I would be more curious to see the list after ST, when anyone with (or without, for that matter) a pulse over 30 is traded, released, or taken for a boat ride in the Bay along with some heavy chains.

I would be more curious to see the list after ST, when anyone with (or without, for that matter) a pulse over 30 is traded, released, or taken for a boat ride in the Bay along with some heavy chains.

Speaking of which, 24 year old Jeff Fiorentino was DFAed today to make room for newly acquired 28 year old Chris Roberson

I'd like to know where Patton ranked in the Astros system. I was discouraged to see that he's only the 3rd best prospect in the abysmal Oriole system.

There's been some talk lately of Bedard going to the Angels. I'd be curious to hear what Angels fans think would be a fair deal. Wood, Morales, Saunders, Willits, and a minor leaguer?

I'd like to know where Patton ranked in the Astros system. I was discouraged to see that he's only the 3rd best prospect in the abysmal Oriole system.

I think he was 2nd or 3rd last year. (actually, I think Albers was ranked higher.) In any event, I'm not sure that's a meaningful comparison since the Astros' system is worse than the Orioles and the Orioles system isn't really that bad AFAICT. It isn't elite obviously, but it looks like it's somewhere in the middle.

Speaking of which, 24 year old Jeff Fiorentino was DFAed today to make room for newly acquired 28 year old Chris Roberson

In the off-chance Fiorentino doesn't clear waivers, this will be a huge blow to the 40-50 range on the Orioles top prospect list.

Not a great list, but it's miles better than the Astros and has some decent upside. Guys like Billy Rowell, Snider, Erbe, etc might not individually be great bets to be stars, but out of the whole group its likely that one will emerge.

#3: BA's list for Houston:

1. J.R. Towles, c
2. Felipe Paulino, rhp
3. Troy Patton, lhp

abysmal Oriole system

I think it's a little better than that these days, closer to the middle of the pack than the bottom. Now the organization as a whole is a different story...

They now have 1 top 20 prospect (Weiters) and 3-4 other guys who might be top 100 (Liz, Patton, Reimold, Rowell), and 8-10 other guys with decent upside after that. That isn't bad. (also, I think they're underrating Rowell.)

#4:

Is that package the new rumor?

Back in the pre-Winter-Meetings edition of Bedard-to-Angels, I thought I saw that Ervin Santana was the pitcher coming back. I also read that Santana had "completely collapsed" or something, and that Wood was not all that.

Questions:

1) Where did you read the recent scuttlebutt?
2) Would you do that deal?
3) Would you rather have Santana over Saunders, as the pitcher coming back?
4) How good are the Angels hitting prospects in the deal you are floating above?

Patton may be rated #3 in both systems, but Houston's #4 probably wouldn't crack the Orioles #10.

Costanzo was rated #6 in the Houston system and isn't listed for Baltimore.

The Angels are my least favorite of the Bedard rumors unless Adenhart is involved.

I think it's a little better than that these days, closer to the middle of the pack than the bottom. Now the organization as a whole is a different story...

I guess I will continue to be the designated wet blanket on the Orioles. In what way is it not abysmal?

In fact, isn't it exactly the opposite of what you said? The organization as a whole isn't awful, but the farm is abysmal. That is, the farm has produced some players, but they're already on the major league roster. If you exclude those already called up, there's nothing there. Their top prospect is someone who hasn't yet played professionally. (Not counting winter ball.)

Wood, Morales, Saunders, Willits, and a minor leaguer?

If I'm the Angels I do that yesterday; so it's probably not enough for the O's.

1) Where did you read the recent scuttlebutt?
2) Would you do that deal?
3) Would you rather have Santana over Saunders, as the pitcher coming back?
4) How good are the Angels hitting prospects in the deal you are floating above?

I don't remember where I saw the rumor. That package is just something I threw out there, not what's on the table (at least AFAIK). I'd probably do that deal, esp. if Adenhart is the minor leaguer. It's a nice package of talent that addresses a lot of the orioles needs. Santana vs. Saunders is night and day w/r/t risk/reward. It's a toss up I guess, but I'd probably prefer Santana. Wood has lost a lot of value, but he still has a lot of upside.

In my ideal world, the Orioles would pull off some sort of three way with the Angels and either Cubs or Cardinals. Maybe Bedard+ to the Angels; Figgins and Roberts to the Cubs; and a bunch of prospects to the Orioles. Or maybe Bedard and Reyes to the Angels; Weaver and Willits to the Cardinals; and Rasmus, et al to the Orioles.

#6:

I've always wondered about these cash-for-player deals, where a current player gets dumped for the incoming player. What's each team doing here?

Are the Phils saying they value cash over Fiorentino, or are the O's taking a calculated risk that they can get Fiorentino through waivers and keep both Fiorentino and Roberson?

EDIT: Here's the ZiPS for Roberson, as a Phillie (Philly?).

Roberson .256/.298/.345.

Freaking yay.

In fact, isn't it exactly the opposite of what you said? The organization as a whole isn't awful, but the farm is abysmal. That is, the farm has produced some players, but they're already on the major league roster. If you exclude those already called up, there's nothing there. Their top prospect is someone who hasn't yet played professionally. (Not counting winter ball.)

