Photo

BSL: Orioles: Top 40 Prospects Entering 2019


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,426 posts

Posted 19 February 2019 - 03:58 PM

They can use the Bundy blue print for Harvey.

Buck handled Bundy perfectly that first year.  He picked his spots and Bundy became a very useful BP piece.  Frankly I think the BP is a good landing spot for Harvey.  Limit the innings and be smart about where you use him.

 

Bundy was not able to sent to the minors in 2016 or else he would have been handled completely differently.  Harvey is not in the same boat, he can be sent down this season (in fact he has two options left).



#22 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,717 posts

Posted 19 February 2019 - 04:12 PM

I was pleased with the McKenna write up. Didn't realize his defense was at that level.

#23 ZachSpedden

ZachSpedden

    HOF

  • Members
  • 204 posts

Posted 19 February 2019 - 07:09 PM

BSL: Orioles: Top 40 Prospects Entering 2019  (Part 1, 40-31)
https://www.baltimor...ing-2019-40-31/

 

BSL: Orioles: Top 40 Prospects Entering 2019 (Part 2, 30-21)
https://www.baltimor...ing-2019-30-21/

 

BSL: Orioles: Top 40 Prospects Entering 2019 (Part 3, 20-11)
https://www.baltimor...ing-2019-20-11/

 

BSL: Orioles: Top 40 Prospects Entering 2019 (Part 4, 10-1)
https://www.baltimor...ring-2019-10-1/

 

Great stuff, Adam! 

 

What do you make of the Orioles reportedly working Mountcastle out at first base during the early part of camp? I've always been inclined to give him a shot in left field if third base doesn't work out, but I think there's an argument for first base as a better alternative given concerns surrounding his arm.



#24 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,592 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 19 February 2019 - 08:20 PM

Good stuff Adam.

 

I have zero credentials as a scout, but I've felt that Akin and McKenna have been under-rated as prospects and I'm high on the ability to contribute.

 

Couple thoughts. 

 

- My first was Akin and McKenna (above) at #6/7.  Totally agree. This is also lining up with the just released mlb.com rankings.

 

- Very interested in your profile of McKenna.  I did not understand his speed and defense at the level you presented them.  Actually changes my thoughts about a thing or 2 in what I'd do.   I value that in these forums, so thanks.

 

- Lowther keeps getting it done but his stuff seems under-whelming.  Interesting to watch how it holds up in the zone against better hitters.

 

-  Zach Pop and other relievers on the list.  Seems like we have a lot of power arms coming up through the bullpen and that is the way to do it.  Tate seems destined for the bullpen and try to get his stuff to play up.

 

- I am interested in your thoughts on one (I think, I checked several times...) omission, Cameron Bishop.  Felt like him and Lowther were sort of linked in the system...Lowther more command and Bishop more stuff....but Lowther rocketed up your list (#9) and I don't see Bishop in the top 40.  Bishop dropped off mlb.com Top30 too.  Just curious on the thoughts there.

 

-------------

 

One other general comment.  I felt like there was some "addition bias" in order to respect last summers trades as these guys were added to the Orioles lists.  Seems like many had a somewhat heavy ranking versus guys already in the system that were performing as well or better.  I think your list is more reflective of my perception of how those guys actually ranked internal to the system.  

-------------

 

Again, good (and interesting) work.



#25 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,618 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 21 February 2019 - 02:39 PM

BSL: Orioles: Top 40 Prospects Entering 2019  (Part 1, 40-31)
https://www.baltimor...ing-2019-40-31/

 

BSL: Orioles: Top 40 Prospects Entering 2019 (Part 2, 30-21)
https://www.baltimor...ing-2019-30-21/

 

BSL: Orioles: Top 40 Prospects Entering 2019 (Part 3, 20-11)
https://www.baltimor...ing-2019-20-11/

 

BSL: Orioles: Top 40 Prospects Entering 2019 (Part 4, 10-1)
https://www.baltimor...ring-2019-10-1/

Great Stuff Adam,

Thanks for all the work that had to be done to put all this together.

 

After reading through this, I think it shows the Orioles have some decent prospects and maybe a few arms that will develop into solid rotation guys.

Top shelf talent seems to be lacking though.

