Jorge Mateo

[jamalshw]

5 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

There is nothing complex about Mateo. He is the ideal type of player the Orioles should give a legitimate shot. He is also not someone anyone should count on for the future. Enjoy it while it lasts and hope for the best. That’s it.  

I generally agree with this. They shouldn't count on Mateo for the future, but I do think he COULD be a future piece. They shouldn't be moving Henderson to 3B and Westburg to 2B right now because of Mateo, but I also don't think it's outlandish that he could be the everyday SS on a winning team in Baltimore. In that scenario, he's probably batting 9th in the order. Or where he's a utility infielder and pinch runner on the team that gets a few more ABs than a standard utility player. We need to see more, but he's been a 100 OPS+ player since he got to Baltimore in 229 plate appearances. That's still a rather small sample size, but it's bigger than the 121 PA in the Majors prior to Baltimore where he was awful at the plate. 

I like Mateo. He's fun to watch. Maybe it's the speed. Maybe something else. I, like you, am not counting on him for the future, but he is the bucket of infielders that I'm banking on producing three starts (2B, SS, 3B) and a utility infielder for the future along with Henderson, Westburg, Mayo, Norby, Vavra, etc. He's part of the potential quantity that makes me feel reasonably well about the infield in the future as we know a few guys won't pan out and Mateo, unlike the others, has already shown something--albeit in a SSS--in the Majors. 

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, RZNJ said:

Ok.  It's not probable.   It also wasn't probable that Cedric Mullens would become an All-star.     It wasn't probable that John Means would be a #3 or better starter.  Mateo has got talent.  He's fun to watch.  He's not blocking any prospect from starting at SS for the Orioles right now.   Sit back, enjoy, and we'll see where he ends up.   Not probable.   Possible.  It happens.   

Ok.  And there is no one disagreeing with this, so I am not sure what the point of saying it is.  

Let him play.  Hell, as much as I wanted a new SS in the offseason, I stated several times that I would rather give Mateo a shot than sign another Freddie Galvis, even though many of the same people touting Mateo probably wanted a Galvis type guy.

Now, if you want to actually discuss something that I am saying, its that I would like to see them acquire a better SS now and move him to a UTI role.  I would guess you would prefer that to not happen and just go with it.  I do disagree there.

Of course, the caveat to all of that is if you think Gunnar can stay at SS.  If so, I wouldn't acquire a SS right now.

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I don't need to wait until the end of the season to know that, at almost age 27, he has largely been a failure as a MLer and was a subpar MiLer.

Subpar minor leaguer?   He was a consensus top 100 prospect three years in a row in the minors.   He wasn’t a great hitter but he certainly wasn’t bad (.747 OPS).   Most shortstops don’t hit that high, even in the minors.   

I don’t disagree that the odds are against him being an above average major league player, but you are overstating your case IMO.
 

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, jamalshw said:

I generally agree with this. They shouldn't count on Mateo for the future, but I do think he COULD be a future piece. They shouldn't be moving Henderson to 3B and Westburg to 2B right now because of Mateo, but I also don't think it's outlandish that he could be the everyday SS on a winning team in Baltimore. In that scenario, he's probably batting 9th in the order. Or where he's a utility infielder and pinch runner on the team that gets a few more ABs than a standard utility player. We need to see more, but he's been a 100 OPS+ player since he got to Baltimore in 229 plate appearances. That's still a rather small sample size, but it's bigger than the 121 PA in the Majors prior to Baltimore where he was awful at the plate. 

I like Mateo. He's fun to watch. Maybe it's the speed. Maybe something else. I, like you, am not counting on him for the future, but he is the bucket of infielders that I'm banking on producing three starts (2B, SS, 3B) and a utility infielder for the future along with Henderson, Westburg, Mayo, Norby, Vavra, etc. He's part of the potential quantity that makes me feel reasonably well about the infield in the future as we know a few guys won't pan out and Mateo, unlike the others, has already shown something--albeit in a SSS--in the Majors. 

His speed and his arm allow him to do things most humans can't.  That is exciting.