In what way is the farm system abysmal? Just asserting that doesn't make it so. And the fact that Weiters hasn't played professionally isn't that important. BP has said he's a 5 star prospect, and I think most see him as top 20. If you disagree, please explain why.

If I'm the Angels I do that yesterday; so it's probably not enough for the O's.

Maybe you're right.

#13.

BP's Mssr. Goldstein's list quibbles with your assessment of "nothing there":

Five-Star Prospects
1. Matt Wieters, C
Four-Star Prospects
2. Chorye Spoone, RHP
3. Radhames Liz, RHP
Three-Star Prospects
4. Jake Arrieta, RHP
5. Nolan Reimold, OF
6. Billy Rowell, 3B
7. Brandon Erbe, RHP
Two-Star Prospects
8. Garrett Olson, LHP
9. Pedro Beato, RHP
10. David Hernandez, RHP
11. James Hoey, RHP

#14:

So you aren't that high on Wood and Willits?

Are the Phils saying they value cash over Fiorentino, or are the O's taking a calculated risk that they can get Fiorentino through waivers and keep both Fiorentino and Roberson?

THe latter. And Roberson is nothing more than minor league filler. There's no reason to care about this transaction.

I'm also not a fan of that proposed Angels package.

Santana, Saunders, and Willits do nothing for me. Too much service time and/or too little upside to be of use to the Orioles.

Morales/Wood are good pieces, but I'd prefer a package headed by Jones/Clement or Bailey/Votto.

#20:

The corresponding mlb.com article claims that Roberson will be competing for time in CF with Payton and Redman. Just sayin'.

#21:

Not sure why the O's would need Clement when they recently drafted Wieters. I like your proposed Reds package, but I think it's too high for the Reds.

I don't see Albers on any O's prospect lists. The Astros system must be an apocalypse.

Albers isn't a prospect anymore, he has too many innings in the majors.

BA may actually be higher on Albers than Patton, since they put him as the #5 starter on the 2011 team, and Patton is nowhere to be seen.

For some reason the Mariners' guys don't excite me. I'd do Votto/Cueto/Stubbs/1-2 other prospects in a second. I also wouldn't mind a blockbuster of Bedard and Roberts to the Cubs for 7-8 prospects, maybe Pie, Murton, Patterson, Marmol, Gallagher, et al.

I'm not thrilled with how the big rebuild has gone so far. I can live with the Tejada deal but wait with trepidation to see how the Bedard situation turns out. I'll be sorely disappointed if he's moved without getting at least one true A prospect (Wood/Morales don't cut it). As for Roberts, well, who knows what the steroid crap is doing to his trade value.

But I don't get the feeling that they are beating bushes and turning stones to get younger and more talented. I can't believe they couldn't have landed Milledge for some combination of Ramon-plus-something. If it's true that Philly would've considered taking Mora (and he'd waive his NT) they should have offered him for nothing and been willing to eat salary to make it happen. Payton, Huff, Millar... I know they all suck, but there are a lot of chumps out there. Though I suppose when you remove Littlefield and Flanagan from the pool overall willingness among GM's to acquire garbage vets would take a catastrophic hit..

Maybe I'm just being impatient or unrealistic.

#14:

So you aren't that high on Wood and Willits?

I think Wood still has a shot of being pretty good, but he's no longer an elite propsect.

Willits is OK, but will be expensive before the O's are good. I like Saunders OK.

I guess I think you need one elite prospect to part with Bedard.

Adenhart/Wood/Saunders/Willits would intrigue me.

Maybe I'm just being impatient or unrealistic.

I was cured (more like purged) of high expectations after the Tejada trade.

Still not sure why people are down on the Tejada trade. What were your expectations?

To respond to Yearrgh, Boriole, and anybody else: I don't think the guys actually listed are abysmal. I don't look at any of them and think, "Yuck. What idiot thinks he's a prospect?" (Although I sometimes get close to that with Snyder.) But I think that the fact that these guys are listed shows a serious problem. It's not that there's anything wrong with Matt Wieters per se. I've never seen him play personally, but the consensus seems to be that he's an elite prospect. But he's an elite prospect who hasn't played a single game professionally. Why is that important? Because the further a player is from the majors, the less professional experience a player has, the harder it is to project a player accurately, and the more chances there are for a player to fail to develop, regardless of his tools/skills. Where do you think he's going to start the 2008 season? A ball? His Hawaii Winter League performance didn't show him to be completely overmatched, but he didn't exactly destroy the league's pitching, either.

What about the other players? Well, in general, I like top prospects to have actually demonstrated that they're top prospects above A ball, rather than to look like they'd be top prospects if they played above A ball. (Or, worse, have played badly above A-ball.) Let's take the BA prospect list as a starting point:

1. (22) Never played professionally.
2. (25) Other than 25 horrid major league innings, never played above AA.
3. (22) 60 innings above AA. Strikeout rate above A ball is less than 6; above AA is less than 5.
4. (24) Only 50 games above A ball.
5. (19) Hasn't played above low-A, didn't play well there. (.761 OPS.)
6. (21) Hasn't played above low-A, and hasn't hit there at all. Moved from catcher, where he was drafted, to 1B. (They _call_ him "1B/3B," but he hasn't played any 3B -- not a single game. Yes, Rowell also was at Delmarva, but he didn't get all the playing time there.)
7. (22) Never played professionally.
8. (22) Hasn't pitched above A ball.
9. (21) Hasn't pitched above low-A ball, wasn't overly impressive at Delmarva.
10. (20) Hasn't pitched above high-A ball; hasn't pitched well above low-A ball.