 

Again, thanks, this was a very good read.


@mikeghg

#26 AdamMcInturff

AdamMcInturff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 27 posts

Posted 21 February 2019 - 02:58 PM

I was pleased with the McKenna write up. Didn't realize his defense was at that level.

Yeah, the speed and glove were actually what was always there. He just wasn't very well known before 2018, but his wheels and center-diamond defensive profile were the calling cards in Delmarva prior to last season's breakout. 

 

Really great makeup, too. Great kid. He has a chance to play in the big leagues a long time. 



#27 AdamMcInturff

AdamMcInturff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 27 posts

Posted 21 February 2019 - 03:01 PM

Great stuff, Adam! 

 

What do you make of the Orioles reportedly working Mountcastle out at first base during the early part of camp? I've always been inclined to give him a shot in left field if third base doesn't work out, but I think there's an argument for first base as a better alternative given concerns surrounding his arm.

I'm not surprised he's being worked out at 1B. I agree that he probably could try LF if it doesn't work out at 3B, but the team's outfield logjam could contribute to the desire to get him work at another spot. That's just my speculation--maybe they don't see him having the mobility to play outfield at all. 

 

A lot of outlets have graded his arm at a 30, and I think that's not taking last year's improvements into account. It's still a 40 or 45-grade tool, but emphasis on developing his arm and going on a long toss program definitely helped. It was a 30 in 2017, but has bumped up a grade or so since. 



#28 AdamMcInturff

AdamMcInturff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 27 posts

Posted 21 February 2019 - 03:04 PM

Great Stuff Adam,

Thanks for all the work that had to be done to put all this together.

 

After reading through this, I think it shows the Orioles have some decent prospects and maybe a few arms that will develop into solid rotation guys.

Top shelf talent seems to be lacking though.

 

Again, thanks, this was a very good read.

Thank you for the kind words.

 

Agree that the true top-shelf talent isn't here (yet), but the team's full rebuilding state ensures a bevy of high picks and big international pools in the near future. DL Hall also has at least some outside chance at finishing a top-50 prospect by the time all is said and done, too. 



#29 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,373 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 21 February 2019 - 03:05 PM

I'm not surprised he's being worked out at 1B. I agree that he probably could try LF if it doesn't work out at 3B, but the team's outfield logjam could contribute to the desire to get him work at another spot. That's just my speculation--maybe they don't see him having the mobility to play outfield at all. 

 

A lot of outlets have graded his arm at a 30, and I think that's not taking last year's improvements into account. It's still a 40 or 45-grade tool, but emphasis on developing his arm and going on a long toss program definitely helped. It was a 30 in 2017, but has bumped up a grade or so since. 

 

Think he could bump up footwork and the arm enough to play at 2B? Can't imagine him being the prettiest thing over there, but I've seen plenty of guys look rough in the lower minors and work it up enough to be passable at 2B. His bat would play really well there if he wasn't a train wreck in the field.


@JeremyMStrain

#30 AdamMcInturff

AdamMcInturff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 27 posts

Posted 21 February 2019 - 03:15 PM

Good stuff Adam.

 

I have zero credentials as a scout, but I've felt that Akin and McKenna have been under-rated as prospects and I'm high on the ability to contribute.

 

Couple thoughts. 

 

- My first was Akin and McKenna (above) at #6/7.  Totally agree. This is also lining up with the just released mlb.com rankings.

 

- Very interested in your profile of McKenna.  I did not understand his speed and defense at the level you presented them.  Actually changes my thoughts about a thing or 2 in what I'd do.   I value that in these forums, so thanks.

 

- Lowther keeps getting it done but his stuff seems under-whelming.  Interesting to watch how it holds up in the zone against better hitters.

 

-  Zach Pop and other relievers on the list.  Seems like we have a lot of power arms coming up through the bullpen and that is the way to do it.  Tate seems destined for the bullpen and try to get his stuff to play up.

 

- I am interested in your thoughts on one (I think, I checked several times...) omission, Cameron Bishop.  Felt like him and Lowther were sort of linked in the system...Lowther more command and Bishop more stuff....but Lowther rocketed up your list (#9) and I don't see Bishop in the top 40.  Bishop dropped off mlb.com Top30 too.  Just curious on the thoughts there.