[RZNJ]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

He has a 660 OPS and a 270 OBP.  I think the league is doing just fine.

BTW, after 323 ML AB's you've concluded that Jorge Mateo is a failure.     If you've got over a gazillion posts and we keep giving you chances.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Frobby said:

Subpar minor leaguer?   He was a consensus top 100 prospect three years in a row in the minors.   He wasn’t a great hitter but he certainly wasn’t bad (.747 OPS).   Most shortstops don’t hit that high, even in the minors.   

I don’t disagree that the odds are against him being an above average major league player, but you are overstating your case IMO.
 

Yes, he was completely overrated top 100 guy.  I mean, that NEVER happens!

His defense wasn't that great and his offense was so so.  Yes, he was a mediocre MLer and obviously, a very overrated one.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

BTW, after 323 ML AB's you've concluded that Jorge Mateo is a failure.     If you've got over a gazillion posts and we keep giving you chances.

I have?  Even though I have said I would love to see him playing 3-5 times a week and have been saying that since the offseason?  You think I want a guy getting 300-400 at bats, playing all over the field, who I think is a complete failure?  

 

Interesting theory you have there.

 

[RZNJ]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes, he was completely overrated top 100 guy.  I mean, that NEVER happens!

His defense wasn't that great and his offense was so so.  Yes, he was a mediocre MLer and obviously, a very overrated one.

Right, the consensus is wrong when it disagrees with you.   Got it!!   LOL

[Sports Guy]

Just now, RZNJ said:

Right, the consensus is wrong when it disagrees with you.   Got it!!   LOL

No, the consensus is wrong when its proven on the field...which it has been.

 

Do you think, thus far in his pro career, that he has lived up to a high prospect rating status?  Simple yes or no.

[RZNJ]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

I have?  Even though I have said I would love to see him playing 3-5 times a week and have been saying that since the offseason?  You think I want a guy getting 300-400 at bats, playing all over the field, who I think is a complete failure?  

 

Interesting theory you have there.

 

he has largely been a failure as a MLer and was a subpar MiLer.     Can't you even remember what you say?

[RZNJ]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

No, the consensus is wrong when its proven on the field...which it has been.

 

Do you think, thus far in his pro career, that he has lived up to a high prospect rating status?  Simple yes or no.

Duh!   He was rated a top 100 prospect.  That's all that was said.   Most guys don't live up to their prospect status.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, RZNJ said:

he has largely been a failure as a MLer and was a subpar MiLer.     Can't you even remember what you say?

Yes, he has been.  That's a true statement.  What you said is I have concluded that he is a failure.

That's a completely different statement.

Is a failure means we should be done with him, as he has no hope.  Has been a failure means he hasn't been anywhere near the player people thought he would be.

Since I want him getting significant at bats, playing a key role, I obviously believe he has a chance to be far more than he has been thus far.

 

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Duh!   He was rated a top 100 prospect.  That's all that was said.   Most guys don't live up to their prospect status.

So that would mean, you don't think he has lived up to that status right?  Because you prior comment is that the consensus didn't agree with me, so I think its wrong...yet you are saying you don't think he lived up to that hype either, which is all I was saying.

[RZNJ]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes, he has been.  That's a true statement.  What you said is I have concluded that he is a failure.

That's a completely different statement.

Is a failure means we should be done with him, as he has no hope.  Has been a failure means he hasn't been anywhere near the player people thought he would be.

Since I want him getting significant at bats, playing a key role, I obviously believe he has a chance to be far more than he has been thus far.

 

You say he has a chance to be far more than he has been thus far.   Fine.   Let him keep playing SS and see if that happens.  Simple.

[RZNJ]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

So that would mean, you don't think he has lived up to that status right?  Because you prior comment is that the consensus didn't agree with me, so I think its wrong...yet you are saying you don't think he lived up to that hype either, which is all I was saying.

The consensus was that he was a top 100 prospect.   The fact that he isn't a ML star doesn't mean that rating was wrong.   Those ratings are based on potential.     Did he belong on those top 100 lists?   Were they wrong to put him in the top 100?