Farm System - End of 2023

[glenn__davis]

12 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Haskin could play a full year at AAA and finish top 15. Same with Rom and Denoyer. 

Keep in mind our '23 draft pick is going to be middle of the pack. I doubt whoever we pick slots as high as #2, but maybe so with all the graduations. 

Yep, John Rhodes as well.  Thought about each of those, they just missed the cut on my list.

As I said - highly speculative

[emmett16]

I think Young is a sleeper people aren’t thinking about.  I’ve been impressed with him at SS & his swing.  

[geschinger]

20 minutes ago, Alasdaire said:

Right, that's the weird part about the Kjerstad situation, it's hard to dismiss it out of hand because he hasn't played enough to say it was a bad pick.

The thing is that I think they made a bad decision even if you wanted to go underslot so that you could get Mayo and Baumler later. Because Veen, Hassell, and Crow-Armstrong all signed for less than Kjerstad did. 

Just wanted to point out that the total amount signed for doesn't work for comparisons. The fact that all three guys you mentioned signed for less than Kjerstad is irrelevant - you have to look at slot and were the receptive to taking a discount on their value at the slot picked. 

Crow-Armstrong required full slot and Veen was slightly over slot.  There is nothing to indicate they were willing to take a contract that like Kjerstad was massively discounted from the value of the slot they were picked.  Hassell was the only one willing to take any discount at all and it was a much lower % discount than Kjerstad took.

Edited September 2, 2022 by geschinger

[Alasdaire]

12 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Just wanted to point out that the total amount signed for doesn't work for comparisons. The fact that all three guys you mentioned signed for less than Kjerstad is irrelevant - you have to look at slot and were the receptive to taking a discount on their value at the slot picked. 

Crow-Armstrong required full slot and Veen was slightly over slot.  There is nothing to indicate they were willing to take a contract that like Kjerstad was massively discounted from the value of the slot they were picked.  Hassell was the only one willing to take any discount at all and it was a much lower % discount than Kjerstad took.

Absolutely. But the fact remains that they signed for less than Kjerstad. So if there's nothing to indicate that they would've gone as underslot as Kjerstad did at 1:2, then there's equally nothing to indicate they weren't willing to take the more than they ended up getting later on. Can't really say either way.

 

[geschinger]

Just now, Alasdaire said:

Absolutely. But the fact remains that they signed for less than Kjerstad. So if there's nothing to indicate that they would've gone as underslot as Kjerstad did at 1:2, then there's equally nothing to indicate they weren't willing to take the more than they ended up getting later on. Can't really say either way.

 

It's pretty safe to assume that players that require full slot were not going to accept less money being picked at #2 than they would get picked in the top 8.  I think what Kjerstad ended up signing for was equivalent to slot for the #8 overall pick.  If Veen or Crow-Armstrong considered themselves as having no realistic chance of being picked in the top 8 then realistically they may have been an option that would have considered a Kjerstad deal.  In which case on draft day the O's would have been attacked even more for drafting someone so much lower than their pre-draft ranking.

[LookinUp]

I feel like Povich needs 2 more ticks on the fast ball to be rated this high. I like the player, but am not sure he's quite at the level some have been acting like. 

I also could be wrong. Just not totally sold yet.

[Alasdaire]

4 minutes ago, geschinger said:

It's pretty safe to assume that players that require full slot were not going to accept less money being picked at #2 than they would get picked in the top 8.  I think what Kjerstad ended up signing for was equivalent to slot for the #8 overall pick.  If Veen or Crow-Armstrong considered themselves as having no realistic chance of being picked in the top 8 then realistically they may have been an option that would have considered a Kjerstad deal.  In which case on draft day the O's would have been attacked even more for drafting someone so much lower than their pre-draft ranking.

So Veen would have gone to school instead of going pro at 1:2 if the O's offered him $5.2m like they did Kjerstad, but he accepts $5.0m from the Rockies to forego college at 1:9? I would have assumed they just had a number that had to be met.

As to the pre-draft ranking thing, that is why I don't like the underslot philosophy in the first place. You're already not choosing the best player available by nature of the guy being underslot, and yet you can't stray too far from consensus rankings without looking really bad. So you take a guy like Kjerstad who was ranked around 10 rather than Crow-Armstrong who was as low as 20 on some boards. It's all too formulaic and actual scouting goes by the wayside.

[LookinUp]

3 minutes ago, Alasdaire said:

As to the pre-draft ranking thing, that is why I don't like the underslot philosophy in the first place. 

No offense, but I don't think you know what the O's "underslot philosophy" even means. I think it's tied to player valuations, which incorporate risk, which incorporates position and available data.

And I think they went underslot because they liked Kjerstad's valuation in the context of other available players, not because they just wanted to go underslot.

[RZNJ]

21 minutes ago, Alasdaire said:

Absolutely. But the fact remains that they signed for less than Kjerstad. So if there's nothing to indicate that they would've gone as underslot as Kjerstad did at 1:2, then there's equally nothing to indicate they weren't willing to take the more than they ended up getting later on. Can't really say either way.

 

The jury is out on Kjerstad.  Was he able to workout 100% last year?   I’d say with a full off-season of lifting and no holds barred, next year is a make or beak year.

