Cowan finally back and Tolliver debuts!

[Oriolesfan8]

I'm excited too about the guys we added in the draft and how many of them have looked so far, but let's not write their Cooperstown plaques yet.

This draft is not going to "revolutionize how people draft." Teams have been signing overslot guys for many years, and often for much more than the Orioles ponied up. Cowan looks good so far, and the scouting reports are intriguing, but unless you've seen him pitch multiple times and have a scouting background, let's not say definitively that he's at the level of Olson yet (a polished college LHP picked in the supplemental first round who more or less dominated the minors and skyrocketed through the system). Hopefully Cowan will turn out to be better, but let's not get carried away yet.

It's okay to be excited, but let's all settle down with the hyperbole and definitive statements. We've added a nice haul of talent with more quantity of potential impact guys that we've seen the last few years. Some of them are going to fizzle out, but hopefully with the number of quality guys we've added some of them will reach its potential and contribute at the MLB level. It's only been 2 months in the low minors for these guys--let's calm down and let it play out.

[jerios55]

Well Nolan was out of college and was at too easy of a level and Garrett had some polish and command. It makes some sense why theyd be able to do that successfully, Cowan needs to gain polish, itd be a bad idea for him. Ryan Berry would be one who could do that probably if he had started in SS.

And I wanted to throw this out there too as far as food for thought, since Cowan has been in pro ball, he has had 1 very bad outing in relief in which he went 2/3IP and gave up 4 ER. If you take that game away his ERA is 0.98. I know its kinda wishful thinking when you pick and chose like that, but even if you include the bad game his ERA is 2.86 I wanna say. So, I know he isnt on the same level as Matusz, he has pitched very well though and hopefully HOPEFULLY is on a nother level compared to Olson....

It was also when the team was under different management.

[alexei606]

Cowan has better pure stuff than Olson. Cowan lacks polish and needs to work on his command, Olson had good command and a fair amount of polish, but has better stuff and a higher ceiling. Just because Cowan was drafted in the 10th round, I wouldnt go as far to say that Olson was at a higher level than Cowan at this point and time. Cowan was said to be a 2nd round talent who fell due to injury. I think Cowan should go to Delmarva, he does need to prove he can have a full healthy season, but Reimold and Olson and Joseph are not on another level compared to Cowan.

Reimold had tremendous power, but was also coming straight out of 3 years of college, apples to oranges IMO. Him going to Fredrick after SS ball isnt a huge jump at all.

In actuality, Olson and Reimold were on about the same level as Cowan is coming out of the draft and Joseph was actually probably a level below these 3 coming out of the draft. Joseph was actually a better talent than his draft slot suggests, and he wasnt an overslotter. I think Joseph is one of those cases of being better than scouts gave him credit for due to his poor competition level. Scouts didnt know he would rise to the occasion as he has and do better against better competition...

What I meant on Cowan not being on their level has nothing to do with talent per se, at least for Olson. As for Reimold, look what he did in 2005 - he was a beast and rated by BA as the number 1 prospect in the NY-P League. That is definitely a "level above" what Cowan is doing.

Here's the write-up:

1. NOLAN REIMOLD, of, Aberdeen IronBirds (Orioles)

Age: 21 Ht: 6-4 Wt: 207 B-T: R-R Drafted/Signed: Orioles '05 (2)

Reimold slumped this spring at Bowling Green when he tried too hard to impress scouts. But once he relaxed, he led NCAA Division I in slugging percentage (.770), went in the second round to the Orioles and proved himself to be a five-tool player in the NY-P.

At 6-foot-4 and 207 pounds, it's no surprise that Reimold has plus power. But he also ran better than expected, showing above-average speed and moving from right field to center. He had no problem making the jump to the high Class A Carolina League, where he homered six times in 23 games.

"There is no doubt he can hit," Tri-City manager Gregg Langbehn said. "And he made some great plays defensively and he has an above-average arm."

AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG

180 33 53 15 2 9 30 29 44 2 0 .294 .392 .550

Reimold, IIRC, was considered to be pretty raw for a college player. I think that Olson was a very polished pitcher - thus on another level at this time than Cowan. I did not mean that Olson was better or had more talent, I don't know since I haven't seen Cowan or read a whole lot about him. Olson was number 8 on the NY-P League top 20 and here is his write-up:

8. GARRETT OLSON, lhp, Aberdeen IronBirds (Orioles)

Age: 21 Ht: 6-1 Wt: 200 B-T: R-L Drafted/Signed: Orioles '05 (1)

Though he threw a Cal Poly-record 136 innings during the spring, Olson showed no evidence of fatigue in Aberdeen. Like Reimold, he made a successful jump to high Class A in August.

Olson used an 88-92 mph fastball and a plus curveball to baffle NY-P hitters, who managed just a .164 average against him. His changeup currently is below average, and his development of his third pitch will dictate how fast he moves. Counting the Carolina League playoffs, he totaled 198 innings between college and pro ball, so the Orioles decided he wouldn't attend instructional league.

G GS W L SV ERA IP H R ER HR BB SO AVG

11 6 2 1 1 1.58 40.0 22 7 7 1 13 40 .164

Here's from the chat on the Carolina League top 20 from 2005 (Nick Markakis was #1 and Loewen was #10, Fio was #8):

Q: Shoshana from Baltimore asks:

How high is Nick Markakis' upside? Also where would Reimond and Olson have ranked if they had qualified? Do you ever so Loewen harnesing his control. Are there any O's prospects who almost made the list? Us O's fans are starved for hope.

A: Chris Kline: Markakis is an outfielder with classic right field tools, though he played exclusively in center once he was promoted and scouts said he did a solid job there. The O's wanted to see some versatility from him in the outfield and were pleasantly surprised on his ability to play both spots. But RF is his future. Comps are Andy Van Slyke and Shawn Green. Reimold is the real deal--five tools, would have been top 10 easy. Same thing for Olson, though if he had qualified, he would have been on a flight to Birmingham by now. Other Frederick players who were in the mix: Brian Finch, Nate Spears, Dustin Yount.

Thus, in the top 10 in the Carolina League right out of College is on another level than Cowan at this time. BTW, the Mariners are completely re-working Olson's delivery, that was the stated reason for his latest demotion as he was pitching pretty good in the 'pen at the time. They still want him to be a starter though.

I didn't mention Joseph - though, I agree with you that he was underrated due to where he played in College and I think that he was not on another level than Cowan at the time. Here's from the chat in 2008 NY-P League top 20 on Joseph :

Q: Eddie from Acworth, GA asks:

No Orioles prospects in the New York-Penn league top 20, after also no orioles on the Appalachian League list and only one on the GCL list. Did the Orioles really have that poor of a draft this year and last after the 1st rounds, or did some prospects just miss this list(Kolodny, Zagone, Joseph)?

A: Aaron Fitt: Aberdeen's prospects generated very little buzz in the NY-P. Kolodny is the best of the lot, a gamer with some pop who played solid defense at third. Caleb Joseph also garnered a little interest, but did not stand out in a very strong catching crop this year. He's got a chance, but he needs to get stronger.

Looks like Joseph did get stronger and he may be the one that shows that Cowan does have a chance to skip DelMarva. Anyway, if Cowan proves he can make the jump next year to Frederick - I would be happy to be proven that my "doubts" were wrong.

[QBsILLEST1]

I'm excited too about the guys we added in the draft and how many of them have looked so far, but let's not write their Cooperstown plaques yet.

This draft is not going to "revolutionize how people draft." Teams have been signing overslot guys for many years, and often for much more than the Orioles ponied up. Cowan looks good so far, and the scouting reports are intriguing, but unless you've seen him pitch multiple times and have a scouting background, let's not say definitively that he's at the level of Olson yet (a polished college LHP picked in the supplemental first round who more or less dominated the minors and skyrocketed through the system). Hopefully Cowan will turn out to be better, but let's not get carried away yet.

It's okay to be excited, but let's all settle down with the hyperbole and definitive statements. We've added a nice haul of talent with more quantity of potential impact guys that we've seen the last few years. Some of them are going to fizzle out, but hopefully with the number of quality guys we've added some of them will reach its potential and contribute at the MLB level. It's only been 2 months in the low minors for these guys--let's calm down and let it play out.

