Jump to content

I'm Ready for Mountcastle and Diaz: Mountcastle Up, Diaz Still Waiting


ChuckS

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Well I specified Bart, Mize, Sanchez.  Those guys are all studs.  Kieboom, maybe.

There's been so much yammering on here about Mountcastle, I'm curious what everyone's expectations are for him.  

He’s a younger version of Mancini to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

He’s a top 100 guy but probably not a lot separating them...except Keiboom plays third and isn’t a disaster with glove.

You're right - actually I'm shocked to see MLB.com had him at 21.  From what I've seen, Garcia looks like a much better prospect for the Nats - and only 20 years old in the majors - sheesh.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

Then there's even less reason to delay his arrival over service time issues.

I guess.  I mean, I'm not chomping at the bit to see him, I really don't get the hype.  I get that people always want to see the prospects and that backup QB syndrome is a thing.  But there's a lot of holes in his game.  SG says he could be a younger Mancini...IMO, Mancini output is the best case scenario for him.

I don't think Mountcastle is a super, can't miss prospect, he's also not a JAG.  He's somewhere in between.  If the Orioles feel that they can coax better performance out of him and develop him better, fine.  And if they want to play the service time game, well, be upset at the infrastructure that makes it so, not a the Orioles for playing within the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I guess.  I mean, I'm not chomping at the bit to see him, I really don't get the hype.  I get that people always want to see the prospects and that backup QB syndrome is a thing.  But there's a lot of holes in his game.  SG says he could be a younger Mancini...IMO, Mancini output is the best case scenario for him.

I don't think Mountcastle is a super, can't miss prospect, he's also not a JAG.  He's somewhere in between.  If the Orioles feel that they can coax better performance out of him and develop him better, fine.  And if they want to play the service time game, well, be upset at the infrastructure that makes it so, not a the Orioles for playing within the rules.

If it means less Dwight Smith Jr I'm on board.

I also think his ceiling is higher than Mancini's.  Mostly because we know how poor an outfielder Mancini is, Mountcastle has a chance to end up average out there.  Him not being able to stick at short or third really isn't a reason to discount his chances of playing left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If it means less Dwight Smith Jr I'm on board.

I also think his ceiling is higher than Mancini's.  Mostly because we know how poor an outfielder Mancini is, Mountcastle has a chance to end up average out there.  Him not being able to stick at short or third really isn't a reason to discount his chances of playing left.

Well, yeah, I want less DSJR, too.

Mountcastle has a chance to be average out there because...why?  Because he's not Mancini?  It seems like he's got a chance in some peple's minds to be average because he hasn't proved himself to be NOT average.  And there's the optimistic hope that, well, hey, maybe he's better than advertised with the glove.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Because he was talented enough to stick at short for a few years as a professional.  Not like average in left is a high bar.

But not talented enough to stick at short to get to the majors.  Like it or not, he is a guy that doesn't have a true defensive position.  You like to rail against DSJR (not saying you shouldn't, it's justified) but if your logic here is that Mountcastle can't be as bad, you also have to account for the idea that he could be just as bad.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Because he was talented enough to stick at short for a few years as a professional.  Not like average in left is a high bar.

No, he was offensively talented enough that they had nothing to lose at the lower minors to see if he could handle a real position.

That's far different than what you are implying here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

No, he was offensively talented enough that they had nothing to lose at the lower minors to see if he could handle a real position.

That's far different than what you are implying here.

I'm comparing him to someone that wasn't athletic enough to play outfield for Notre Dame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm comparing him to someone that wasn't athletic enough to play outfield for Notre Dame.

And the comparison means nothing.  
 

Mountcastle was drafted out of HS, as a SS.  Maybe Mancini played SS or 3rd in HS?  Perhaps if Mountcastle went to college, we would already know that he couldn’t handle those positions.

A lot of MLers played premium positions well into their teens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

And the comparison means nothing.  
 

Mountcastle was drafted out of HS, as a SS.  Maybe Mancini played SS or 3rd in HS?  Perhaps if Mountcastle went to college, we would already know that he couldn’t handle those positions.

A lot of MLers played premium positions well into their teens.

I disagree.

Yes Mountcastle was a liability at short but I can't imagine a scenario in which Mancini was even given the chance to try shortstop at the professional level.  There is a degree of athleticism required to play even a poor shortstop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

No, he was offensively talented enough that they had nothing to lose at the lower minors to see if he could handle a real position.

That's far different than what you are implying here.

But I thought his primary problem was arm, not athleticism? Again, much lower bar in left to be averagish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • It's a foregone conclusion that they will blow a 4 game lead in the span of 6 games? 
    • 100%! I say abolish divisions, play a fully balanced schedule and take the top 4 or 6 or 8 or whatever teams in each league to the playoffs. 
    • The question was asked, a few months ago, whether winning the division was necessary. A lively debate resulted, some saying the division didn’t matter(“just make the playoffs and anything can happen”) and some taking the opposite view. I wanted the Division and I’m disgusted the play has been so bad. And I haaaate the Yankees( sports hate. I’m sure they are all great guys in person.) It will not magically improve, and I despair of winning more than two more games…not even 90 wins. And in a Homer–prone park, how many homers will the Os give up? The thought is not comforting. And there’s little reason to think things will improve against the Tigers or Royals. But at least: 1) next year they will hopefully have Bautista and the position players healthy. 2) The farm has very few MLB-ready players so there won’t be so much bouncing back and forth. Hopefully the guys can settle in and just play. 3) the Os will be looking for a fourth consecutive winning season, which hasn’t happened since the 70s So there’s that…
    • I was about to post a similar thread, but despite my memory issues, I recalled this thread.  I still find myself enjoying sports less and less.  The issue is not my teams, but myself.  It's a sad reality that I'm bothered when my team doesn't win, or does win, but wins in a way that is not how I wanted them to!  LOL!  It's ridiculous.  Frankly, I'm somewhat ashamed. The O's are very likely going to the playoffs.  But instead of being happy about that, I'm more concerned with how awful we've been and how little I expect from them as the post-season draws near.  A real fan loves his team and sticks with them, through thick and thin.  It's absolutely okay to be critical, even frustrated, at times, but when those are the default and dominant expressions, it makes me feel... less than.  It's like this with all my favorite teams (O's/Ravens/Terps).  It's therapeutic, in a way, to reveal such truths.  But the quest to find a way to enjoy sports again, to enjoy what my teams are doing, is a process that is taking longer than I'd hoped.  
    • I wouldn’t say I’m fired up.  I’d like to do enough to (1) win the season series (which only takes one win), (2) clinch a playoff spot (which probably only takes one win, depending what other teams do, and (3) improves our chances of getting the no. 4 seed (which might take a couple of wins, depending how other teams do).   
    • It feels like a foregone conclusion that the O’s sneak in with the third wild card spot and then lose the wild card series. So it just doesn’t really matter all that much what happens from here on out.    Then again, get hot at the right time and this could still be a World Series contender. I have to see some fire in this team before I entertain that thought though.
    • I am not really fired up per se.  I am just hoping that something happens that is different than what we have seen for months.  A late comeback to win the game.  A big inning of 4 runs or more.  Some big hits from Adley or Holliday.   1 win means we win the season series against everyone in the East for the second year in a row.  That would be great.  And even if we lose, I am hoping that watching the Yankees celebrate in front of them and the fans celebrate around them fires them up.   
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...