Grant Green...

[Greg Pappas]

This from BA...

"...but he is similar to Tulowitzki in his defensive skills and playmaking ability. He has excellent range, outstanding hands and the smooth and fluid actions of a possible Gold Glove defender. Green has a fine arm, though not quite the cannon Tulowitzki possesses. He's faster than either Longoria or Tulowitzki, frequently clocking in the 6.6-second range over 60 yards. While he doesn't profile as an offensive powerhouse, he should become a long-term middle-infield fixture, a solid .280-plus big league hitter who may produce 15-20 home runs annually."

After speaking with his Cape manager late last year and reading reports like this, I'm as comfortable as I can be that he'll be a fine ML SS, and a potentially very good one. He had a sore shoulder and then two more aggravating injuries early, but has still performed well despite the lack of HR's.

I would be pleased to see him available at pick five, and our top pick. I know the detractors will argue against him, and that's okay... after all, this is one of the reasons we're here.

[crawdad]

This from BA...

"...but he is similar to Tulowitzki in his defensive skills and playmaking ability. He has excellent range, outstanding hands and the smooth and fluid actions of a possible Gold Glove defender. Green has a fine arm, though not quite the cannon Tulowitzki possesses. He's faster than either Longoria or Tulowitzki, frequently clocking in the 6.6-second range over 60 yards. While he doesn't profile as an offensive powerhouse, he should become a long-term middle-infield fixture, a solid .280-plus big league hitter who may produce 15-20 home runs annually."

After speaking with his Cape manager late last year and reading reports like this, I'm as comfortable as I can be that he'll be a fine ML SS, and a potentially very good one. He had a sore shoulder and then two more aggravating injuries early, but has still performed well despite the lack of HR's.

I would be pleased to see him available at pick five, and our top pick. I know the detractors will argue against him, and that's okay... after all, this is one of the reasons we're here.

Honestly, there are probably about 5 people we could pick from at the 5 spot and not be unhappy with. It is just going to be tight.

[Greg Pappas]

Honestly, there are probably about 5 people we could pick from at the 5 spot and not be unhappy with. It is just going to be tight.

True... and I'll go one further and say the following players are all reasonable expectations at pick #5... and they are all good.

No particular order, but any of these players (for me) would be worth the pick.

Tanner Scheppers RHSP

Aaron Crow RHSP

Jacob Turner RHSP

Alex White RHSP

Tyler Matzek LHSP

Matt Purke LHSP

Grant Green SS

Donovan Tate OF

[crawdad]

True... and I'll go one further and say the following players are all reasonable expectations at pick #5... and they are all good.

No particular order, but any of these players (for me) would be worth the pick.

Tanner Scheppers RHSP

Aaron Crow RHSP

Jacob Turner RHSP

Alex White RHSP

Tyler Matzek LHSP

Matt Purke LHSP

Grant Green SS

Donovan Tate OF

The Georgian Wheeler as well.

[Greg Pappas]

The Georgian Wheeler as well.

I left him and Gibson off, as I'm not as high on them as others... however, he (Wheeler) may very well be worth it if I'm wrong. I've been mistaken a time or two, but never wrong.

[crawdad]

I left him and Gibson off, as I'm not as high on them as others... however, he (Wheeler) may very well be worth it if I'm wrong. I've been mistaken a time or two, but never wrong.

Yeah, Gibson too.

There just is not a lot of distancing this year. I'm sure when the unwashed masses show up they will have a lot to complain about because there are just so many options that it will be easy to disparage Jordan and MacPhail. I mean, people went all out and it was just Matusz, Smoak, and Beckham. Though . . . I guess it should be said that if I knew how low Posey would sign for, I probably would have selected him.

[Greg Pappas]

Yeah, Gibson too.

There just is not a lot of distancing this year. I'm sure when the unwashed masses show up they will have a lot to complain about because there are just so many options that it will be easy to disparage Jordan and MacPhail. I mean, people went all out and it was just Matusz, Smoak, and Beckham. Though . . . I guess it should be said that if I knew how low Posey would sign for, I probably would have selected him.

We agree again...

In my personal rankings last year I had Posey at #4, Smoak at #5 and Matusz at #6... and any would have been great picks.

[Ruzious]

"He has excellent range, outstanding hands and the smooth and fluid actions of a possible Gold Glove defender."

Speaking as an unwashed mass (sans the m ), I'm now back on the Grant Green bandwagon and selling tickets like Ticketmaster for a Springstein concert.

[crawdad]

"He has excellent range, outstanding hands and the smooth and fluid actions of a possible Gold Glove defender."

Speaking as an unwashed mass (sans the m ), I'm now back on the Grant Green bandwagon and selling tickets like Ticketmaster for a Springstein concert.

For a while, we (Camden Depot) were the only ones who were saying he could stick at shortstop . . . Now they go and run off way past us and declare him a potential gold glove shortstop. Eh, I don't see that. I mean, his range is the big thing . . . it certainly is not excellent.

[WebLink21]

My avatar thinks that we should draft him.

[crawdad]

Thanks for this Greg, I remain convinced that Green has to be the pick if he is available at 5.

Oh, the seeds of rancor are being sowed.

[crawdad]

It is not a new opinion…

I certainly will defer to yourself, and Stotle, and Greg (let alone Mr. Jordan and the rest of the O's scouting staff) as you have all actually evaluated the players, and I have not..… but I think the O's selecting Green is an easy decision for the O's… if they rank Green within their top 10.

