Givens to have surgery

[Stotle]

If you feel that Joe Jordan knows way more than you do, then why are you so strong in opinion on Givens. Obviously, he disagrees with your opinion by drafting Givens as a SS and giving him 900K. You are entitled to your opinion. It's pretty strong on Givens. Can you admit that you disagree with Jordan's view of Givens? That would be a start. And if you disagree with Jordan on Givens then you are saying you think you know more than him in this specific instance.

This whole board is about opinions. Why do some people have such a hard time being questioned about their opinions?

BTW, you are wrong plenty. So why should I take your report on Givens over Baseball America's and Joe Jordan's? When I restate what I've read on Givens, you call it a tired mantra. What do you call it when your keep repeating your scouting report on him?

I have plenty of interactions on this board with people disagreeing with my opinion. Of course I disagree with Jordan on Givens (assuming Jordan is as bullish as you say he is -- I've never talked to him or read an espoused opinion on Givens). That's fine.

Go back and re-read how this unfolded. I didn't rehash a scouting report, I said it was a big deal that Givens's development could be delayed a year. You took that as a queue to recite opinions that are in contrast to mine. THAT is the tired mantra. I can't say the word "Givens" without you creaming yourself over pointing out people disagree with me. I have stated before and I'll state again, "I am not trying to convince you of anything. I don't care what your opinion of Givens is -- I can read it in Baseball America. I don't care what you think of my opinion -- I can't learn anything from your critiques on this matter because you don't offer anything up but the same scouting report written last winter for a prospect book. I've stated what I've seen. I've stated what people have told me based on spring training performances. You want to hold to the opinion of the guy drafting him and a six-month old scouting report. That's fine. I'm fine with you doing that.

For some reason you periodically decide to re-open this same convo we've had half-a-dozen times already. There's no point.

We have some good back-and-forths -- Givens isn't going to be one of them. There is no budging. We are at an impasse.

[Stotle]

BTW, I don't try to rile you up. That's just you being you. And you can pass this off as you kdding around, but anyone can see that you are riled up. Again, that's not my intention. My intention is to have a discussion. Unfortunately, your idea of a discussion is when you say something and someone else says, "Right, Stotle!!"

I debate with folks on the draft board all the time. I don't care who agrees with me and I don't try to pound my opinion into anyone. When asked, I offer up my thoughts. If I see something I disagree with, or see something that I think has another angle, I offer that up. This doesn't mean that much to me. It's passing time. I know when I get things right and when I get them wrong. I enjoy talking baseball with folks around here because we share an interest in the O's. I don't really care that much about who thinks I'm right/wrong or why -- I have folks in the industry giving me feedback and, as you have yourself stated, they are the pros and it's their opinion that matters. I won't try to convince you I'm not riled-up -- again, it's just not that important to me.

Now, I admit you used to get to me. But this is old hat. I know how it will turn out at the first sign of your passive-aggressivity. You go down the same checklists:

• Experts disagree with me
• I'm a know-it-all
• I can't stand people disagreeing
• I have tunnel vision

Looks like we can check these off once more, eh? It's like a television drama in its seventh season -- same plot points recycled in tired storylines. I get it -- you have an issue with my opinion and want to make sure that people are aware that some experts disagree on Givens. Just sticky it and move on.

[JayThomas]

Machado would clearly be the better prospect between he and Givens if signed. There are questions of Machado staying at SS but still a fair chance that he can stay there. In that case, you don't move Machado, you move Givens, if given that choice. All of a sudden it's a terrible thing to have a great arm at 2B? The move doesn't have to be permanent. It would depend on the offensive and defensive development of both players. I would not rule out the Orioles trying to find a way to push Givens to Frederick next year to keep both at SS full time.

I agree that if Machado is handling himself well at SS then you leave him there. A great stick with good D at SS is a big advantage. I'm talking about if Machado is showing signs of needing to move, maybe moving him to 2B rather than 3B would allow his bat to still be a plus rather than a break-even. (And) Givens' arm is one of his best assets, as is his athleticism, both of which would be underutilized at 2B.

[Stotle]

This mole hill has become a mountain. This is how it started. First of all, you were inaccurate on the age thing. Second of all, you connected his injury and the drafting of Machado and called it a disaster for the O's organization regarding the development of Givens. I agreed that the injury is a bad thing. That's a no-brainer. Obviously the drafting of Machado would make it dicier to develop the both of them as SS's next year. I would not call that a disaster. You would. End of story.

My mistake on the age -- it wasn't intentional. I assume by not addressing my post but pulling the switcharoo you have realized that it was indeed you who turned this discussion into a player eval issue (which it should never have been). My point was, and still is, that if you believe the experts BAL is taking either Taillon or Machado. PIT is reported to be heavier on Taillon now, so that means a high likelihood of Machado. It would seem that both he and Givens would be fits for LoA next year and Givens's lack of opportunity to develop so far makes it tough to imagine him jumping all the way to HiA. At his age, it would not be good to have him back in instructs and heading to short season.