At the time of being drafted, Olson was a supplemental guy and Cowan was slated as a 2nd rounder. Cowan has more upside and way better stuff than Olson. If it were today, and both Cowan and Olson were available to me, even without hindsight knowledge, Id take my chance on Cowan. Cowan's not on Olson's level of polish, but like I said, Olson isnt on Cowan's level of stuff and upside. So yes, I would venture to say they are on a similar level. And if Cowan continues to pitch well, and if he posts equvalent numbers to that of Olson, he will be a better ranked prospect due to his good stuff. The fact that Olson had average stuff is what kept him from ever being ranked as a legit top 100 guy. All Cowan has to do is pitch well and he will be noticed since he has good stuff.

So Id like to ask who exactly you are speaking to? I never said anything about changing the way people draft. I will say that if this works out and things look good by next year, it may change the way that WE draft. But you cannot help but be excited, I dont need BA to approve of this guy being one of the best prospects in baseball in order for me to see the value in him as a quality pitching prospect.

[QBsILLEST1]

What I meant on Cowan not being on their level has nothing to do with talent per se, at least for Olson. As for Reimold, look what he did in 2005 - he was a beast and rated by BA as the number 1 prospect in the NY-P League. That is definitely a "level above" what Cowan is doing.

Here's the write-up:

Reimold, IIRC, was considered to be pretty raw for a college player. I think that Olson was a very polished pitcher - thus on another level at this time than Cowan. I did not mean that Olson was better or had more talent, I don't know since I haven't seen Cowan or read a whole lot about him. Olson was number 8 on the NY-P League top 20 and here is his write-up:

Here's from the chat on the Carolina League top 20 from 2005 (Nick Markakis was #1 and Loewen was #10, Fio was #8):

Thus, in the top 10 in the Carolina League right out of College is on another level than Cowan at this time. BTW, the Mariners are completely re-working Olson's delivery, that was the stated reason for his latest demotion as he was pitching pretty good in the 'pen at the time. They still want him to be a starter though.

I didn't mention Joseph - though, I agree with you that he was underrated due to where he played in College and I think that he was not on another level than Cowan at the time. Here's from the chat in 2008 NY-P League top 20 on Joseph :

Looks like Joseph did get stronger and he may be the one that shows that Cowan does have a chance to skip DelMarva. Anyway, if Cowan proves he can make the jump next year to Frederick - I would be happy to be proven that my "doubts" were wrong.

I never said anything about Reimold not being on a different level than Cowan. I said comparing the 2 is apples to oranges. Reimold was labeled a top 100 guy like 1 or 2 years into pro ball, but I want to make it clear, I do not think that Cowan is gonna go to Fredrick, I said it is a distant possibility. He and Reimold are uncomparable at the time since he was a college kid, Olson was too, but in a draft Id take Cowan over Olson because I like projectability and upside over safety and polish if the safety and polish lacks any true standout pitches.

Olson was a top prospect of his league due to good numbers and pedigree. Pedigree is a very big thing for recent draftees and Cowan has hardly any pedigree since he was injured and became a 10th rounder.

And the way it looks, Olson wasnt the 10th best prospect in Carolina league until after he had a full year in pro ball. You have NO idea where Cowan will rank after a year of pro ball. So that is also uncomparable and where a proaspect ranks in his league is dependant on other prospects in that league.....

[Oriolesfan8]

At the time of being drafted, Olson was a supplemental guy and Cowan was slated as a 2nd rounder. Cowan has more upside and way better stuff than Olson. If it were today, and both Cowan and Olson were available to me, even without hindsight knowledge, Id take my chance on Cowan. Cowan's not on Olson's level of polish, but like I said, Olson isnt on Cowan's level of stuff and upside. So yes, I would venture to say they are on a similar level. And if Cowan continues to pitch well, and if he posts equvalent numbers to that of Olson, he will be a better ranked prospect due to his good stuff. The fact that Olson had average stuff is what kept him from ever being ranked as a legit top 100 guy. All Cowan has to do is pitch well and he will be noticed since he has good stuff.

So Id like to ask who exactly you are speaking to? I never said anything about changing the way people draft. I will say that if this works out and things look good by next year, it may change the way that WE draft. But you cannot help but be excited, I dont need BA to approve of this guy being one of the best prospects in baseball in order for me to see the value in him as a quality pitching prospect.

