, second, third or center. So that left the corner outfield. It is something we were wanting to do. Personally, I wish we had done it earlier. I thought we should have done it last year."

So who made the decision not to see whether Mancini could be a corner OF? They were giving Walker a shot and it seemed like they regarded Mancini to be the stronger prospect. Was it solely because Walker had a good ST last year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, George Zuverink said:

So who made the decision not to see whether Mancini could be a corner OF? They were giving Walker a shot and it seemed like they regarded Mancini to be the stronger prospect. Was it solely because Walker had a good ST last year?

Dan and the minor league development guys.  Why would Buck have more than cursory input on something like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Promising, but from what I can tell the assessment on his outfield defense is based purely on one play. 

Still, if Mancini could be an everyday RF, that would solve a lot of problems and be a huge boost to this team.

I wonder if the organization's change of thinking on Mancini has more to do with Tavarez being gone than any assessment of Tavarez. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




  • Posts

    • Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.
    • What if they don’t want to be extended?
    • I don't want the O's to lose much, but I do want there to be a massive streaming deal with Amazon or some other company the O's are left out of.  This blackout nonsense is bullsh!t. 🤬
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...