Who knows if this is true or not...

[mcgraw238]

Lorenzo Scott was not a high draft pick.

McDonald was not raw. He was potentially the #1 pick in the draft. He certainly hasn't developed any better since leaving the organization either.

You can make a case on Pope.

Hudson was toolsy in that he has plus, plus speed. I wouldn't cal him raw but whatever. It's still way too early to draw conclusions on him but I'm not impressed with him.

I would consider McDonald raw as it was his tools that had him highly ranked. I think one of the central arguments in development would be the first couple years post-draft not what a guys does in his late 20's in another organization.

Pope = Raw/Toolsy.

I say a football guy like Hudson fits the raw/toolsy type (the plus/plus speed being the tool.

[waroriole]

I don't think bat speed is Rowell's problem. I've seen the ball jump off his bat in BP, and that is usually bat speed. Rowell also had a plus arm. The problems? He wasn't nearly as athletic as advertised, can't pick up off speed pitches, and he ended up being a guy who enjoyed his status, fame and the money that came it a lot more than being a major league baseball player.

You hard to be too hard on scouting because most other teams reportedly had Rowell high on their lists. For me though, I would shy away from high school hitters in the first round unless they are really very, very special. Just too much can go wrong.

A lot went wrong with Rowell but he certainly had tools.

OK thanks. Would you say that Machado fits into that category, or would you have gone elsewhere with the 3rd pick?

[Frobby]

Rowell

Henson

Pope

Adams

Hudson

Tony, do you see any hope for Pope based on his current performance, or is he a dead letter? He did miss all last year with injuries, and a large portion of another season IIRC. So, I don't necessarily hold it against him that he is in Delmarva at age 23, though he'd have to be moved to Frederick for the second half and play well there for me to really start paying much attention. He is still striking out a ton, maybe the analysis ends there at this point.

[Stotle]

I thought so but didn't want to represent it as a 100% argument either.

I don't have a lot of hopes for Givens either but at least he is very young, so we will see.

Givens is NOT toolsy. The only reason he got the "toolsy" name is because he was an african american that plays in the middle of the field and wasn't refined.

He isn't particularly fast. He has some strength and agility, but I have yet to speak with an evaluator who thinks he has a significant chance to grow his defense or power tool into above-average territory.

If "toolsy" means he can throw the ball really hard and has some agility, then he is toolsy.

Not blasting you, it's just frustrating to see labels incorrectly assigned to players due to racial stereotypes (I know this isn't your label -- you are just relaying what you have heard). Same thing with people who were labeling Hoes as "toolsy". A guy with average tools across the board...

[Stotle]

Forgive me if this is too personal of a question, but how do you have time to be an attorney and a scout?

My wife was in her last two years of residency in 2009/10, so when she works weekends I travel to see baseball. HS isn't too tough due to the showcase circuit. You can see tons of kids in a relatively short period of time. I saw a vast majority of the HSers picked in the early rounds and only attended four showcases/tournaments last year. Was privy to a good amount of video from various other showcases.

College requires more driving and a lot of DVR. I've watched between 50-75 college games this year on DVR or on my laptop (with the note that a decent number of games i may only watch a half a game (if I'm watching a pitcher, say, I fast forward to when he is pitching). I've saw around 20 college games in person. The rest of my opinions on organizations' area guys come from talking to connections I've made and hearing their takes.

It also helps I only sleep around 4-6 hours a night (until I hit a wall and crash for around 12 hrs).

[Tony-OH]

Henson is 22 years old and has progressed one level every year. He hasn't developed into a top prospect and you could argue that he should have. Still, it's not like he never got out of A ball. Same thing for Adams. Why is Adams considered "raw"? I give the same question on Rowell to you. Do you think Rowell has the talent to be a ML hitter?

You asked for toolsy guys who have not developed. None of the guys I listed are projected to be major league regulars. They were all considered high risk, high reward guys when drafted because they brought multiple skills but were considered "raw" by most standards.

It's not always a scouting vs development thing. Sometimes a player just does not progress, such as in Rowell's case.

The ball came off Rowell's bat in a special way and at 17, he appeared to be athletic enough that most felt he could stick at #b and would have no problem going to the outfield. As Rowell grew, he became more gangly and uncoordinated which has hurt him defensively.

Now I'm on record as wanting Lincecum over Rowell so I'm not trying to defend the pick, but what I am saying is that Rowell had some tools that certainly would have made him a 1st round for someone, even had the Orioles gone with Lincecum.

AS for Henson, he's progressed but he's yet to put up any numbers that indicate he's ready to be a major league regular. He'd be a below average left fielder if he was putting up the exact same numbers up in the big leagues as he's putting up now. What makes you think he's going to get better with the high competition. Henson was a three-sport guy who never had focused on baseball before being drafted. That makes him a toolsy athlete pick.