In other words, most of their top ten players haven't yet shown they can handle AA. Look, I haven't written off Billy Rowell; he's only 19 years old, so even his mediocre performance at Delmarva isn't something to be too upset about. But when your fifth best prospect is a guy who hasn't yet hit well above the New York Penn League, it's not a good sign.


Give me Olson (is he not on BA's list because he has too much major league time?) and Liz, fine. Those are pitching prospects. Pedro Beato and Brandon Erbe are distant hopes, not prospects. A real, non-abysmal farm system would have several AAA/AA talents; the Orioles have a bunch of A-ball players.

Still not sure why people are down on the Tejada trade. What were your expectations?

Presumably because of the rumors of what the Orioles could have gotten from Anaheim a year or two ago. I'd have liked to have seen someone with a little more upside.

Presumably because of the rumors of what the Orioles could have gotten from Anaheim a year or two ago

Always trade a player a year early than a year late.

Somebody asked about Olson in the BA chat. They rated Olson just outside the Top 10.

Give me Olson (is he not on BA's list because he has too much major league time?)

Olson should be eligible, so I assume BA doesn't think he's as good as the other ten. BA does have a (somewhat undeserved) reputation of preferring high-ceiling players to high-floor players.

A real, non-abysmal farm system would have several AAA/AA talents

The Orioles have plenty of these guys, they just aren't on the list for various reasons. Loewen, Penn, Albers and Moore aren't eligible. Olson, Constanzo, McCrory, Doyne and Hoey didn't make the cut.

Presumably because of the rumors of what the Orioles could have gotten from Anaheim a year or two ago. I'd have liked to have seen someone with a little more upside.

The rumors were Santana and Aybar. I'm glad we waited.

#28:

As I said to somebody in the trade thread...Well, let me see if I can find it...Oh, nice, I got it. Actually that conversation was between you and I, as well. You were sort of talking me down in the trade thread, after I invoked the Tigers-Marlins trade. I had said:

Cabrera and Willis brought in two A'ish prospects, plus four more players. I figured that, at worst, the O's could get one A'ish prospect and nothing else for Tejada.

I didn't see that as unreasonable.

Those were my expectations. Now that we see the Santana trade stalling, I'm wondering if similar expectations for Bedard, and certainly Roberts, would also be unrealistic.

24 year old Jeff Fiorentino was DFAed today to make room for newly acquired 28 year old Chris Roberson

How bad is Fiorentino that they would want Chris Roberson over him? Roberson can run fast but to my eyes he looked like a bad fielder -- bad instincts, concentration -- albeit in a small sample size. I'd take the under on the ZIPS .256 BA if he were to play for the Phillies.

In other words, most of their top ten players haven't yet shown they can handle AA. Look, I haven't written off Billy Rowell; he's only 19 years old, so even his mediocre performance at Delmarva isn't something to be too upset about.

Rowell illustrates what's always bugged me about BA's tools heavy approach. It can lead to #1 prospects that end up falling of the list as soon as they hit a little adversity in a higher level. I suppose it makes writing a large blurb a bit sexier because it lets them "dream on a guy" rather than take up a lot of extra space talking about somebody who might be a 4th OF when the system is bad. At least the O's signed Weiters; there's hope.

The Orioles have plenty of these guys, they just aren't on the list for various reasons. Loewen, Penn, Albers and Moore aren't eligible. Olson, Constanzo, McCrory, Doyne and Hoey didn't make the cut.

Well, that's what I said about the team in my first post: "The organization as a whole isn't awful, but the farm is abysmal. That is, the farm has produced some players, but they're already on the major league roster. If you exclude those already called up, there's nothing there."

And come on, Moore? He might be useful to a major league team for a couple of years -- and we got him for nothing, so, Yay! -- but Moore's lack of eligibility ain't the reason he isn't on the list.

Rowell illustrates what's always bugged me about BA's tools heavy approach. It can lead to #1 prospects that end up falling of the list as soon as they hit a little adversity in a higher level.

A stats-heavy approach would've ranked Rowell #1 after his 2006 debut. PECOTA pegged him as the 23rd best prospect in baseball.

"The organization as a whole isn't awful, but the farm is abysmal. That is, the farm has produced some players, but they're already on the major league roster. If you exclude those already called up, there's nothing there."

So your definition of a non-abysmal farm system is one that has numerous prospects who have performed well at the high levels of the minor leagues but are not on the major league roster?

There's a pretty good reason there aren't many players like that out there, especially on a team with poor major league talent.