Sorry (but not surprised) this went down this road. I'll just do my best to ignore your posts for a bit. Obviously you're free to comment on anything you like. We had a nice run of respectful back-and-forths for a nice long while here, and I enjoyed that -- guess nothing lasts forever. Enjoy your prospecting...

[Flosman]

While it is fun to read this debate does not really seem to address Jordan's view of givens, IMO. Does Jordan really think he is a big time SS prospect or is that just where he is now? Honestly today I think of Givens as a football player who is playing the sport that his body is better suited to play at the highest level. I would think a path just like AJs is probably as likely as him becoming a starting SS. This does not even bring pitching into the discussion. My question for Stotle is doesn't it make sense to have Given's at SS until he PROVES he can't play there. He is a tremendous athelete and an allstar SS is his ceiling, wouldn't you say? There is a ton of development that has to happen on all of his game, but I don't see how the O's are not handling him correctly so far or am I missing something?

[Stotle]

While it is fun to read this debate does not really seem to address Jordan's view of givens, IMO. Does Jordan really think he is a big time SS prospect or is that just where he is now? Honestly today I think of Givens as a football player who is playing the sport that his body is better suited to play at the highest level. I would think a path just like AJs is probably as likely as him becoming a starting SS. This does not even bring pitching into the discussion. My question for Stotle is doesn't it make sense to have Given's at SS until he PROVES he can't play there. He is a tremendous athelete and an allstar SS is his ceiling, wouldn't you say? There is a ton of development that has to happen on all of his game, but I don't see how the O's are not handling him correctly so far or am I missing something?

I think it boils down to what you think is realistic. Considering BAL's stated belief that he can be a good ML SS, they are handling him correctly. I think you will find a fair number of evaluators who disagree with BAL's take that he is best situated at SS.

You run into two separate issues:

1. Is Givens a future SS?

2. Was Givens a good pick in the 2nd Round?

If he fails as a SS but ends-up a very good relief arm, the answers would be "no" and "yes". If he turns into a solid shortstop but it takes five or six years of development, the answers would be "yes" and "no". My concern with the injury is that regardless of whether 1 or 2 ultimately turns into a "yes", the loss of a year and the potential addition of a young SS that slots into his developmental table means (to me) that is increasingly unlikely that the answer to 1 and 2 will both be "yes". Does that make sense?

[Stotle]

If the answer to #2 becomes yes, then I don't really care as much about #1. But I don't think a yes to #2 and a no to #1 has to be contingent on Givens becoming a relief pitcher. It might be that he can be a good SS but moves because of a Machado. A good SS usually can fit at other positions. Obviously, offense would be important.

I'm not sure I agree with the point on development time either. Of course, it would be disappointing if Givens took 5 years to become a ML SS. However, if he did and became a good one, the team would still have a young productive player for 6 years at a bargain. The satisfaction would be dealyed but you'd still get the value from the pick. I could pick out ML players who were drafted out of HS and took awhile to make it. If they were good players when they finally made it, I think it still winds up being a good pick. Most HS players are going to take 4 or 5 years anyway, no?

Sure, but part of the reason you give someone almost a million dollars is that you don't expect to have to invest as much in the way of developmental resources. A second rounder debuting at age 25 or 26 would be an example of either poor scouting or poor development (or a mixture of the two).

[Flosman]

I think it boils down to what you think is realistic. Considering BAL's stated belief that he can be a good ML SS, they are handling him correctly. I think you will find a fair number of evaluators who disagree with BAL's take that he is best situated at SS.

You run into two separate issues:

1. Is Givens a future SS?

2. Was Givens a good pick in the 2nd Round?

If he fails as a SS but ends-up a very good relief arm, the answers would be "no" and "yes". If he turns into a solid shortstop but it takes five or six years of development, the answers would be "yes" and "no". My concern with the injury is that regardless of whether 1 or 2 ultimately turns into a "yes", the loss of a year and the potential addition of a young SS that slots into his developmental table means (to me) that is increasingly unlikely that the answer to 1 and 2 will both be "yes". Does that make sense?

First let me say I respect your opinion. You seem to actually see most of these guys with your own eyes. something most others can't say. But I Think the bolded part could not be more incorrect. I take solid to mean that he would me atleast an average starter, I don't think ANY organzation in baseball would think getting any ML starter at any position, much less SS, in the second round was some sort of dissapointment.

[Stotle]

First let me say I respect your opinion. You seem to actually see most of these guys with your own eyes. something most others can't say. But I Think the bolded part could not be more incorrect. I take solid to mean that he would me atleast an average starter, I don't think ANY organzation in baseball would think getting any ML starter at any position, much less SS, in the second round was some sort of dissapointment.

I understand your feelings, and that is a fine way to think. For me, I think it is a failure to maximize draft assets. I do think I should be more precise with my language there, so apologies. I would not consider it a "good" pick, but it would not qualify as a "bust" for me, either. It would fall into the category (for me) of "it worked out, but that really wasn't what we were had in mind when we made the pick".