QSII made the comment about changing the way people draft -- it was a direct quote.

On Cowan vs. Olson, here are the datapoints I'm looking at:

Draft Round -- Olson: Supplemental First; Cowan: 10th

Signing Bonus -- Olson: $650K; Cowan: $175K

Baseball America Pre-draft Ranking -- Olson: 65th; Cowan: N/A

And, to correct what you wrote above, at the time of being drafted, Cowan was looked at as a 4th-6th rounder, not a 2nd rounder. He was viewed as potentially a 2nd round talent at the beginning of the year, but not by draft time. Here's the link where that info came from:

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82656

I really hope you're right and Cowan turns out to be better than Olson, and there's definitely a reasonable chance that he does. But to say that Cowan is in the same league as a prospect as of the time they were both drafted is a little silly, in my opinion. If you've scouted Cowan personally, and have seen something different, then I apologize. But if not, and you're just going off the same little blurbs and internet info that I am, then I think it's hard to justify that statement. Again, not to say that Cowan doesn't have higher upside (you could argue that any pitcher who throws harder than Olson has a higher potential ceiling), but as an overall prospect, it's apples and oranges.

I think the best comp is David Hernandez and the 2005 draft. Hernandez was also a lower round guy (16th round) and also drafted out of junior college. If I recall correctly, he was also a higher round talent who had dropped and signed for above slot money. He has really developed well and turned into (hopefully) a quality starter, and at this point is a better prospect than Garrett Olson, who was drafted in the supplemental first round that year. But to say that he was a better prospect than Olson at the time of the draft just isn't accurate. And I am quite, quite confident that even though Hernandez threw harder and had higher "upside", if you asked any scouting director in MLB at the time, they would have picked Olson over Hernandez. Who knows if Cowan will develop like Hernandez, but I'm right there alongside you hoping that he does.

[alexei606]

I never said anything about Reimold not being on a different level than Cowan. I said comparing the 2 is apples to oranges. Reimold was labeled a top 100 guy like 1 or 2 years into pro ball, but I want to make it clear, I do not think that Cowan is gonna go to Fredrick, I said it is a distant possibility. He and Reimold are uncomparable at the time since he was a college kid, Olson was too, but in a draft Id take Cowan over Olson because I like projectability and upside over safety and polish if the safety and polish lacks any true standout pitches.

Olson was a top prospect of his league due to good numbers and pedigree. Pedigree is a very big thing for recent draftees and Cowan has hardly any pedigree since he was injured and became a 10th rounder.

And the way it looks, Olson wasnt the 10th best prospect in Carolina league until after he had a full year in pro ball. You have NO idea where Cowan will rank after a year of pro ball. So that is also uncomparable and where a proaspect ranks in his league is dependant on other prospects in that league.....

If Reimold is "comparing apples to oranges" because he was a college guy (I also said he was raw for a college guy) then, the same could be said of Olson (I see you did make a qualification, but you still compare the two). I didn't say that Olson was the 10th best prospect in the Carolina League in 2005, Chris Kline with BA said he would have easily been in the top 10 if he had qualified. When drafted, both Olson and Reimold put up better numbers at Aberdeen by far over a longer period of time and both jumped to A+ in the same year as when they were drafted,and performed at a level to be in the top 10 in that league and in the Championship series - both quite impressive. Cowan has not come close to either of these accomplishments - which is why I stated that he is not on their level at this time of his development.

Reimold was not considered to be that great a prospect (BA did not rate him in the top 200 in his draft class) and Olson was considered to be a "safe, College pitcher, that rounded out the HS bat of Snyder and HS pitcher-Erbe, with the upside, but, risk of Reimold. There have been college picks who have performed much worse in their debuts than Cowan, who were also picked in higher rounds. I agree that Cowan is "better" than a 10th round pick - that is why he received a over slot bonus (fifth round money BTW, not second).

Look, I hope Cowan proves to be every bit as good as you project him to be and I hope that he gets to the Carolina League next year (I am not stating that you ever said it was nothing but a remote possibility, I was responding mostly about Reimold and Olson). I have never stated that Olson is the better pitching prospect, only that he was more developed and thus at a higher level when drafted and how he performed (he also was rated in the top 100 by BA). It was not just "pedigree", Tyler Kolodny, a 16th round pick made the top 20 in the NY-P league. You are correct, I have no idea if Cowan will be a top 10 in a league after one year, and I never said I did.