Take a look at Goldstein's abysmal Tampa Bay list:

1. Evan Longoria, 3B - Only 31 games above AA.
2. David Price, LHP - Never played professionally.
3. Wade Davis, RHP - Only 80 innings above A ball.
4. Desmond Jennings, CF - Never played above low-A.
5. Reid Brignac, SS - Only one season above A ball, and he didn't play well (.761 OPS).
6. Jacob McGee, LHP - Only 23 innings above A ball.
7. Eduardo Morlan, RHP - Only 4 innings above A ball.
8. Jeff Niemann, RHP - Two seasons above A ball, but wasn't impressive at AAA.
9. Jeremy Hellickson, RHP - Never played above A-ball.
10. Fernando Perez, CF - One good season at AA, prior A-ball seasons were mediocre.
11. Ryan Royster, OF - Never played above A-ball.

#29. I agree with your assessments: They all have question marks, and the fact that most on the list are young makes those uncertainties larger than for a team, say the Mariners or Reds, with more ML-ready prospects.

However, that does not make the farm system "abysmal", in my book. That would be the Astros, Cardinals, or maybe the Giants. Yes, they have a more sure thing at the top, but really nothing else.

#39, nicely done.

Give me Olson (is he not on BA's list because he has too much major league time?) and Liz, fine. Those are pitching prospects. Pedro Beato and Brandon Erbe are distant hopes, not prospects. A real, non-abysmal farm system would have several AAA/AA talents; the Orioles have a bunch of A-ball players.

Distant hopes? Erbe had a 10.4 K/9 and allowed 2 HR in 115 innings of full-season A ball as an 18-year-old. How is that not a prospect?

Beato had a bad year, but was still young for his level and was ranked as a top-100 prospect at this time last year. I think you're underrating successes and overrating failures for players in the low minors. They maybe "A-ball" players right now, but you could conservatively estimate at least 4-5 of those top 11 to have productive major league careers. It's not a terrible system, by any stretch of the imagination.

To respond to Yearrgh, Boriole, and anybody else: I don't think the guys actually listed are abysmal. I don't look at any of them and think, "Yuck. What idiot thinks he's a prospect?" (Although I sometimes get close to that with Snyder.) But I think that the fact that these guys are listed shows a serious problem. It's not that there's anything wrong with Matt Wieters per se. I've never seen him play personally, but the consensus seems to be that he's an elite prospect. But he's an elite prospect who hasn't played a single game professionally. Why is that important? Because the further a player is from the majors, the less professional experience a player has, the harder it is to project a player accurately, and the more chances there are for a player to fail to develop, regardless of his tools/skills. Where do you think he's going to start the 2008 season? A ball? His Hawaii Winter League performance didn't show him to be completely overmatched, but he didn't exactly destroy the league's pitching, either.

I'm sorry, but this makes very little sense. Wieters was widely regarded as the best position player available in the draft, and one of the best catching prospects to come along in years. Hell, you've even acknowledged that he's an elite prospect. So what's the problem? You're holding the Orioles prospects to an absurdly high standard. You seem to think that unless a system has several can't miss, major league ready prospects, it's "absymal." By that logic, every team in the majors has an abysmal system apart from maybe the Devil Rays (although even they have their problems as DKDC notes), the Dodgers (although Kershaw isn't worth much according to you), the Reds, and a couple others.

5. (19) Hasn't played above low-A, didn't play well there. (.761 OPS.)

This comment is bizarre. Rowell's OPS was ~20% above the league average, and that was as an 18 year old in low A. Jay Bruce was in rookie ball at the same age and didn't significantly outhit Rowell. Your expectations are just completely out of whack.

A stats-heavy approach would've ranked Rowell #1 after his 2006 debut. PECOTA pegged him as the 23rd best prospect in baseball.

The issue for me isn't stats vs scouts; it's guys with not much pro experience vs guys with a longer track record of performance. Sometimes that doesn't matter, but IMO you can find too many guys right out of the draft pretty high on BA's prospect lists, and they almost always seem to wind up falling in the same lists with exposure to higher levels. I'd like to see that accounted for more in their rankings is all.

Radhames Liz

He's got the touch! He's got the POWER!

Distant hopes? Erbe had a 10.4 K/9 and allowed 2 HR in 115 innings of full-season A ball as an 18-year-old. How is that not a prospect?

Well, yes, he did... in 2006. In low-A ball. Then he had a significantly less impressive season in high-A ball in 2007 as a 19 year old. If every pitcher who had a good year at low-A ball were a prospect, BA would have to compile a top-1000 list just to capture them all.

They maybe "A-ball" players right now, but you could conservatively estimate at least 4-5 of those top 11 to have productive major league careers.

I don't think that's "conservative" at all; I think it's hopelessly optimistic. A conservative estimate would probably be 1. Of course, it depends to an extent on what you mean by "productive major league career." If you mean that some of them could end up as one of many interchangeable middle relievers, I could buy that -- but it doesn't impress me, either.

(To be sure, part of my pessimism is based upon the abysmal state of the franchise as a whole; if I were the Red Sox, I'd be fine with prospects who were merely going to be adequate major leaguers. The Orioles, though, need high ceiling guys. Very high ceiling guys. Bedards, not Cabreras.)

(To be sure, part of my pessimism is based upon the abysmal state of the franchise as a whole; if I were the Red Sox, I'd be fine with prospects who were merely going to be adequate major leaguers. The Orioles, though, need high ceiling guys. Very high ceiling guys. Bedards, not Cabreras.)

