O's hope to lose 5 of their top 30 prospects by July

[wildcard]

No, not to trade. To graduation.  The O's hope that MLB rated #4 Mountcastle, #6 Hays, #11 Akin, # 15 Harvey and #21 Bailey all graduate to the majors in the next few months.   The will add two or three prospects from the amateur draft.  How will this effect the O's overall rating for the farm system?

 

[Pickles]

Who gives a s--t?

You don't win because you have a top ranked farm system.

The purpose of a farm systems isn't to be highly ranked.

It's to produce players and trade chips to make the major league team win games.

This over-analyzation of every promotion in regards to how does the farm system ranks now is extremely tiring, to me at least.

The interesting question should be how do those guys perform at the major league level.

[Frobby]

38 minutes ago, wildcard said:

No, not to trade. To graduation.  The O's hope that MLB rated #4 Mountcastle, #6 Hays, #11 Akin, # 15 Harvey and #21 Bailey all graduate to the majors in the next few months.   The will add two or three prospects from the amateur draft.  How will this effect the O's overall rating for the farm system?

I’m more concerned about how these players produce in the majors.   Getting good production out of those five would improve our major league team significantly.     Bailey particularly would be like manna from heaven if he turned out to be a decent major leaguer, considering that we plucked him from another organization.    We also might lose Kremer and/or Zimmermann by July.    So long as they produce, I really don’t care how our farm system is ranked.   

But to further answer your question, we have three top 40 draft picks coming our way in June, and hopefully other players in our system making good progress.    So, I don’t think our farm system ranking will be affected dramatically.    It’s not like the other 29 farm systems aren’t graduating players.   The average team debuts 8 players a year.    Not all of those are considered to be within their systems’ top 30 prospects, but obviously a lot of them are.   

 

[ChosenOne21]

I've always been more concerned with "Talent under 25" than prospect rankings. If your farm system sucks because they all graduated to productive Major League careers, that's a good thing

[hoosiers]

2 hours ago, Pickles said:

Who gives a s--t?

You don't win because you have a top ranked farm system.

The purpose of a farm systems isn't to be highly ranked.

It's to produce players and trade chips to make the major league team win games.

This over-analyzation of every promotion in regards to how does the farm system ranks now is extremely tiring, to me at least.

The interesting question should be how do those guys perform at the major league level.

Who peed in your cheerios?

Most of the time teams do win a couple of years after having a quality farm system.  The addition of young, cheap and high quality players is a major boost to a team's chances of winning - like when the Cubs won, when the Astros won (still field a high quality team even with the cheating), the Rays ability to consistently compete.  

The Os will not compete again until we have a very strong farm system.

[hoosiers]

4 hours ago, wildcard said:

No, not to trade. To graduation.  The O's hope that MLB rated #4 Mountcastle, #6 Hays, #11 Akin, # 15 Harvey and #21 Bailey all graduate to the majors in the next few months.   The will add two or three prospects from the amateur draft.  How will this effect the O's overall rating for the farm system?

 

Interesting topic to discuss especially considering that a rating system like BA has Mountcastle outside their top 100.  Three picks in the top 40 or so in the upcoming draft means to me that those prospects should be in line or better than our 4, 6 and 11 prospects with our first round pick being a player who should rate in the top 40-70 or so.  Still, we will graduate a lot of guys - perhaps as many as eight to 10.  Adding an entire international class without really losing any quality international prospects means that our prospect depth should take a noticeable improvement overall - even if we won't see those international prospects hit prospect lists for another two or three years.  The most visible improvement in our system would come from a trade of our major leaguers or from individual prospects improving their rating.

[wildcard]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

I’m more concerned about how these players produce in the majors.   Getting good production out of those five would improve our major league team significantly.     Bailey particularly would be like manna from heaven if he turned out to be a decent major leaguer, considering that we plucked him from another organization.    We also might lose Kremer and/or Zimmermann by July.    So long as they produce, I really don’t care how our farm system is ranked.   

But to further answer your question, we have three top 40 draft picks coming our way in June, and hopefully other players in our system making good progress.    So, I don’t think our farm system ranking will be affected dramatically.    It’s not like the other 29 farm systems aren’t graduating players.   The average team debuts 8 players a year.    Not all of those are considered to be within their systems’ top 30 prospects, but obviously a lot of them are.   

 

Kremer and Zimmerman have not had success at AAA yet.  I doubt if they have enough service time in the majors by July to be off the prospect list.

[Frobby]

39 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Kremer and Zimmerman have not had success at AAA yet.  I doubt if they have enough service time in the majors by July to be off the prospect list.

