Jump to content

MLN Sports Zone: Orioles are the Minor League Organization of the Year


Frobby

Recommended Posts

It's just the fact that we've been so bad for so long that we had to get good by accident. I don't give anyone credit. We'd be so much better if we took Smoak or Krol, or Stassi or Matzek or some other highly rated power bat.

edit- You were being sarcastic, Ive been seeing so much ignorance on these topics lately, it gets hard to tell whose being serious or not.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would we be better if we took Smoak over Matusz? Ive seen Matusz rated as high as top 4 in the MLB, ahead of Smoak on many publications, it wouldnt make a difference. Also, if we took Krol or Stassi or Matzek, they wouldnt even be considered in our system yet and may not even sign this year. Just because the hype machine surrounded those guys doesnt mean they will be the better prospects. Our HS arms are pretty similarly rated, its all up to player development now to make a difference....

Uh, I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We jumped those teams over about 4 years of development. Just because some other group has not made up much ground because they have retained their level of excellence would be a pretty poor excuse. Yeah, the Orioles could arguably be the most improved, but to state they are the best overlooks some weak parts in the system. So . . . most improved . . . maybe . . . best organization . . . much harder to argue.

Since I haven't read the article, I don't know his reasoning. However, if his ranking includes the guys we have sent to the majors in 2009, and he is considering how well those players have performed after being introduced to the majors, then it becomes more justifiable. Bergesen, Hernandez and Reimold are all guys who were somewhat under the radar in terms of being premium prospects, and are contributing at an above average level in their repsective major league roles as rookies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We jumped those teams over about 4 years of development. Just because some other group has not made up much ground because they have retained their level of excellence would be a pretty poor excuse. Yeah, the Orioles could arguably be the most improved, but to state they are the best overlooks some weak parts in the system. So . . . most improved . . . maybe . . . best organization . . . much harder to argue.

Very well put (as expected). I don't think there is a convincing argument that BAL has the best minor league organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I haven't read the article, I don't know his reasoning. However, if his ranking includes the guys we have sent to the majors in 2009, and he is considering how well those players have performed after being introduced to the majors, then it becomes more justifiable. Bergesen, Hernandez and Reimold are all guys who were somewhat under the radar in terms of being premium prospects, and are contributing at an above average level in their repsective major league roles as rookies.

I still don't see how that would rate above SFN, OAK, TEX and perhaps even FLA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't see how that would rate above SFN, OAK, TEX and perhaps even FLA.
If it is just about who has the best prospects, then you're right. But I wonder if part of it is because of the success of our prospects in the big leagues. We've shown that not only do we have good prospects, but that we can also develop them into good MLers. Our rookies have had more success this year than any other organization's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is just about who has the best prospects, then you're right. But I wonder if part of it is because of the success of our prospects in the big leagues. We've shown that not only do we have good prospects, but that we can also develop them into good MLers. Our rookies have had more success this year than any other organization's.

Well, our rookies have been solid. Absoultely. And some have performed well above what most expected. Even with his poorish start to the season, I think Brett Anderson looks much better than Bergesen, particularly over the last three weeks (an Bergesen has looked very good).

Anyway, I don't see how, if you are blending the two, how three or fewer months of ML ball should greatly affect the value of someone with years of MiL experience. I mean, does Bergesen now get credited as the equivalent of a Brett Anderson, Tim Alderson, Tommy Hanson, etc.? I don't see how that could be. Further, even with the success of our rookies, I can't see that being enough to overcome the differences between a system like ours and a system like TEX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just the fact that someone outside of the OH would risk his name by saying the Orioles have the best farm system really makes me feel we are going in the right direction.

We had four guys who started the year in the top 50. Three who started in the top 25. So I guess we should be in the conversation someplace.

Then Bergesen and Reimold have done way better than thought. Couple that with Hernandez holding his own. We actually have had a pretty good year for our top guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for the trades that brought Tillman, Mickolio, Patton, Turner and Waring, all prospects that help make our system the best.....
It's just the fact that we've been so bad for so long that we had to get good by accident. I don't give anyone credit. We'd be so much better if we took Smoak or Krol, or Stassi or Matzek or some other highly rated power bat.

Sorry...that was an apparently failed attempt at sarcasm for some of the resident McPhail bashers. I am perfectly willing to give McPhail some credit for the rise of our minor league system. :clap3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, our rookies have been solid. Absoultely. And some have performed well above what most expected. Even with his poorish start to the season, I think Brett Anderson looks much better than Bergesen, particularly over the last three weeks (an Bergesen has looked very good).

Anyway, I don't see how, if you are blending the two, how three or fewer months of ML ball should greatly affect the value of someone with years of MiL experience. I mean, does Bergesen now get credited as the equivalent of a Brett Anderson, Tim Alderson, Tommy Hanson, etc.? I don't see how that could be. Further, even with the success of our rookies, I can't see that being enough to overcome the differences between a system like ours and a system like TEX.

I guess it depends on what their criteria are. It may be solely or mostly based on rookie performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it depends on what their criteria are. It may be solely or mostly based on rookie performance.

After a brief look at it, I think the criteria might be something like "organization best suited to win a world series in 3-5 years", which I don't fully understand. Shrug. I do like that they claim that no one else in 2006 said Tampa would be a good team in 3-5 years. As I recall, nearly everyone said that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a brief look at it, I think the criteria might be something like "organization best suited to win a world series in 3-5 years", which I don't fully understand. Shrug. I do like that they claim that no one else in 2006 said Tampa would be a good team in 3-5 years. As I recall, nearly everyone said that.

Yeah. By 2007 some were wondering what was taking them so long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...