It is nothing to sneeze at for a player to get to the MLs - even if they don't stick - by far most players never even get to AA, even first round draft picks. IMOP, Olson could have stuck with the Mariners as a reliever now - they sent him down to re-work his mechanics because they still think he can be a ML starter. Time will tell who has the better career, so far its Olson:).

[alexei606]

QSII made the comment about changing the way people draft -- it was a direct quote.

On Cowan vs. Olson, here are the datapoints I'm looking at:

Draft Round -- Olson: Supplemental First; Cowan: 10th

Signing Bonus -- Olson: $650K; Cowan: $175K

Baseball America Pre-draft Ranking -- Olson: 65th; Cowan: N/A

And, to correct what you wrote above, at the time of being drafted, Cowan was looked at as a 4th-6th rounder, not a 2nd rounder. He was viewed as potentially a 2nd round talent at the beginning of the year, but not by draft time. Here's the link where that info came from:

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82656

I really hope you're right and Cowan turns out to be better than Olson, and there's definitely a reasonable chance that he does. But to say that Cowan is in the same league as a prospect as of the time they were both drafted is a little silly, in my opinion. If you've scouted Cowan personally, and have seen something different, then I apologize. But if not, and you're just going off the same little blurbs and internet info that I am, then I think it's hard to justify that statement. Again, not to say that Cowan doesn't have higher upside (you could argue that any pitcher who throws harder than Olson has a higher potential ceiling), but as an overall prospect, it's apples and oranges.

I think the best comp is David Hernandez and the 2005 draft. Hernandez was also a lower round guy (16th round) and also drafted out of junior college. If I recall correctly, he was also a higher round talent who had dropped and signed for above slot money. He has really developed well and turned into (hopefully) a quality starter, and at this point is a better prospect than Garrett Olson, who was drafted in the supplemental first round that year. But to say that he was a better prospect than Olson at the time of the draft just isn't accurate. And I am quite, quite confident that even though Hernandez threw harder and had higher "upside", if you asked any scouting director in MLB at the time, they would have picked Olson over Hernandez. Who knows if Cowan will develop like Hernandez, but I'm right there alongside you hoping that he does.

Agree with this. Good comp with Hernandez.

[QBsILLEST1]

QSII made the comment about changing the way people draft -- it was a direct quote.

On Cowan vs. Olson, here are the datapoints I'm looking at:

Draft Round -- Olson: Supplemental First; Cowan: 10th

Signing Bonus -- Olson: $650K; Cowan: $175K

Baseball America Pre-draft Ranking -- Olson: 65th; Cowan: N/A

And, to correct what you wrote above, at the time of being drafted, Cowan was looked at as a 4th-6th rounder, not a 2nd rounder. He was viewed as potentially a 2nd round talent at the beginning of the year, but not by draft time. Here's the link where that info came from:

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82656

I really hope you're right and Cowan turns out to be better than Olson, and there's definitely a reasonable chance that he does. But to say that Cowan is in the same league as a prospect as of the time they were both drafted is a little silly, in my opinion. If you've scouted Cowan personally, and have seen something different, then I apologize. But if not, and you're just going off the same little blurbs and internet info that I am, then I think it's hard to justify that statement. Again, not to say that Cowan doesn't have higher upside (you could argue that any pitcher who throws harder than Olson has a higher potential ceiling), but as an overall prospect, it's apples and oranges.

I think the best comp is David Hernandez and the 2005 draft. Hernandez was also a lower round guy (16th round) and also drafted out of junior college. If I recall correctly, he was also a higher round talent who had dropped and signed for above slot money. He has really developed well and turned into (hopefully) a quality starter, and at this point is a better prospect than Garrett Olson, who was drafted in the supplemental first round that year. But to say that he was a better prospect than Olson at the time of the draft just isn't accurate. And I am quite, quite confident that even though Hernandez threw harder and had higher "upside", if you asked any scouting director in MLB at the time, they would have picked Olson over Hernandez. Who knows if Cowan will develop like Hernandez, but I'm right there alongside you hoping that he does.