Good point.    I was just thinking about when (optimistically) they might debut, not when they’d lose their status as a prospect.    

[billw76]

I don't think those 5 graduating to the majors will affect the farms rating very much. Mountcastle is the only Top 100 guy of the 5, and whoever is drafted at #2 will possibly be ranked higher. The competitive balance pick and 2nd rounder should/could land in our top 15. 

Having a highly ranked farm doesn't always equal success at the MLB level though, and these guys will need to perform in an Orioles uniform. A strong farm gives us a lot more options though if these guys do perform, with cost controlled players and trade chips further down the road. We need to continue to draft well and make some major signings on the international front to keep the pipeline flowing with talent.

[HowAboutThat]

A farm is a bank. Prospects are assets. We spend them wisely, we will have a nice house.

[sportsfan8703]

I think we learned from our last run that it’s not about the high end talent, that’ll come with high draft picks, but the depth of the farm. The lack of international talent and trading away comp picks doomed our last run. 
 

The goal is too have a really deep talent pool that is always getting added too. Look at the Rays, it seems like every week they deal a “prospect” to fill a position of need at the MLB level, but still have a loaded farm. 

The goal isn’t to have a good 1-10. It’s to have a good 1-40/50. 

[TheOtherRipken]

15 hours ago, hoosiers said:

Interesting topic to discuss especially considering that a rating system like BA has Mountcastle outside their top 100.  Three picks in the top 40 or so in the upcoming draft means to me that those prospects should be in line or better than our 4, 6 and 11 prospects with our first round pick being a player who should rate in the top 40-70 or so.  Still, we will graduate a lot of guys - perhaps as many as eight to 10.  Adding an entire international class without really losing any quality international prospects means that our prospect depth should take a noticeable improvement overall - even if we won't see those international prospects hit prospect lists for another two or three years.  The most visible improvement in our system would come from a trade of our major leaguers or from individual prospects improving their rating.

1999 we had 6 picks in the top 40 or so and none worked out, there is a subtext in your post that I agree with - the Os cannot mess up this draft.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, TheOtherRipken said:

1999 we had 6 picks in the top 40 or so and none worked out, there is a subtext in your post that I agree with - the Os cannot mess up this draft.

Technically correct.   We had six picks in the top 44 and only three made the majors, two for a cup of coffee.    Only Larry Bigbie (2.5 rWAR in 392 games) had any substantial career.   However, Brian Roberts was drafted no. 50 overall that year and had a 30 WAR career.   We also got Erik Bedard (17.3 rWAR) in the 6th round that year.

[Pickles]

20 hours ago, hoosiers said:

Who peed in your cheerios?

Most of the time teams do win a couple of years after having a quality farm system.  The addition of young, cheap and high quality players is a major boost to a team's chances of winning - like when the Cubs won, when the Astros won (still field a high quality team even with the cheating), the Rays ability to consistently compete.  

The Os will not compete again until we have a very strong farm system.

First, yeah, I am a jerk.  Frobby basically said the same thing I did, but he's far more diplomatic than I.  

Second, nobody disagrees with what you just said.  I mean, that's basically like saying it rains more often when the sky isn't blue but gray.  Yeah, no kidding.

Thirdly, I'll reiterate my point: It's just silly to me to focus on the effect on the MiL ranking when discussing a prospect call-up, rather the the actual performance of the prospect.  The OP is hardly alone in this regard, and I just find it tiring.

An imperfect analogy might be when your favorite band releases a new album, and the discussion revolves around the new albums ability to get them to the RnR HOF, rather than, you know, the quality of music on the new album.  It's just kind of..... dumb.  (There's the jerk in me again.)

[wildcard]

34 minutes ago, Pickles said:

First, yeah, I am a jerk.  Frobby basically said the same thing I did, but he's far more diplomatic than I.  

Second, nobody disagrees with what you just said.  I mean, that's basically like saying it rains more often when the sky isn't blue but gray.  Yeah, no kidding.

Thirdly, I'll reiterate my point: It's just silly to me to focus on the effect on the MiL ranking when discussing a prospect call-up, rather the the actual performance of the prospect.  The OP is hardly alone in this regard, and I just find it tiring.

An imperfect analogy might be when your favorite band releases a new album, and the discussion revolves around the new albums ability to get them to the RnR HOF, rather than, you know, the quality of music on the new album.  It's just kind of..... dumb.  (There's the jerk in me again.)

Yet Elias seems to value having a minor league system that is ranked high.