 

-------------

 

One other general comment.  I felt like there was some "addition bias" in order to respect last summers trades as these guys were added to the Orioles lists.  Seems like many had a somewhat heavy ranking versus guys already in the system that were performing as well or better.  I think your list is more reflective of my perception of how those guys actually ranked internal to the system.  

-------------

 

Again, good (and interesting) work.

Thanks for reading and the detailed response. I'll try to hit on everything you presented. 

 

-Akin: Always have really liked this guy, going back to seeing him in college. The most enthusing development, for me, was seeing the stuff come back by late season without sacrificing the gains in command he has made in the last two years. There's a reason he was Eastern League Pitcher of the Year, though he won that award fairly quietly. We have been high on Akin as a top-10 prospect in this system earlier than many outlets. 

 

-McKenna: His speed and defense are the things to be most confident in. I don't think there's a scout that would tell you he wasn't a 70 runner (consistently 4.0-4.1 up the line), and I don't think there's a scout that would say he doesn't play a good CF. 

 

-Lowther: You hit the nail on the head--the stuff is the question mark. He does all the things you need to do in order to pitch with his velocity, though, so he's one of the soft-tossers I actually think has a chance to be a legitimate back-rotation piece. He'll be in the FV 50 tier if he continues performing upon reaching AA/AAA. The O's did a great job with Lowther in 2017, it was an example of scouts and data both saying the same things. 

 

-Bullpen arms: Getting a few power arms in the system is good, seeing as Baltimore didn't have many this time two years ago. I really like Zach Pop, he's going to surprise people in my opinion. Tate will be interesting to see in a 'pen role, though I don't know what the plan for him is entering 2019. Random name to mention with 'pen upside: Matthias Dietz. Always was destined for short-stints to me, and his control imploding in Frederick at the end of last season might have hastened the move to relief. Was 96-98 with power slider in one-inning stint during the SAL all-star game last June. 

 

-Cameron Bishop: This has been a weird story since coming into the system. He was a later-round pick, there was some squabbling about the signing, and after drawing rave reviews on the Cape before agreeing to terms with the Orioles, scouts just haven't seen the same guy. I've seen Bishop twice and similarly did not see the prospect that created buzz on the Cape. Physical lefty with a fairly clean delivery, but I've seen him high-80s without a dynamic secondary. 



#31 AdamMcInturff

AdamMcInturff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 27 posts

Posted 21 February 2019 - 03:18 PM

Think he could bump up footwork and the arm enough to play at 2B? Can't imagine him being the prettiest thing over there, but I've seen plenty of guys look rough in the lower minors and work it up enough to be passable at 2B. His bat would play really well there if he wasn't a train wreck in the field.

I wondered about 2B a lot watching him between Frederick and Bowie in 2017. I saw some potential for Mountcastle to follow in Daniel Murphy's footsteps, an offensive-minded infielder that learns to be passable at the keystone. After seeing him last year, I think he's now probably too big--though that's helping his power and offensive profile.

 

If it were me, yeah, I'd have some interest in seeing Mountcastle at 2B and gauging his interest in the position. It seems like the organization is more committed to the 3B or LF/1B trajectory, though. 


  • JeremyStrain likes this

#32 BobPhelan

BobPhelan

    OTV

  • Moderators
  • 14,498 posts
  • LocationBel Air, MD

Posted 21 February 2019 - 04:38 PM

Awesome stuff Adam, hope to read more from you on the O’s system as the year(s) goes on!

#33 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,373 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 21 February 2019 - 05:35 PM

I wondered about 2B a lot watching him between Frederick and Bowie in 2017. I saw some potential for Mountcastle to follow in Daniel Murphy's footsteps, an offensive-minded infielder that learns to be passable at the keystone. After seeing him last year, I think he's now probably too big--though that's helping his power and offensive profile.

 

If it were me, yeah, I'd have some interest in seeing Mountcastle at 2B and gauging his interest in the position. It seems like the organization is more committed to the 3B or LF/1B trajectory, though. 