Pope was a football player/baseball player who played against inferior competition in Georgia. His comeback is a not story but until he not striking out every 3 PAs he's just misses too much. Guys who miss that much in Low-A ball don't hit at the higher levels.

Adams was supposed to be advanced hitter, but he plays the game slow and his attitude has gotten in the way. He'd be a terrible defensive second baseman in the big leagues and he's yet to show any real power and has no speed. When he was drafted there were some who thought he could stick at SS and would hit for power. He's obviously not done either.

Hudson was mainly a football player in college and was considered raw. I know scout in another organization that thought Hudson was a 15th round+ guy. We took him in the 4th round. He's got tremendous speed and has improved defensively, but he's got a slow bat, few baseball instincts on the bases, and zero, and mean zero power.

I have no problem with taking these guys as chances if you are surrounding these selections with advanced college selections, but it appears the Orioles take too many of these "chances" and few if any have developed.

[mcgraw238]

Why not? I think that's a valid piece of the argument. If McDonald truly has/had the ability to be a very good ML baseball player wouldn't it have come out by now, especially that he's switched organizations years ago? There comes a point when you just have to realize that the player just wasn't good enough and it wasn't the fault of the coaching or development people.

Jeremy Guthie stunk with Cleveland and became a good pitcher with us. You could argue that they didn't develop him properly because he got better with us. It doesn't prove the theory but at least it's possible. If Guthrie had changed organizations 3 or 4 times and gotten to be 30 and had never gotten better you would just say that he didn't have what it took.

I agree it is a valid piece of the analysis just not determinative of the issue.

[waroriole]

My wife was in her last two years of residency in 2009/10, so when she works weekends I travel to see baseball. HS isn't too tough due to the showcase circuit. You can see tons of kids in a relatively short period of time. I saw a vast majority of the HSers picked in the early rounds and only attended four showcases/tournaments last year. Was privy to a good amount of video from various other showcases.

College requires more driving and a lot of DVR. I've watched between 50-75 college games this year on DVR or on my laptop (with the note that a decent number of games i may only watch a half a game (if I'm watching a pitcher, say, I fast forward to when he is pitching). I've saw around 20 college games in person. The rest of my opinions on organizations' area guys come from talking to connections I've made and hearing their takes.

It also helps I only sleep around 4-6 hours a night (until I hit a wall and crash for around 12 hrs).

Wow, you must be a go-getter.

[Tony-OH]

OK thanks. Would you say that Machado fits into that category, or would you have gone elsewhere with the 3rd pick?

From everything I've heard is that Machado is a special player. I don't follow these guys enough before they are drafted, but all the pundits said he was part of the top three and they were head and shoulders. I do know that the Orioles were very interested and liked Colon a lot, but ultimately the high ceiling of Machado was worth the risk.

[Tony-OH]

Tony, do you see any hope for Pope based on his current performance, or is he a dead letter? He did miss all last year with injuries, and a large portion of another season IIRC. So, I don't necessarily hold it against him that he is in Delmarva at age 23, though he'd have to be moved to Frederick for the second half and play well there for me to really start paying much attention. He is still striking out a ton, maybe the analysis ends there at this point.

I just can't find anyone in the major leaguers who missed as much as Pope does in the Low-minors. Even big strike out guys in the major leagues, when you look at their low minors stats, they are usually pretty good and they made much better contact.

He's a nice story and I'm pulling for him because he seems like a hard worker, but he's not a prospect in my eyes.

[mcgraw238]

I should probably shut off the computer as this thread is making me depressed. You would think that simply playing the odds that one of these various "raw toolsy" picks would have turned into something at the big league level. Our system really has produce talent at an awful rate. All organizations miss on the raw toolsy picks, but the goods organizations at least strike gold now and then.

[Sports Guy]

From everything I've heard is that Machado is a special player. I don't follow these guys enough before they are drafted, but all the pundits said he was part of the top three and they were head and shoulders. I do know that the Orioles were very interested and liked Colon a lot, but ultimately the high ceiling of Machado was worth the risk.

Do you believe that the Orioles have the people in place to properly develop Machado?

[beardbr]

Do you believe that the Orioles have the people in place to properly develop Machado?

SG, as a fan I don't believe the Orioles have the people in place to develop a digital picture. I really think everyone, with the exception of some of the minor league coaches need to be shown the door, and this whole thing started from scratch.

[Stotle]

Do you believe that the Orioles have the people in place to properly develop Machado?

It's also not always about the tools of the organization but the personality/needs of the player and how he fits into the atmosphere of the org. I don't think it's always fair to throw all blame on scouting/development. A fair amount of the time you also run into situations where a player just isn't a good fit.

[Stotle]

Wow, you must be a go-getter.

My guess is that the time I invest isn't vastly different from someone with a serious golfing hobby (which is sort of how I treat it).