This is exactly the problem. You're letting your overall feelings towards the orioles color your analysis of the farm system. You even admit that you don't really have a problem with the prospects listed. It's more of a "gestalt" thing. But it is possible to analyze the prospects and the farm system objectively, and by that standard the orioles' system isn't abysmal.

I also take issue with your claim that the Orioles need "very high ceiling" guys. (or at least the suggestion that that's all they need.) Of course they do -- every team does. But I think the Orioles need all sorts of talent, including average and even below average major leaguers. The Orioles biggest problem over the last few years is a lack of talent from top to bottom. They'vee had a few "stars" (Bedard, Tejada, Roberts) surrounded by absolute garbage in several positions, at the back end of the rotation, and at the back of the bullpen (and of course their stars aren't of the Pujols class). LF is the best example of this -- they've gotten almost no production at all from LF for years. Average players have a ton of value, and the orioles need lots of them. That's why the Tejada and the alleged Murton, Patterson, and Gallagher for Roberts trades make sense. I doubt any of those guys will become stars, but if several of them can be cheap, league average players for several years the Orioles will be much, much better off.

I'm sorry, but this makes very little sense. Wieters was widely regarded as the best position player available in the draft, and one of the best catching prospects to come along in years. Hell, you've even acknowledged that he's an elite prospect. So what's the problem? You're holding the Orioles prospects to an absurdly high standard. You seem to think that unless a system has several can't miss, major league ready prospects, it's "absymal." By that logic, every team in the majors has an abysmal system apart from maybe the Devil Rays (although even they have their problems as DKDC notes), the Dodgers (although Kershaw isn't worth much according to you), the Reds, and a couple others.

I think that if the system had even one can't miss prospect, it would be pretty nice.

It's not that they need to be major league ready because I want to see them in 2008; it's that I want (some of) them to be major league ready because I'd have more confidence in them. I've acknowledged that Wieters is deemed an elite prospect, and that I don't have any grounds to question it, but what does that mean? There are two questions with any prospect: how high of a ceiling can we project for him, and how reliable are our projections for him? You seem to want to focus only on the former, whereas I'm rather concerned about the latter. Because almost all of the Orioles' prospects are so low, the reliability is low.

This comment is bizarre. Rowell's OPS was ~20% above the league average, and that was as an 18 year old in low A. Jay Bruce was in rookie ball at the same age and didn't significantly outhit Rowell. Your expectations are just completely out of whack.

Well, they weren't quite the same age; although they were the same playing age, Bruce was actually 7 months younger. Second, I don't quite get your "20%" calculation; I must be missing the obvious. Anyway, I think your argument is flawed; most great major leaguers were decent at 18, but that doesn't mean that most people who are decent at 18 become great major leaguers.

As an experiment, I looked at everyone over a ten year period who was an 18-year old in the Sally League. I didn't do park adjustments or anything, and I just used Sean's minor league stats page, so it includes everyone who had at least 150 PA. There are very few players, and most made the majors, which would be great if that's all we were concerned about. There are some awfully good major leaguers in the list -- Andruw Jones, Jose Reyes, just to pick two. There are some mediocre major leaguers -- Jorge Cantu, Edwin Encarnacion. There are some bad/nonexistent major leaguers -- Ruben Mateo, Gregor Blanco (who?).

The complete list, chronologically:

Andruw Jones
Chad Hermanson
Ruben Mateo
Cesar King
Nick Johnson
Jimmy Rollins
Maicer Izturis
Jorge Cantu
Carl Crawford
Cesar Saba
Jose Reyes
Edwin Encarnacion
Andy Marte
Gregor Blanco
BJ Upton
Joel Guzman
Delmon Young

Now, that by itself would show that there's a decent chance of Rowell becoming a star -- but also a decent chance of getting nothing from him. There are two caveats, which weigh on opposite sides of the question: (1) several of those who flamed out showed little other evidence that they'd be stars, whereas Rowell has a decent year under his belt in 2006, also; but (2) most of the stars did significantly better, relative to the league, than Rowell did.

It's not that they need to be major league ready because I want to see them in 2008; it's that I want (some of) them to be major league ready because I'd have more confidence in them. I've acknowledged that Wieters is deemed an elite prospect, and that I don't have any grounds to question it, but what does that mean? There are two questions with any prospect: how high of a ceiling can we project for him, and how reliable are our projections for him? You seem to want to focus only on the former, whereas I'm rather concerned about the latter. Because almost all of the Orioles' prospects are so low, the reliability is low.

I was having a similar crisis of faith in the Dodgers farm system three years ago, mainly fueled by the very real lack of major-league-tested product. It's true they call them "prospects" for a reason, but at the same time you have to have some faith that things will progress reasonably. It has eventually paid off for the Dodgers, with Russell Martin, Jonathan Broxton, and Chad Billingsley being the most prominent fruit born to date. Looking back, I don't think that was a fair standard to apply, because in 2005 the first of the Logan White drafts were still only in their third year of the minors (and at most, two full seasons assuming they had played short-season ball in 2002), while a lot of the more hyped players (e.g. Edwin Jackson, Dioner Navarro) had only tasted the majors or were starting to look a little disappointing.