 

That's pretty much exactly what I pictured when I saw him in Bowie last year too. Without him playing SS I couldn't really get an idea of his footwork, although it was ok at 3B, if a little stiff. Just not the same around the 2B bag though. I learned that watching Manny and Schoop down there when they were coming up. Jon could make up for it with his arm strength, but was really awkward around the bag, he made big improvements there once he hit the ML camp in Spring Training.

 

Just thought it'd be an interesting place to hide him. Like you said, there's a lot in the OF already, with McKenna, Mullins, Stewart, Diaz etc. and I don't know that he's got the foot speed for LF. If you are talking 1B, it makes you look at him and Mancini head to head, who has the better bat there? And that's assuming you can move Davis/Trumbo to free up 1B.

 

He's a little taller than Jeff Kent was, but that's kind of what comes to mind. Now if he can get the bat to THAT level we're really talking :)


@JeremyMStrain

#34 AdamMcInturff

AdamMcInturff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 27 posts

Posted 22 February 2019 - 04:21 AM

Awesome stuff Adam, hope to read more from you on the O’s system as the year(s) goes on!

Thanks, I appreciate that! Check out www.2080baseball.com for similarly in-depth content;


  • BobPhelan likes this

#35 NateDelong

NateDelong

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 27 February 2019 - 11:21 AM

Great job on the list Adam. I really enjoyed reading it. At the moment, it doesn't seem like there are too many moderate to low risk players in the Orioles system. Do you prefer higher ceiling guys or go more for lower risk? Or I guess asked differently, how do you personally weigh risk/reward when it comes to scouting/ranking prospects? 


@OriolesPG

#36 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,875 posts

Posted 08 March 2019 - 04:23 PM

Not sure where to put this - it's not specifically about the O's - but I thought this was an interesting article from Keith Law's free newsletter about teams intentionally inflating their prospects' rankings by promoting them to advanced leagues at young ages.

 

There's more, but I didn't want to post the entire thing.

 


A few teams figured out early on that they could juke the stats by running their youngest prospects up the ladder with little fear of loss of value. If your 19-year-old gets off to a good start in low-A, you can bump him up to high-A and beyond without much downside: If he hits well, he becomes highly valued; if he stinks, well, he was so young for the level! Even if he's just adequate, he looks better because of his age – well, he 'held his own,' and therefore we can project so much improvement as he gets older.

Except that we can't: not all teenagers are created equal. There's an inherent assumption baked into those models, based on decades of data, that players will improve by a certain amount from age N forward. That's true in the aggregate; if you take a group of 16-year-old ballplayers, most of them will get a lot bigger by the time they're 22, and many will even still get taller up to about age 19. (Juan Duran of the Reds is my favorite example; he was 6'4" when they signed him at 16 and ended up 6'9".) But some boys are done growing by 16 – I type, raising my hand at the same time – and some bodies just don't "project" the way others do. Models may include some of this information, like height and weight, but it's very hard to operationalize the projectability variable, and forecasting the future height of a 16-year-old your doctors haven't examined is futile.

So the models will build in some general assumptions of projection for all kids, and I think a few teams have figured this one out. If you have younger players who are polished for their age but lack projection, you can run them out to higher levels where, you hope, they'll make plenty of contact and thus will appear to have huge potential to projection systems, even as scouts come back with tepid reports that call out the players' lack of upside or future impact. Now I think the same trick may be designed to manipulate people like me, too – they know prospect writers like myself, Eric and Kiley at Fangraphs, and Jonathan and Jim at MLB will all notice a player who is very young for his level (especially if he's the youngest) and didn't flop. Fans notice it too, and talk those players up, but because the major prospect rankings (you can include Baseball America too) do get play in front offices, if we rank such players higher because teams juke the stats, then the trick is even more effective. This may explain why I've had certain very young prospects, like Andres Gimenez or the National's Luis Garcia, lower than fans of those teams expected. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean GMs are above this sort of thing.



#37 AdamMcInturff

AdamMcInturff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 27 posts

Posted 05 April 2019 - 10:16 AM

Great job on the list Adam. I really enjoyed reading it. At the moment, it doesn't seem like there are too many moderate to low risk players in the Orioles system. Do you prefer higher ceiling guys or go more for lower risk? Or I guess asked differently, how do you personally weigh risk/reward when it comes to scouting/ranking prospects? 

