FanGraphs ranks O’s minor league system 28th

[Hallas]

26 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:

I know you weren’t trying to say that OH overrates the teams prospects, but before anyone else gets that takeaway, 2080 baseball gave 10 O’s prospects a 50 or better (2 - 55s) and that’s without having a report on Grayson Rodriguez. Baseball America will likely have a similar number. 

You've talked before about how Fangraphs' criteria is a little weird for prospects right?  Also how their 50 is more like everyone else's 55?

[atomic]

How much future value did they give to Mesa brothers and Gaston?

[Luke-OH]

1 hour ago, Hallas said:

You've talked before about how Fangraphs' criteria is a little weird for prospects right?  Also how their 50 is more like everyone else's 55?

Yeah, although they’ve gotten more generous since McDaniel returned, I think it was a Longenhagen thing.

But this is more about Fangraphs being low on Orioles prospects, they have no one in their top 131, while BA is going to probably have at least 3 in their top 100.

[sportsfan8703]

5 hours ago, wildbillhiccup said:

I mean, this is kinda on brand. Quantity over quality has been our strategy in the free agent market for years. I agree that more depth is needed at the minor league level , but it's hard to believe we couldn't get back at least one high level prospect when we dealt Machado, Britton, Schoop, and Gausman. 

The depth acquired was needed considering we ignore the whole int’l market.  

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

33 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

The depth acquired was needed considering we ignore the whole int’l market.  

Exactly the cupboard was bare.  This why the Orioles bring in so many AAAA types for organizational depth, where normally there would be some international prospects taking up those spots in the system. 

[MMussina35]

Maybe Fangraphs is factoring in the illustrious player development program or the top notch coaching they’ll receive at the ML level?

[Luke-OH]

2 hours ago, MMussina35 said:

Maybe Fangraphs is factoring in the illustrious player development program or the top notch coaching they’ll receive at the ML level?

I know this is a slightly tongue-in-cheek comment, but it’s true. Some prospect analysts literally downgrade a prospect when the Orioles acquire them. So yeah, I think there is serious anti-Orioles prospect bias. While I agree it might be warranted with prospects that require significant mechanical changes, I think it’s become pervasive to the point that it’s a standard deduction which I think is foolish.

[wildbillhiccup]

12 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

The depth acquired was needed considering we ignore the whole int’l market.  

The phase quantity doesn't equal quality applies to all walks of life, including baseball. And when they made the trades their intention was to make a big splash in the international market as well. 

[ScGO's]

Vlad Jr has more value than SEA and BOS  systems combined? That's wild.

Its a really interesting list overall; at least its another way of looking at it.  I see a lot of positive in this list too.  There are only four teams with more prospects accounted for in their rankings (TEX-35, MIN-36,TBR-36, and SDP with a ridiculous 46) than the O's 31 prospects albeit 24 of those prospects are 40 rankings, but that is still quality talent.  

Its also a very cushy floor for a system that is going add 50-60 talent very quickly through the draft and player development changes.  We have some high draft picks coming to us over the next two+ seasons.  We still have this intl. money for a while, can we do anything with that to add value? (don't say trade it)  Its a crapshoot, but we have some trade bait if they play well into the trade deadline. Bleier, Bundy, Givens, Mancini, Trumbo, Cobb, Cashner, and Villar could bring back some 40-45's, maybe a 50 if Villar, Givens or Bundy are lights out.

Maybe this new guy comes in and refines the system based on his analytics and he does some prospect for prospect trades.  Maybe some of our 40's play into 45's and 50's.  After two seasons of changes and additions, we could be sitting pretty, and our current depth will be one of those reasons.

 

 

 

[Palmoripken]

That's something that needs to change if we're going to be successful again. I don't expect us to be top-5 every year but it should be a goal to try to get into the top ten. When we were successful in the mid 60's through the early 80's, we had a strong farm system that allowed a sort of next man up when a guy either left via FA, got traded, retired. The key to long term success will not be attracting free agents but making our system a top tier one where we can generate strong prospects who can contribute at a fraction of the cost of a big name FA. Not saying we shouldn't be active in FA. We absolutely should but the key is the farm. 

[Frobby]

23 minutes ago, Palmoripken said:

That's something that needs to change if we're going to be successful again. I don't expect us to be top-5 every year but it should be a goal to try to get into the top ten. When we were successful in the mid 60's through the early 80's, we had a strong farm system that allowed a sort of next man up when a guy either left via FA, got traded, retired. The key to long term success will not be attracting free agents but making our system a top tier one where we can generate strong prospects who can contribute at a fraction of the cost of a big name FA. Not saying we shouldn't be active in FA. We absolutely should but the key is the farm. 

We have been saying this for, oh, about 20+ years now.   Easy to say, hard to do.    There are 30 teams that would like to have a great farm system.    

[Palmoripken]

14 minutes ago, Frobby said:

We have been saying this for, oh, about 20+ years now.   Easy to say, hard to do.    There are 30 teams that would like to have a great farm system.    

Oh of course. But has it been a key part of the emphasis of the FO? I liked Duquette but he definitely wasn't one that seemed to see that as a priority. 

[Hallas]

16 hours ago, Luke-OH said:

 I know this is a slightly tongue-in-cheek comment, but it’s true. Some prospect analysts literally downgrade a prospect when the Orioles acquire them. So yeah, I think there is serious anti-Orioles prospect bias. While I agree it might be warranted with prospects that require significant mechanical changes, I think it’s become pervasive to the point that it’s a standard deduction which I think is foolish.

So the org that produced one of baseball's brightest superstars in recent memory (Manny) gets penalized?  Does that mean that Vlad Jr would be a 65 if he were traded to the O's?  (I know that's not realistic, just putting it out there as a hypothetical.)

I'm in no way implying that the O's are doing great, but you are right that it is extremely foolish.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Hallas said:

So the org that produced one of baseball's brightest superstars in recent memory (Manny) gets penalized?  Does that mean that Vlad Jr would be a 65 if he were traded to the O's?  (I know that's not realistic, just putting it out there as a hypothetical.)

I'm in no way implying that the O's are doing great, but you are right that it is extremely foolish.

Did they do much of anything in the minors to develop Machado?

What did Weaver say about the great ones?

[Hallas]

15 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Did they do much of anything in the minors to develop Machado?

What did Weaver say about the great ones?

I think in general we've had a decent record with position players in our system after about 2003-ish.  Markakis, Wieters, and Machado, not sure if we count Jones but we could.  We've had a few role players too during that time.  I think that the prospect-downgrade makes a lot more sense if you're limiting it to pitchers, considering we've developed maybe 1 quality pitcher from the ground-up since Mussina/McDonald, which was almost 30 years ago now.