Well, Cowan was actually ranked #133 and he was injured also which scared some people off and possibly hurt his ranking. And there is a very big difference between Hernandez and Cowan IMO, Cowan was a legit 2nd rounder who dropped due to injury. I didnt think that Hernandez was injured. Cowan has 3 quality pitches, Hernandez struggles as a MLer to have 3 quality pitches. Theres a big difference IMO. So, if Olson is ranked #65 and Cowan is ranked 133 with an injury, Id say they are pretty close to the same league and Ill take the gu ywith the better stuff/ upside all day.....

[hoosiers]

The only Os pitchers in recent years to start their first full season at Frederick were Olson, Arrieta and Matusz.

I would be pleasantly surprised if our FO deemed ANY of these years draft picks ready for the High A competition in Frederick. The leading candidate to make such a leap would be a healthy and productive Ryan Berry. He's the only one with the stuff, polish and experience/pedigree of the three names above, IMO.

[Oriolesfan8]

Well, Cowan was actually ranked #133 and he was injured also which scared some people off and possibly hurt his ranking. And there is a very big difference between Hernandez and Cowan IMO, Cowan was a legit 2nd rounder who dropped due to injury. I didnt think that Hernandez was injured. Cowan has 3 quality pitches, Hernandez struggles as a MLer to have 3 quality pitches. Theres a big difference IMO. So, if Olson is ranked #65 and Cowan is ranked 133 with an injury, Id say they are pretty close to the same league and Ill take the gu ywith the better stuff/ upside all day.....

So, now you're saying that not only is a 10th rounder with 2 months of pro ball under his belt better than a supplemental first round talent when he was drafted, but also currently has more quality pitches than David Hernandez has now, and is currently using to more than hold his own against major league pitching?

Even with the BA ranking, which I missed, Cowan is still thought of as a few rounds below the talent level of Olson. And the large difference in signing bonus adds another datapoint to this difference in the level of a prospect. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this, because unless you've personally scouted Cowan and can add that to the discussion, you're not going to be able to convince me that he's a better prospect at this point than Olson was when he was drafted. The few tidbits we're both reading on the internet don't support that view, and saying that they do is just looking at things through orange-colored glasses.

[Alphonse]

This draft could revolutionize how people draft. For a couple of years, until everybody's doing it. Why let the unsignable high school superstars stay unsignable? If you can make them rich beyond their wildest dreams without giving up your top round picks in the process, it's worth a couple of million extra. Even if you guess wrong. This draft has a good feel so far, hence my opening statement.

This draft strategy ain't exactly new, it's just gaining in popularity. The Red Sox have implemented this strategy for several years now. Now we have the O's following suit, and a host of other teams - Pittsburgh, KC, etc. It's just the latest attempt by teams to exploit other teams' perceived draft weaknesses. It's simply a continuation of moneyball in that sense. Proper exploitation in drafting comes from being ahead of the curve, and the O's have recently been working that angle. However, this method will eventually become a standard, and a new draft strategy will have to take hold. We have to wait and see how the results work out. Signability is one thing to measure. We had a successful draft this year in terms of that. Risk vs. Reward is different. Say none of Joe Jordan's picks reward us. Is that likely? Probably so, sometimes even the best team drafts/year allow only one or two ML's. We just simply have to wait to see how these picks pan out, IMO.

[QBsILLEST1]

So, now you're saying that not only is a 10th rounder with 2 months of pro ball under his belt better than a supplemental first round talent when he was drafted, but also currently has more quality pitches than David Hernandez has now, and is currently using to more than hold his own against major league pitching?

Even with the BA ranking, which I missed, Cowan is still thought of as a few rounds below the talent level of Olson. And the large difference in signing bonus adds another datapoint to this difference in the level of a prospect. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this, because unless you've personally scouted Cowan and can add that to the discussion, you're not going to be able to convince me that he's a better prospect at this point than Olson was when he was drafted. The few tidbits we're both reading on the internet don't support that view, and saying that they do is just looking at things through orange-colored glasses.

