FanGraphs ranks O’s minor league system 28th

[Frobby]

5 hours ago, Palmoripken said:

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. 

I think you need to separate two things:

1.   Doing a great job of drafting and development.   

2.   Deciding whether to keep the guys you’ve drafted and developed or trade them for established players.  

I do think Duquette tried to put a lot of emphasis on 1.    He said that in his first presser and many times during his tenure, and I do think it was an important priority for him, regardless of whether he fully succeeded.   But on 2, he clearly sacrificed a good bit of young talent in trades for established players, including some deals that were short-sighted.    

[Bradysburns]

On 11/13/2018 at 1:48 PM, Can_of_corn said:

Was it?

I'm thinking the idea with the Gausman trade was to lower payroll.

We asked for international slot money in the Gausman deal from what I recall. So... I assume that was part of the thinking? I don't hate a couple of those Atlanta prospects: JRE and Zimmerman look particularly interesting. 

Still, the trade didn't need to happen at that point in time. I wish we would have waited and let Elias and company handle these important trades (other than Manny, of course, for obvious reasons). Ah well... 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Bradysburns said:

We asked for international slot money in the Gausman deal from what I recall. So... I assume that was part of the thinking? I don't hate a couple of those Atlanta prospects: JRE and Zimmerman look particularly interesting. 

Still, the trade didn't need to happen at that point in time. I wish we would have waited and let Elias and company handle these important trades (other than Manny, of course, for obvious reasons). Ah well... 

How many teams would O'Day have agreed to be traded to?

I don't think folks consider O'Day's no trade protection when looking at this trade.

[tntoriole]

This is about where the Astros farm system was when Mike Elias joined them.  Nowhere to go but up. 

[Bradysburns]

19 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

How many teams would O'Day have agreed to be traded to?

I don't think folks consider O'Day's no trade protection when looking at this trade.

Interesting point, but even so: couldn't we have traded O'Day to Atlanta without including KG? That would have been a good trade and a sensible salary dump, regardless of return. 

[Can_of_corn]

30 minutes ago, Bradysburns said:

Interesting point, but even so: couldn't we have traded O'Day to Atlanta without including KG? That would have been a good trade and a sensible salary dump, regardless of return. 

I'd wager that O'Day had negative value.

 

[LookinUp]

17 hours ago, tntoriole said:

This is about where the Astros farm system was when Mike Elias joined them.  Nowhere to go but up. 

Our system isn't high-upside, but it's not terrible. The problem is any champion needs elite ML players. We have the looks of a system that can fill out maybe 15-25 of a great team with a couple sprinkled higher, but definitely in need of some MVP/Cy Young type talent.

[Luke-OH]

25 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd wager that O'Day had negative value.

 

Significant negative value.

[tntoriole]

1 hour ago, LookinUp said:

Our system isn't high-upside, but it's not terrible. The problem is any champion needs elite ML players. We have the looks of a system that can fill out maybe 15-25 of a great team with a couple sprinkled higher, but definitely in need of some MVP/Cy Young type talent.

three years of number one picks and other high picks hopefully will land us a Manny, Altuve, Keuchel type mix.   

[LookinUp]

20 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

three years of number one picks and other high picks hopefully will land us a Manny, Altuve, Keuchel type mix.   

Yep. Fingers crossed. It is encouraging, IMO, that we have a pretty significant number of guys who really do look like future ML contributors. We might take for granted some of the guys in the 10-25 range, but this organization hasn't traditionally extracted much value from that ranking area and now it seems like we may be able to. We still need the shiny objects, but we might already have a fair number of future glue guys in the organization.

[Frobby]

Fangraphs has updated its farm system rankings prior to the draft, taking into account both changes in player grades since last November, new players and graduated players.   The Orioles have moved up from 28th to 22nd. They value the players currently in our farm system at $135 mm in surplus value, up from $77 mm in November.

They also put a dollar value on draft picks, and project our draft spots to be worth $82 mm, most in MLB (despite all the first round picks Arizona has).    So, post-draft we should be up to 16th.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/pre-draft-farm-system-rankings/

 

[UMDTerrapins]

Thanks for the update. You’d like to think we’d have a top 10 system after the 2020 draft and it looks like we’re tracking. 

[Frobby]

13 minutes ago, UMDTerrapins said:

Thanks for the update. You’d like to think we’d have a top 10 system after the 2020 draft and it looks like we’re tracking. 

Maybe.   A few of the players in the farm system now may have graduated by then.   Of course, I’m more concerned with getting some good players in our system regardless of whether they are farmhands or major league rookies, than I am with the farm rankings.

 

[LookinUp]

Quote

There will be an update moving the FV of dozens of prospects right after the draft, and draftees who haven’t yet signed but who we expect to sign (essentially all top 10 round picks) will also be added right away. With that in mind, because THE BOARD will change in a significant way right after the draft, we wanted to capture how things looked both during the winter and in this pre-draft, pre-trade deadline moment. At some point soon after the draft concludes, we’ll have dynamic farm rankings on THE BOARD that will update whenever we change a pro prospect’s FV, which will happen frequently after this first update goes live.

So it looks like what they meant by "now" is they took out players who graduated from prospect status. That's it. It looks like they haven't updated the FVs for developing prospects. I'd expect our ranking to go up more than 6 spots, but could be wrong. For example, given the timing of their updated post-draft rankings, it'll be interesting to see if they knock Diaz, Hays and Kremer for lack of production/playing time. My guess is they will, but with a strong week or two they might be less likely to do so (e.g., withholding judgment).

Personally, I'd withhold judgment on the guys who were injured but are now healthy, if I were them.  

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

So it looks like what they meant by "now" is they took out players who graduated from prospect status. That's it. It looks like they haven't updated the FVs for developing prospects. I'd expect our ranking to go up more than 6 spots, but could be wrong. For example, given the timing of their updated post-draft rankings, it'll be interesting to see if they knock Diaz, Hays and Kremer for lack of production/playing time. My guess is they will, but with a strong week or two they might be less likely to do so (e.g., withholding judgment).

Personally, I'd withhold judgment on the guys who were injured but are now healthy, if I were them.  

The November version was before they had done the postseason review of our system, which upgraded several of our prospects.   That’s why we were at $77 mm in November, and $135 mm now.   But yes, I think a few of our players may get upgraded again when they revise these post-draft.    Of course, some guys may get downgraded, too.