1) It feels like a high-floor draft to me. You have almost exclusively college kids with one better tool. It wouldn't surprise me to see a useful player or 2. Last year, I could envision some of these guys being starters. Other than Cowser in RF, I don't see where I'd reasonably project any of these guys as starters for a competitive team. Could Norby be a decent hit-first 2B....maybe...but would I project him over Jones, Varva or Westburg....not today. I know there was an earlier discussion about college projection versus HS and we could likely find players to support either camp...but an more unfinished product might unlock something (through development) to separate them. It feels intentional in this draft.....nearly all college players and outside of trimble...does any profile strike as a breakout kid? Mike Elias would explain to me why I'm wrong....and he got the guys he wanted and they're all going to be great. I hope so. I wouldn't bet on him being right.
2) I'm not a fan of the Cowser pick. I like it better than Frelick, but that's what I can say. Doesn't seem likely he'll be in CF, more of a better RF profile. I've seen the comps (by some) to Markakis. OK. Let's try a bias test. Don't look at the numbers. [I see you cheaters] if Cowser become Markakis, that would be good, right? Would you feel good about the pick if he become...say...Brett Gardner? Yes? No? He may wind up with more WAR than a guy like Lawler or Rocker or Watson, but if you're trying to build something meaningful with that pick, put you money on the meaningful, not the safe profile. Again, Elias would tell me his performance will be impactful. I hope so....still wouldn't bet on it.
3) The Orioles were the only team in MLB to take 2 unranked (mlb.com top 250) 4YR SR in the top 5 rounds. If you look at most of the other teams that took one, you can see by their other selections why they are trying to save money on a richer slot. That's certainly not the Orioles draft. Those are no-leverage guys with almost 1M (956k) in slot. They took 8 4YR SR over all and maybe that's not that remarkable in any direction, but it's certainly limiting on what they need to spend in this draft. Everyone takes them, some probably took more, but this isn't an evaluation of others drafts, just the Orioles.
4) I have no issue taking college arms...but none of them were ranked (again, mlb.com top 250) kids and I think it's an ok strategy to try and find useful bullpen pieces. Likely a lot of one-plus pitch type guys or maybe injuries so no issues largely there, there just isn't anything exciting (potential/upside) in those rounds. Time will certainly tell.
5) I was interested in one of the analysts thoughts on the system being lighter in replaceable bats versus pitchers. It actually got me thinking about all the OFers they're taking....like is the goal to try and fill up each team with a good player at each position....does that actually mean anything. If you think about it....that means we'd be drafting for minor league need. That's what it feels like a little. Did we really need to draft 4 OFers in the first 5 picks?...that will certainly push some older guys into the lower leagues so maybe their chance to perform is better there? ...but so what.
1. Can’t find much to disagree with here. I agree it’s a high floor draft and think Elias’ strategy might end up being high floor drafts, high ceiling international classes. I would say Trimble, Rhodes, Creed Willems, and their 20th round pick Trendon Craig could be overslot picks that could break out a bit.
2. I actually like the Cowser pick a lot, as I’m sure you know. Personally would’ve gone with Watson over him but not by much. Reading more about the way he built himself up to increase strength and speed before this college season and that he already uses data to work on adjustments tells me he’s a great fit with this system. A Nick Markakis bat that can play let’s say around an average CF and isn’t slow as molasses is pretty exciting.
3. I think Cowser isn’t going to be as underslot as we initially thought and some guys might be a little more overslot than we thought.
4. I saw someone say that all of the arms we took follow our model of fastballs with backspin or good ride and a good breaking pitch. Apparently they are confident in their ability to teach a solid change up.
5. I don’t see it as drafting for need. I see it as drafting the guys they best feel fit their development system and whose offensive profile they can benefit. Seems like they don’t care about strikeouts and want at least two of the following attributes: hit tool, power, on base skills. They also seem to be focused on positional flexibility. At the same time I think having a balanced lineup and raising the floor of the system is good for breeding competition and raising the odds of breakout candidates.
I would give the draft a solid B.
) but I thought Day1 and Day2 were both well done. I think there was a definite change in the tone as it didn't appear that the Orioles had nailed that splashier pick (or picks). They certainly didn't do anything exciting (not that something can't be good) on Day3.