If a player is doing poorly relative to his league and he's young, you have to hope it's an anomaly -- and/or the organization has overestimated his ability, they've decided to rush/"challenge" him, etc.

This is exactly the problem. You're letting your overall feelings towards the orioles color your analysis of the farm system. You even admit that you don't really have a problem with the prospects listed. It's more of a "gestalt" thing. But it is possible to analyze the prospects and the farm system objectively, and by that standard the orioles' system isn't abysmal.

You're twisting my words here badly. What I "admit" is that the players on the list aren't, by themselves, bad prospects -- e.g., there are no obvious Keith Reeds on the list, as we've had some years. But a top ten list is not evaluated by whether the players are better than Keith Reed; for a top 10 list to be good, there should be great prospects on there and/or sure things, and what I don't "admit" is that there are many if any of them.

LF is the best example of this -- they've gotten almost no production at all from LF for years. Average players have a ton of value, and the orioles need lots of them. That's why the Tejada and the alleged Murton, Patterson, and Gallagher for Roberts trades make sense. I doubt any of those guys will become stars, but if several of them can be cheap, league average players for several years the Orioles will be much, much better off.

We don't just disagree about the Orioles; we're 180 degree polar opposites. I think your analysis, with all due respect, is 100% wrong. The Orioles have managed to get plenty of average players over the last ten years. The Orioles' problem is that they have never surrounded them with stars. It's true that the Orioles have had a debacle in LF in recent years -- but the problem was that they collected a bunch of old average guys without upside, and then when things went wrong, there was no fallback. The good thing about stars is that when they have an off year, they're still valuable.

Of course you need average guys, but you can't build a winning team by collecting a bunch of average guys. You build it by collecting stars, and then getting average guys around them.

BA may actually be higher on Albers than Patton, since they put him as the #5 starter on the 2011 team, and Patton is nowhere to be seen.

Yes, this is what Will Lingo said in the chat this afternoon.

J.P. from Springfield asks: No Patton on your 2011 Lineup Card?
Will Lingo: As we've discussed before, the future lineups have a lot of limitations. But you the readers still love them, so we keep em around. So Bedard is still the No. 1 guy for 2011 even though it seems likely the Orioles are anxious to deal him. But we don't assume trades or free-agent departures for lineup purposes. We also give credit to Jeremy Guthrie for his big league performance, and slot Matt Albers in there because we think he'll be better than Patton, even though he isn't eligible for our prospect list. And yet I think Patton will pitch in the Baltimore rotation this season. Go figure.

Nick from New York asks: Where in the top 30 did Costanzo/Albers/Sarfate fall?
Will Lingo: Constanzo ended up at No. 11, while Sarfate is No. 20. Albers is no longer eligible for our prospect lists, but as alluded to earlier he is in our 2011 rotation, so he clearly would have been in the top 10.

I think that if the system had even one can't miss prospect, it would be pretty nice.

How do you define can't miss? A top 20 prospect is pretty close. If you're talking about a true, grade A, can't miss prospect, there are only a few in all of baseball -- maybe Bruce, Longoria, and one or two others. The fact that the orioles don't have a guy like that is hardly evidence that their system is abysmal.

Well, they weren't quite the same age; although they were the same playing age, Bruce was actually 7 months younger. Second, I don't quite get your "20%" calculation; I must be missing the obvious. Anyway, I think your argument is flawed; most great major leaguers were decent at 18, but that doesn't mean that most people who are decent at 18 become great major leaguers.

Someone calculated OPS+ for the league and park and came up with 120 (I think) for Rowell. Anyway, talk about twisting words...I didn't say that Rowell was likely to become a great major leaguer, just that your comment that he "didn't play well" isn't supported by the facts. He was one of the most touted HS hitters in the 2006 draft, and now has a line of .293/.365/.453 as a 17 and 18 year old in ~150 games. He's a good prospect.

You're twisting my words here badly. What I "admit" is that the players on the list aren't, by themselves, bad prospects -- e.g., there are no obvious Keith Reeds on the list, as we've had some years. But a top ten list is not evaluated by whether the players are better than Keith Reed; for a top 10 list to be good, there should be great prospects on there and/or sure things, and what I don't "admit" is that there are many if any of them.

This makes no sense. Either they're good prospects or they aren't. Ok, the orioles don't have a Jay Bruce. Again, that hardly makes the farm system abysmal.

With all due respect, are there any realistic moves the orioles could make this offseason that would make you happy? Let's say they trade Bedard to the Reds for Votto, Cueto, Stubbs, and a couple other prospects, Roberts and Payton to the Cubs for Gallagher, Murton, Cedeno and Patterson, trade Millar and Huff for whatever, and release Gibbons. So their lineup is c Hernandez, 1b Votto, 2b Patterson, SS Cedeno, 3b Moore, LF Scott, CF Stubbs?, RF Markakis, DH Murton, and a rotation of Guthrie/Loewen/Cueto/Gallagher/Patton/Olson/Albers. Or maybe they trade Bedard for Figgins, Adenhart, Wood, Morales, and Mathis, and flip Figgins to the Cubs along with Roberts and get Pie and Marmol. Would you be content with those moves and the Orioles direction?

I think I agree with David (in theory at least) and let me see if I can put it somewhat differently.