I understand that in baseball you can not draft for need, when the players you are drafting are several years away from even potentially helping the Major League team…. But the flip-side of that is I do not think you can completely ignore organizational need either.

So the way I would handle those conflicting view-points is that I would tend to stay with my board… but if had players ranked basically equal, I take the position of significantly higher need.

I understand there are questions about Green's ability to stay at SS, and that some are disappointed in his offensive production here in his Junior year.

I think there are enough positive reviews about his defense (yours included), and that he produced enough with a wooden bat in the Cape Cod league last year to justify taking him with the 5th pick.

I also think that Greg's research on Top 10 draft-picks during the 10 year draft-period of 1993 through 2003, that he provided prior to last year's draft was extremely relevant:

While subjective, he determined that of those picks:

A) High School Hitters > 72% good picks

B) College Hitters > 57% good picks

C) High School Pitchers > 31% good picks

D) College Pitchers > 28% good picks

The Orioles are continuing to rebuild… and will always lack the resources of NY and Boston. The Orioles are not the little sisters of the poor when it comes to resources… but when you are working at a disadvantage with your direct competition, and you are already starting from behind… I think the investment of 1st round dollars has to be with the player more likely to help you.

Maybe the O's have Scheppers, Crow, Turner, White, Matzek, and Purke ranked slightly higher on their board… maybe they grade several of them out with a slightly-higher ceiling vs Green's… but I take the position player.

You take Green now… you get him signed early… he gets some at-bats with Aberdeen… heads to the AFL… starts 2010 at Bowie… he can be the starting SS by June 2011, and perhaps by Opening Day.

Green is a perfectly fine candidate to be selected in the 5 slot. I don't think he is far and away the best talent there though. I don't think anyone is.

Regarding Greg's reporting . . . I was worried when he posted that that people would run with it in the wrong manner. Those numbers are useful only if you think the act of drafting a person is blind. What you need to do is go through the failed players and figure out why. You also need to understand that this working knowledge is more complex and that complex understanding is actually being implemented when judging talent.

[crawdad]

I think I laid out the different variables that exist, and I also stated that Greg's research there was somewhat subjective.

In-fact I recently saw an argument on Baseball Analysts arguing the opposite point…

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/05/the_mlb_draft_c.php

I disagree with the conclusions from Baseball Analysts (Marc Hulet) with this, and believe Greg's general point is correct.

You evaluate each player based on their individual skill-set, but it stands to reason that positional players are simply more projectable vs arms.

If you start with that basic premise… bats being more projectable… then it makes sense that a team with less resources than their direct competition, would take the position player. Idea being, the O's can afford less flame-outs vs NY and Boston… and the pitchers likely ranked comparable with Green, are more likely to flame-out.

You stating you think Green is a fine candidate to be selected 5th overall, and that he is not far and away the best talent there… is really arguing within a vacuum.

If Green is available at 5… and the O's have him in their Top 10… lets say 8th… with pitchers on their board being ranked 5th, 6th, and 7th…. I think the justification of taking the pitcher is rather poor.

If there is a pitcher there at 5… that they ranked 2nd on their board… the argument of taking who they deemed the best available is easier to support.

How is me saying Green is fine as the fifth pick arguing in a vacuum? The value of a pitcher should take into consideration likely projection and potential. You value those two aspects and make a decision based on that. Saying a high schooler or a college guy is better because they are a high school guy or a college guy is rather generic. You have to go beneath that pedestrian perspective and try to figure out what worth these guys actually have.

If Green is 8th on the board . . . then he should be 8th on the board. Why would a team not consider projection in their ranking system?

[QBsILLEST1]

.280 a year with 15-20 HR's from a average fielding SS is not what I want if I have some potentially high ceiling pitchers around. There is nothing wrong with that production from a SS at all, but to me there are much better picks available. I would be ok with us picking Green, but would rather have every other player Pappas just listed as possibles for us at 1:5 plus Wheeler and Gibson. My favorite picks here are Crow Scheppers or Turner, in that order. Though Scheppers has a better fastball, I believe in Crow's secondaries a bit more and his command may be a tick better as well though I am not very informed on Schepper's command. And Turner COULD be a better pitcher than either of these guys by the time he is their age. Its a toss up but I want a pitcher for this year's draft.

[Greg Pappas]

There are many solid talents available at pick #5... we all seem to agree with that. If Alex White, Matt Purke, or Grant Green is taken, I'll trust that Jordan made an educated and informed selection, and therein pleased. I am of the ilk that you take the best available talent, and only stray off course if the next best guy (but with nearly identical grades) fills a big hole.

Joe Jordan struggled mightily with last year's selection... and it's widely assumed he was referring to Justin Smoak as the 'other guy' in his internal debate. Either would have filled a need, but he went with Matusz and will likely not regret that decision. This year Green would certainly fill a gaping hole in the organization, but only if he is the real deal and viewed as such by JJ's staff. If they are wary, then we should be too..

Regarding my "research" of the top ten picks during those years... it IS subjective and would hopefully invite our posters to look into these figures for themselves... drawing their own conclusions. I can take from my research that hitters are far more likely to be successful ML'ers than pitchers, but as Crawdad surmised, it's important to understand why players fail as much as why they make it. Some teams are better at that than others. One thing for sure is that we'll have a very talented player at #5 most will be able to smile about.