[Stotle]

Well, I'm looking at the 2nd round of the 2005 draft, and the only name I think you would call a solid ML regular would be Yunel Escobar and he was far from your typical draftee. Hardly even any recognizable names on there. Ivan Dejesus and Nolan Reimold are on the list. My point? Drafting someone in the 2nd round is far from a sure thing when it comes to ML success. If the bar for making a good 2nd round pick is being a ML regular within 5 years, then 90% of the team's scouting departments are failing every year. In 2006, the only success stories are Brett Anderson and Trevor Cahill. I think you'd find the success rate is pretty low after the 1st round. I'm sure every team is optimistic when they make their second round selections but the reality is that most selections are a miss. I think your "worked out" category is actually a "good pick" for most teams.

I think taking a random year and treating it as if it is necessarily representative of anything is silly, but I'll play along. I see Headley, Slowey, Escobar, and Reimold as players that are clearly capable ML players. DeJesus was a solid prospect that has run into injury troubles.

2004 -- Gallardo, Pedroia, K. Suzuki, Hunter Pence, Seth Smith, Reid Brignac

2006 -- Tillman, B. Anderson, Cahill, Masterson

There is always going to be attrition -- you are right that if Givens actually did develop into a solid regular, that would be better than "okay". I overstated the point. Drafted in 2009, if he is a solid regular in 2014, that is impressive and a good pick. That would mean he would need to do something like:

2011 - Frederick

2012 - Bowie

2013 - Norfolk/BAL call-up

2014 - First full season

If he does that, I will announce in all caps how wrong I was. This would be a crazy rise through the system, and he would have to be a special talent to do it. If he does, it would be special.

I'm not sure how likely you think the above is. If you think it will take one more year (or, as I do, another two years) for him to potentially get up to an "average" ML SS, you are talking about age 26 or 27. That still isn't a travesty, but I have to think that, picking early in round 2, there would be better risk/reward choices. Could just be a difference in opinion.

[LookinUp]

I understand your feelings, and that is a fine way to think. For me, I think it is a failure to maximize draft assets. I do think I should be more precise with my language there, so apologies. I would not consider it a "good" pick, but it would not qualify as a "bust" for me, either. It would fall into the category (for me) of "it worked out, but that really wasn't what we were had in mind when we made the pick".

Is this an example of more precise language?

I kid, of course. W/o going into the circumstances by which Givens would be considered a good 2nd round pick, I don't think the drafting of Machado would present a huge conundrum in almost any case. If we did, I'd just start Givens in A+ and Machado in A-.

In that scenario, the O's could handle this a few ways.

1. If Machado lights up A- and Givens struggles, he and Givens could simply switch leagues when the time is right.

2. If Machado is only doing fine or worse, and Givens struggles, you could allow each to stay in their respective league for the entire year so they can work through issues.

3. If Machado and Givens both do well, you have a nice problem on your hands whereby Givens could either be demoted back to A- to make room for the phenom or he could be pushed to AA early in an accelerated development cycle.

Either way, I wouldn't demote Givens to short season ball unless he just looked horrible in the spring, in which case he'd probably belong there anyway. I know A+ is probably more advanced than him right now, but it's still baseball so he'd still get to work on defense and he'd theoretically have plenty of time to adjust on the offensive side.

[BaysoxFan39]

I believe the Orioles truly are snake bitten!

The only upside to this season is we will pick 1st in the 2011 Baseball Draft. (sigh...)

[BaysoxFan39]

Why would you switch that arm to 2B? If anything, if Machado can't stick at SS maybe switch him to 2B his body type wouldn't be quite the same issue (think Kent). Then you can go Rendon, Givens, Machado around the infield.

Where does Brandon Waring figure in all of this? The guy has show power everywhere he as been. Unfortunatly he is struggling at Bowie however the power potential is something we don't have in this organization.

[BaysoxFan39]

I'm glad to see you had that much confidence in Givens. For a prospect, that you considered an experiment, and who most people expected to play for Aberdeen, Frederick in 2010 was pretty optimistic, which I thought you were anything but regarding Givens at SS. Frederick is still possible if Givens can get back in August and show something. If Givens starts next year at Delmarva, I have no sure fire solution if Machado is there as well. Certainly, Givens arm is a SS arm but I see no drawback to having a 2B with a great arm. A great arm at 2B is not a waste, it's still a weapon. An offensive 2B is still a weapon. That's not to say that Givens couldn't still get some time at SS. Not the optimal solution if you want to develop both as SS prospects, but still a solution. I just find it amusing that someone who has argued that Givens is questionable to stay at SS is now arguing for his development at SS and worrying about how they might find time for both Givens and Machado.

Givens at 2nd? I like it. For those that don't I refer you to "Robinson Cano". Strong arm, solid bat, and speed.

[Stotle]

Givens at 2nd? I like it. For those that don't I refer you to "Robinson Cano". Strong arm, solid bat, and speed.

You realize Givens only has one of those traits, right?