Putting together a farm system essentially consists of two steps: drafting/signing (including international FAs) good talent and developing the talent you draft. The O's prospect list shows a fairly good amount of talent (apparently) but none of it has yet been developed to any great extent. That puts them ahead of teams with lousy talent and few/no well-developed players (e.g. the Astros apparently) but behind those with lousy (or mediocre) "talent" who have developed advanced prospects (the Braves have often done this). Needless to say it puts them behind those with good, well-developed talent.

Or in cliched parlance, the O's farm system right now is all sizzle and no steak. Sometimes even a solidly mediocre round steak or two is better than the sizzle of filet mignon.

David, being David, surely has serious doubts about the O's ability to develop this talent given their track record. And no sane person could fault him for that. So while Wieters may have the potential to be molded into Michelangelo's David, he's being molded by a bunch of guys who so far have only done a couple clay ashtrays for Mom (and Erik Bedard).

Further in David's "defense", even if many of these prospects "pan out" (however you define that), they're almost all at least two years from the majors and probably four years from being productive and maybe 6+ years from their prime. What do the O's do in the meantime given their current paucity of ML talent ... and with no near-ML ready talent in their system? They bring in more overpriced, average vetarans to try to paper things over or they rush these prospects or they put up Devil Rays' like records (or some combo of all three). More of the first is likely to drive David mad, the second unlikely to be productive, the third likely to depress him further.

Granted, "abysmal" may be too strong. But "highly uncertain and far in the future even by the standards of prospect lists" seems accurate.

And it might well be right to label Tampa's list in the same way. In some other thread here, I've been suggesting that the trades of Young and Dukes, although understandable, have cut pretty seriously into their likelihood of being competitive before 2011 or 2012. That prospect list, chock full of talent though it may be, gives me more faith that I'm right.

So while Wieters may have the potential to be molded into Michelangelo's David, he's being molded by a bunch of guys who so far have only done a couple clay ashtrays for Mom (and Erik Bedard).

Nick Markakis?

Pops beat me to it, but it's not entirely accurate to say that the Orioles haven't developed anyone recently. Markakis is developing very nicely. Fundamentally, the complaint that these guys are just prospects and aren't guaranteed to do anything is somewhat bizarre. well, duh, they're prospects, so of course there's a lot of uncertainty. But you don't just throw up your hands and say "who knows?" Again, there are only a handful of truly can't miss prospects in all of baseball, and even some of them will miss.

Further in David's "defense", even if many of these prospects "pan out" (however you define that), they're almost all at least two years from the majors and probably four years from being productive and maybe 6+ years from their prime. What do the O's do in the meantime given their current paucity of ML talent ... and with no near-ML ready talent in their system? They bring in more overpriced, average vetarans to try to paper things over or they rush these prospects or they put up Devil Rays' like records (or some combo of all three). More of the first is likely to drive David mad, the second unlikely to be productive, the third likely to depress him further.

No question that signing overpriced stopgaps has been a huge problem. But that's not the issue. We're talking about their farm system, and the debate here is whether it's middle of the road or "abysmal." I don't think David has presented a shred of evidence that it's the latter. As for what the Orioles do in the meantime, they trade guys like Bedard and Roberts for young, major league ready talent, and let them develop for the next few years. I think that's pretty obvious, so I'm not sure what the issue is.

I think that if the system had even one can't miss prospect, it would be pretty nice.

You get your wish. No less an authority than the Associated Press declared Wieters to be "can't-miss" shortly before the draft.

I still think that if you narrowly define a farm system to be those players who are on Baseball America's top ten list (thereby excluding all of the barely ineligible/just-missed talent), and you determine a prospect's worth largely by how close to the majors they are, you'll think you have an abysmal farm system no matter which team you root for.

I don't want to keep hammering these points home and give anyone the impression that I think the Orioles system is anything more than average (at best), but your pessimism is suffocating.

Maybe abysmal doesn't mean what I think it means.

a·bys·mal /??b?zm?l/
–adjective
1. of or like an abyss; immeasurably deep or great.

Are you're really an optimist?

I don't want to keep hammering these points home and give anyone the impression that I think the Orioles system is anything more than average (at best), but your pessimism is suffocating.

that sums up my feelings perfectly.

This is not an abysmal system at all. They have an impact bat, a few very intriguing players...that's all you need and probably sums up a large chunk of teams around the middle.

They bring in more overpriced, average vetarans to try to paper things over or they rush these prospects or they put up Devil Rays' like records (or some combo of all three).

MacPhail doesn't seem eager to bring in overpriced, average vets. He'll most likely sign some vets before spring training but they'll probably be cheap 1 or 2 year deals. Otherwise, I expect MacPhail to give Olson, Penn, Liz, Luis Hernandez, Boom Boom Bynum and Brandon Fahey plenty of playing time. What's will be interesting to watch is how MacPhail reacts next offseason after coming off a 105 game losing season. That's when I can see the O's signing some lame ass vet to a four deal year to bring some "respectability".

Also, I'm really hoping Pedro Alvarez will be available when the O's pick in the 2008 draft. He's a Boras guy so he might be available and the Wieters signing suggests that MacPhail isn't afraid to pay past the slotted price. And best of all, he can boot Mora's sorry ass off of 3B quickly.