I never said that Cowan is a better prospect. I said that they are about on the same level. Olson isnt heads and shoulders better prospect than Cowan. They are right about the same level prospect wise, Cowan has more upside and a higher ceiling. Olson was more polished and has the better pedigree, the fact that Cowan was drafted in the 10th round hurts his pedigree as well as signing bonus. You cannot compare a 10th rounder regardless of the talent signing bonus to a supplemental 1st rounder, basing it off the slotting system, its a HUGE difference.

As I said, and it is all based on perception unless you use BA as the prospect gospel, which apparently you do, but I dont take another prospect ranking and take their word for it. By looking at his stuff and his numbers and age and polish, I like Cowan more and he will prove as he goes through the system that he is a better prospect than Olson. And you cannot even use the evidence of Olson being a top 10 guy in the league with Cowan not being eligible and hardly being seen in the league.

[Oriolesfan8]

I never said that Cowan is a better prospect. I said that they are about on the same level. Olson isnt heads and shoulders better prospect than Cowan. They are right about the same level prospect wise, Cowan has more upside and a higher ceiling. Olson was more polished and has the better pedigree, the fact that Cowan was drafted in the 10th round hurts his pedigree as well as signing bonus. You cannot compare a 10th rounder regardless of the talent signing bonus to a supplemental 1st rounder, basing it off the slotting system, its a HUGE difference.

As I said, and it is all based on perception unless you use BA as the prospect gospel, which apparently you do, but I dont take another prospect ranking and take their word for it. By looking at his stuff and his numbers and age and polish, I like Cowan more and he will prove as he goes through the system that he is a better prospect than Olson. And you cannot even use the evidence of Olson being a top 10 guy in the league with Cowan not being eligible and hardly being seen in the league.

1) You keep stating that Cowan and Olson were "about the same level prospect wise" when they were drafted. In a number of separate posts I've pointed out objective evidence that Olson was a much better prospect when he was drafted. I haven't seen any evidence from you on this, so you're definitely entitled to your opinion, but don't state it like it's a fact.

2) I absolutely can use signing bonus as point of reference. The slotting system is just a recommendation and does not determine what bonus players receive. For players drafted below where their talent indicates (as Cowan was), teams have to pay above slot to get them to sign. If Cowan was the equivalent of a supplemental first round talent, as you're suggesting, he would be crazy to sign for $175K. Sure, draft bonus isn't a perfect measure of prospect status, but at least it's an objective datapoint, which is better than any evidence you've given to support your opinion.

This year the Orioles signed 5 guys drafted after Cowan for higher bonuses by my count. If Cowan's a 1st round supplemental talent, then the Orioles have a historic level of talent influx coming into the system, with 5 other 1st round talents drafted in the later rounds. Cowan wasn't an easy college sign either -- he was a JC guy with a scholarship to a top-tier baseball program, so it's pretty fair to compare him to the O's other younger draftees / tough signs.

One of these other signees, Brenden Webb, was also a JC guy that the O's bought out of a scholarship to a high D-1 program. He signed for $250K ($75K more than Cowan), and I believe Tony, after speaking with Joe Jordan, said Webb was considered a 3rd-4th round talent. That's yet another datapoint that there's absolutely no way that Cowan was considered a supplemental first round talent at the time of the draft. Doesn't mean he can't develop into one, and I certainly hope that he does.

it is all based on perception unless you use BA as the prospect gospel, which apparently you do, but I dont take another prospect ranking and take their word for it.

3) Not sure where you're getting the idea that I use BA as the prospect gospel. I was trying to find relevant (and hopefully objective) datapoints to compare Cowan and Olson, and I found 3, one of which was their relative BA ranking. In the discussions, I've also come up with 2 relevant comparable draftees (Hernandez and Webb). So, I'm not relying on BA or using them as "gospel."

Good to hear that you don't "take another prospect ranking and take their word for it," but I would love to hear the information sources that you are using to base your opinion on. So far, the only one I can gleam is the quick one paragraph draft blurb that I linked to before. You mention Cowan's quality pitches and "stuff", so I wasn't sure if you'd watched any of his games or spoken to scouts to come up with this, or if this is also from the draft blurb. I've watched his MLB draft video, along with hundreds of others, and unless you have a scouting background (I definitely don't), it's very, very hard to determine much from those.

[Duke2010]

This is getting ridiculous.

QB, how many times have you seen Cowan pitch?