Crow-Armstrong (12 walks 61 K’s in A+),  Veen (.598 OPS after 87 PA in AA) and Hassell (.439 OPS after 60 PA) are all 20 and highly rated with time on their side.  Still a long way to go.

[Alasdaire]

Just now, LookinUp said:

No offense, but I don't think you know what the O's "underslot philosophy" even means. I think it's tied to player valuations, which incorporate risk, which incorporates position and available data.

And I think they went underslot because they liked Kjerstad's valuation in the context of other available players, not because they just wanted to go underslot.

I have freely admitted multiple times that I'm speculating. But it seems like they actively wanted to go underslot. And it has become pretty clear they're not interested in drafting pitchers that early. So I'm speculating that their philosophy here involved going into the draft actively targeting an underslot position player at 1:2 because they wanted to take Mayo/Baumler later and because they think pitchers are too risky as a rule.

Was Kjerstad a good pick? We don't have data to properly evaluate Kjerstad. But we have data to show that other position players that signed for less $ than Kjerstad and were highly regarded at that time are good: Veen, Hassell, and Crow-Armstrong.

[Alasdaire]

11 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

The jury is out on Kjerstad.  Was he able to workout 100% last year?   I’d say with a full off-season of lifting and no holds barred, next year is a make or beak year.

Crow-Armstrong (12 walks 61 K’s in A+),  Veen (.598 OPS after 87 PA in AA) and Hassell (.439 OPS after 60 PA) are all 20 and highly rated with time on their side.  Still a long way to go.

Agreed that next year is very important for Heston. Rooting hard for him.

[geschinger]

23 minutes ago, Alasdaire said:

So Veen would have gone to school instead of going pro at 1:2 if the O's offered him $5.2m like they did Kjerstad, but he accepts $5.0m from the Rockies to forego college at 1:9? I would have assumed they just had a number that had to be met.

If the O’s picked Veen would he have caved in negotiations and eventually accepted $5m not to go to school?  Maybe.  But it’s not something the Orioles could have known for sure on draft day before picking Baulmer and Mayo.  If they still picked them, That’s a lot of leverage - Orioles losing him and both Baulmer and Mayo if he chooses school.

[Alasdaire]

3 minutes ago, geschinger said:

If the O’s picked Veen would he have caved in negotiations and eventually accepted $5m not to go to school?  Maybe.  But it’s not something the Orioles could have known for sure on draft day before picking Baulmer and Mayo.  If they still picked them, That’s a lot of leverage - Orioles losing him and both Baulmer and Mayo if he chooses school.

Fair enough. I just wonder whether they even tried to get a number from these prep bats. There were so many good HS position players in this class that I scratch my head at coming away from the 1:2 pick with Kjerstad even if you are trying to go underslot. Hopefully Mayo makes it all worth it.

[RZNJ]

1 hour ago, Alasdaire said:

So Veen would have gone to school instead of going pro at 1:2 if the O's offered him $5.2m like they did Kjerstad, but he accepts $5.0m from the Rockies to forego college at 1:9? I would have assumed they just had a number that had to be met.

As to the pre-draft ranking thing, that is why I don't like the underslot philosophy in the first place. You're already not choosing the best player available by nature of the guy being underslot, and yet you can't stray too far from consensus rankings without looking really bad. So you take a guy like Kjerstad who was ranked around 10 rather than Crow-Armstrong who was as low as 20 on some boards. It's all too formulaic and actual scouting goes by the wayside.

Do you think Stowers, Westburg, Ortiz, Cowers, Norby, Beavers, Fabian, and Rhodes were too formulaic?

The book isn’t written but their hit percentage on college hitters looks pretty good so far.   Kjerstad is the outlier and he hasn’t had a normal path.  Seems odd to me to question that pick on merit.  Results matter but I don’t think it’s very wise to assume they didn’t scout well or made a decision based on faulty decision making.   The .463 average at Delmarva quieted the skeptics.  The Aberdeen stats are bringing them back out.  Hopefully, a strong season next year does the trick.

[Alasdaire]

15 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Do you think Stowers, Westburg, Ortiz, Cowers, Norby, Beavers, Fabian, and Rhodes were too formulaic?

The book isn’t written but their hit percentage on college hitters looks pretty good so far.   Kjerstad is the outlier and he hasn’t had a normal path.  Seems odd to me to question that pick on merit.  Results matter but I don’t think it’s very wise to assume they didn’t scout well or made a decision based on faulty decision making.   The .463 average at Delmarva quieted the skeptics.  The Aberdeen stats are bringing them back out.  Hopefully, a strong season next year does the trick.

I don't have a problem with their bias toward college bats. If their methodology is reliably able to identify good college position players, then it makes sense for them to take those guys even if scouts more highly rank a pitcher or a high school hitter higher.

But there's a difference between a bias and a predetermination. I don't see how you take Heston Kjerstad at 1:2 unless you've imposed so many conditions that he's the only guy left standing.

Maybe they legitimately thought that Heston Kjerstad was better than Jordan Walker, Zac Veen, Robert Hassell, Pete Crow-Armstrong, etc. That would put them in the minority. We can't say whether they were wrong because of Kjerstad's time off.

I think your system has to be fluid enough to make exceptions. You can argue they did that this year by taking Holliday rather than Brooks Lee. And aren't we all pretty happy about that?