Great question. For starters, I do think there are a fair amount of "high floor" prospects in Baltimore's system, they just don't populate the top of this list. Among the O's top five, I'd probably tab Yusniel Diaz and Hays as the "safest". Terms like "floor" and "safety" get thrown around a lot, and I interpret them as words that are attached to prospects whose future levels of performance seem (relatively) predictable.

 

At 2080 Baseball, we weigh risk/reward significantly when lining up top prospect lists. The "reward vs. safety" discussion happens often, usually when ranking a close-to-ready player with less potential impact (a Luis Ortiz or Richie Martin) against one that is farther away and less of a sure thing, but also has a higher ceiling if all lines up (a Jean Carlos Encarnacion type). 



#38 AdamMcInturff

AdamMcInturff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 27 posts

Posted 05 April 2019 - 10:24 AM

Not sure where to put this - it's not specifically about the O's - but I thought this was an interesting article from Keith Law's free newsletter about teams intentionally inflating their prospects' rankings by promoting them to advanced leagues at young ages.

 

There's more, but I didn't want to post the entire thing.

Glad that I saw this, I think it's an interesting point Keith is touching on. Some organizations are a little more notorious for doing this than others. There are also clubs that really do try to work people like Keith, or even those in my shoes, to get their players moved up a little higher on prospect lists that they know the public will see. 

 

Given the makeup of our staffers at 2080 Baseball--many who have came from the team side, or leave 2080 to take their first team scouting job--using industry sources is a big part of our process. For instance, team lists get ran past scouts, coaches, and front office personnel (depending on the organization and our contacts there) before release. 

 

Without naming names, you definitely get a good grip on who is giving you earnest information versus who is trying to artificially influence perception. I don't even take it personally--I can't say I wouldn't consider doing the same thing in certain instances if I was in their shoes and there was a benefit to doing that. The important thing is to stick to your guns and make sure the information you're hearing lines up with your understanding of the player. Prospect outlets only really start getting worked over when they begin to blindly accept what they are hearing from team personnel as unquestioned fact. 

 

Also, it's worth noting that plenty of organizations are completely forthright and transparent with correct information. I would not say the majority of clubs operate with an agenda when dealing with members of the prospect space. I have had infinitely more positive and earnest discussions with team personnel than instances where I felt like I was being taken for a ride.


  • BSLChrisStoner and Nigel Tufnel like this

#39 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,373 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 05 April 2019 - 02:00 PM

Glad that I saw this, I think it's an interesting point Keith is touching on. Some organizations are a little more notorious for doing this than others. There are also clubs that really do try to work people like Keith, or even those in my shoes, to get their players moved up a little higher on prospect lists that they know the public will see. 

 

Given the makeup of our staffers at 2080 Baseball--many who have came from the team side, or leave 2080 to take their first team scouting job--using industry sources is a big part of our process. For instance, team lists get ran past scouts, coaches, and front office personnel (depending on the organization and our contacts there) before release. 

 

Without naming names, you definitely get a good grip on who is giving you earnest information versus who is trying to artificially influence perception. I don't even take it personally--I can't say I wouldn't consider doing the same thing in certain instances if I was in their shoes and there was a benefit to doing that. The important thing is to stick to your guns and make sure the information you're hearing lines up with your understanding of the player. Prospect outlets only really start getting worked over when they begin to blindly accept what they are hearing from team personnel as unquestioned fact. 

 

Also, it's worth noting that plenty of organizations are completely forthright and transparent with correct information. I would not say the majority of clubs operate with an agenda when dealing with members of the prospect space. I have had infinitely more positive and earnest discussions with team personnel than instances where I felt like I was being taken for a ride.

 

Another especially tough one is when you see something in a prospect and others don't. It's hard going to bat for that, when multiple other people disagree. Even the most cordial conversations about it when you keep hearing "no I didn't see it as that" can make you doubt it was a fluke or you're crazy :)

 

Sometimes you'll catch something others didn't, sometimes you'll miss. But kudos to you for standing your ground, arguing it and trusting yourself. I know that can be the hardest part of the process. The funny part is many of the same people arguing with you over guys will be the same ones to give you that same advice to trust what you see and support it. It's not done maliciously, but that's just the nature of what you do.


@JeremyMStrain




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=