The lineup I want to see in September

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It's all subjective. Every time a guy is promoted and hits .180 for three weeks he was rushed, and every time someone hits .299 for a month in AA and isn't called up the competence of the organization is questioned.  I'm usually in favor of aggressive promotion, but that's just a preference.  I don't know that it's objectively better than a more conservative approach.

Subjective?

You have Hall and Grenier at the same level.  Grenier is promoted over Hall.  I'd like to hear the case that Grenier had shown a higher level of mastery of the level.

[Aglets]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It's all subjective. Every time a guy is promoted and hits .180 for three weeks he was rushed, and every time someone hits .299 for a month in AA and isn't called up the competence of the organization is questioned.  I'm usually in favor of aggressive promotion, but that's just a preference.  I don't know that it's objectively better than a more conservative approach.

Elias told us that Sig has a model that tells him when a prospect has mastered a level / is ready for promotion.

So good news, there is no more subjectivity anymore!  

[DrungoHazewood]

30 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Subjective?

You have Hall and Grenier at the same level.  Grenier is promoted over Hall.  I'd like to hear the case that Grenier had shown a higher level of mastery of the level.

I don't have 1/10th of the information necessary to decide whether or not that was the appropriate move.  

[DrungoHazewood]

31 minutes ago, Aglets said:

Elias told us that Sig has a model that tells him when a prospect has mastered a level / is ready for promotion.

So good news, there is no more subjectivity anymore!  

Models often include subjective inputs.  And even the semi-objective stuff like scouting reports are just assigning integers to informed guesses.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't have 1/10th of the information necessary to decide whether or not that was the appropriate move.  

I wasn't asking if you thought it was the appropriate move.

I was asking for evidence that Grenier had shown superior mastery of the level.

He didn't.  That's the whole point.  They say what they say and then if it is expedient they don't act like they say they are going to act. 

Obviously mastery of the level, which is a nebulous term in the first place, isn't really the overriding criteria. 

 

[interloper]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I wasn't asking if you thought it was the appropriate move.

I was asking for evidence that Grenier had shown superior mastery of the level.

He didn't.  That's the whole point.  They say what they say and then if it is expedient they don't act like they say they are going to act. 

Obviously mastery of the level, which is a nebulous term in the first place, isn't really the overriding criteria. 

 

I think they want to see mastery ideally, but it's always a case by case basis. If Elias was running things purely black and white like that, I think we agree that would be bad. There's a ton of moving parts in the minor leagues, if everyone had to master the level before moving up, things would get weird pretty quick.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, interloper said:

I think they want to see mastery ideally, but it's always a case by case basis. If Elias was running things purely black and white like that, I think we agree that would be bad. There's a ton of moving parts in the minor leagues, if everyone had to master the level before moving up, things would get weird pretty quick.

I think that if you are not requiring a college first round pick to show mastery than you are just blowing smoke.  Have they already relegated a 2018 first round pick to org filler status?

[interloper]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think that if you are not requiring a college first round pick to show mastery than you are just blowing smoke.  Have they already relegated a 2018 first round pick to org filler status?

I don't think we have enough info to honestly make that call. Maybe he's a guy they felt needed a challenge? We don't know. You're also making it sound like Elias said "no one is moving until mastery, period" which he obviously didn't. So to say he's blowing smoke on his general preferred development process based on one iffy prospect is pretty silly.

Also, what data was used before the promotion? Is there something there that doesn't bear out in the numbers? We don't know. Sig would.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, interloper said:

I don't think we have enough info to honestly make that call. Maybe he's a guy they felt needed a challenge? We don't know. You're also making it sound like Elias said "no one is moving until mastery, period" which he obviously didn't. So to say he's blowing smoke on his general preferred development process based on one iffy prospect is pretty silly.

Also, what data was used before the promotion? Is there something there that doesn't bear out in the numbers? We don't know. Sig would.

He had 107 strike outs in 308 at bats.  Does that sound like someone that needed a challenge?

Guy is a 2018 first round pick, if he isn't subject to "obtaining mastery" who is?

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

He had 107 strike outs in 308 at bats.  Does that sound like someone that needed a challenge?

Guy is a 2018 first round pick, if he isn't subject to "obtaining mastery" who is?

My only thoughts are his glove is what will get him to the big leagues. They can continue to work on his batting as he progresses. 

They want both to play SS and they can’t be on the same team. So the older player moves up. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

My only thoughts are his glove is what will get him to the big leagues. They can continue to work on his batting as he progresses. 

They want both to play SS and they can’t be on the same team. So the older player moves up. 

Which means mastery of the level didn't matter.

Why are posters defending holding back someone like Daiz or Mountcastle back by citing this quote when we have an obvious example of leadership ignoring it?

Diaz, when he gets healthy, and Mountcastle have earned promotions. 

[Philip]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Subjective?

You have Hall and Grenier at the same level.  Grenier is promoted over Hall.  I'd like to hear the case that Grenier had shown a higher level of mastery of the level.

When Grenier was drafted I was a bit confused because he went a lot earlier than projected, but I was happy to get someone who was supposedly an outstanding defender, albeit with a light bat. Well it seems he’s not an outstanding defender, either. I don’t know anything about Hall, but it looks as if he’s the better SS at the moment.

[MurphDogg]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Which means mastery of the level didn't matter.

Why are posters defending holding back someone like Daiz or Mountcastle back by citing this quote when we have an obvious example of leadership ignoring it?

Diaz, when he gets healthy, and Mountcastle have earned promotions. 

Diaz is healthy, he played his first game with Bowie last night after 3 rehab games with Aberdeen.

[TINSTAAPP]

16 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

What's Diaz working on in AA? 

When guys are ready promote them.  If you are worried about service time extend them.

With the new CBA looming I'm willing to bet that extending them is going to be a smarter move than trying to manipulate their service time by holding them back in the minors.

Yeah, the handling of Diaz has really puzzled me. The guy put up a .841 OPS at AA last year, has a very good spring training, and then you have him repeat AA again? You can't really use the excuse that he was being blocked by anybody. They've given almost 500 PAs to Mason Williams this year. Also, Stewart was promoted in late May and Santander was promoted to the Orioles in early June. They could have at least moved up Diaz after those two were promoted to the big leagues. What's the point of having him accumulate over 800 PAs at AA?

[Yardball85]

18 hours ago, Philip said:

Well, thats fine, but the goal shouldn’t be to increase his trade value, because he essentially has none. However if they want to see if he could be good enough at third that he could replace Ruiz, that might be a legitimate goal. I like Ruiz, but he may not hit well enough.

By value, I mostly meant his value to the Orioles.  I'd love it if Nunez could be our starting third baseman when we are good again.