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

[Sports Guy]

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.

[NCRaven]

19 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Mountcastle isn't in that class.  Especially Bart, Mize, Sanchez.  

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

[Ruzious]

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.      

[eddie83]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

He’s a younger version of Mancini to me.

I would take that.  

[Moose Milligan]

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.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, eddie83 said:

I would take that.  

Sure..but that also means you will have some sub 800 OPs seasons when he won’t be that valuable.

[Can_of_corn]

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.

[Moose Milligan]

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.

 

[Can_of_corn]

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.

[Moose Milligan]

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.  

[Sports Guy]

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.

[Can_of_corn]

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.

[Sports Guy]

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.

[Can_of_corn]

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.

[makoman]

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.