Scareduck, Walt: the other thing about the Orioles is that they've got zero in the majors. The Yankees can plug Cano, Cabrera, Wang into a lineup that already has ARod, Jeter, Giambi... well, the list goes on. The Red Sox can plug Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester, Papelbon into a lineup with Manny, Ortiz, Beckett, Schilling, etc. If one of their minor leaguers flops (or gets cancer), no big deal. (On the one hand, how fair is it to compare the Orioles to loaded teams like the Yankees and Red Sox? On the other hand, the Orioles are in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox.)

The Orioles have got squat. That top ten list isn't getting plugged into a major league roster; that top ten list has to be the major league roster. (Them, plus what the Orioles might get for Bedard and Roberts. If MacPhail actually trades Bedard and Roberts.) The Orioles don't need one or two or three of them to succeed; they need virtually all of them to succeed.

It's a shame that we can't talk about the state of the O's farm system right now without having to hash out the sins of the past or speculate about future ineptitude.

David, can you clarify/rectify these two statements?

The organization as a whole isn't awful,

To be sure, part of my pessimism is based upon the abysmal state of the franchise as a whole

Here's an unbiased, professional opinion:

Q: Nick from New York asks:
Where would you estimate the Orioles's system ranks overall?

A: Will Lingo: The Orioles are solidly in the middle of the talent rankings now, with good depth but not enough impact players like Wieters.

David, I think by now it's pretty clear that you'll say anything rather than admit the possibility that you might be slightly mistaken.

Sure. Just like I was wrong to think that Jay Payton, Kevin Millar, and Aubrey Huff would not be an improvement on Jeff Conine, Kevin Millar, and Javy Lopez or Surhoff, Bigbie, and Byrnes, or -- well, you get the idea. I don't think one can go wrong selling short on the Orioles.

You're pulling quotes out of context. The first one refers to the quality of prospects (in the broadest sense of the term, including those like Loewen, Penn, etc., who have appeared in the majors but have not established themselves as competent major leaguers), while the second refers to the overall talent, veteran and otherwise, in the organization. (But as for that first statement, don't Loewen and Penn give you a little bit of pause in your enthusiasm over A-ball pitchers? Both highly ranked prospects, both progressed past that point -- and yet neither one has managed to stay healthy and pitch well in the majors.)

A: Will Lingo: The Orioles are solidly in the middle of the talent rankings now, with good depth but not enough impact players like Wieters.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that I accept his assessment as fact: doesn't that match what I'm saying? Not enough impact players.

What I disagree on with Lingo is whether having "depth" without impact players is good for the Orioles. (Perhaps "disagree" isn't the right term; we're asking different questions.) That is, on a good team, "depth" is fine; on an awful team, impact players are needed. On a good team, where you have three established starters and you need to develop two back-of-the-rotation guys to complement them, taking six guys who might turn into two mediocre major leaguers (*) and winnowing them down as they move up through the organizational ranks is fine. On a lousy team, where you need to develop something like 4/5ths of a rotation -- if not 5/5ths -- you need impact players. You need the people likely to be #1 and #2 starters. Similarly on offense: you need the people likely to be cleanup hitters in the majors, not the guys who can fill out the bottom of the batting order.


(*) Most prospects, even the successful ones, do not become stars. You have to be a good prospect just to become a mediocre major leaguer.

That is, on a good team, "depth" is fine; on an awful team, impact players are needed.

I think the exact opposite is true. Of course I'd prefer to have depth AND impact, but if I have to choose between the two and I'm the Orioles, I'll choose depth.

For the 2009 season, the Orioles have the rights to one player I feel comfortable projecting to be above average (Nick Markakis). Between Cabrera, Ray, and Guthrie, maybe you fill a spot or two on the pitching staff.

That's it. The Orioles have a ton of spots on that 2009 team that they will have to fill either through free agency or the farm system. Where is all of that talent going to come from in your shallow system with a few impact prospects?

I also think that Liz, Rowell, and Erbe have as high a ceiling as any prospect in baseball. They may be less likely to get there than other prospects, but they certainly have a shot at being star players in the majors.

"His Hawaii Winter League performance didn't show him to be completely overmatched, but he didn't exactly destroy the league's pitching, either."

For the record, the HWL seems to play as a very strong pitcher's league. As such, Wieters's raw line is more impressive than it looks.

The Orioles have got squat. That top ten list isn't getting plugged into a major league roster; that top ten list has to be the major league roster. (Them, plus what the Orioles might get for Bedard and Roberts. If MacPhail actually trades Bedard and Roberts.) The Orioles don't need one or two or three of them to succeed; they need virtually all of them to succeed.

No, the Orioles have Markakis, one of the best young OF in MLB, Loewen, Guthrie, Scott, Olson, and, most importantly, Bedard and Roberts. You can't just mention what they'll get from Bedard and Roberts as an aside -- the talent they will (hopefully) receive from those guys is the whole point of rebuilding.

What I disagree on with Lingo is whether having "depth" without impact players is good for the Orioles. (Perhaps "disagree" isn't the right term; we're asking different questions.) That is, on a good team, "depth" is fine; on an awful team, impact players are needed. On a good team, where you have three established starters and you need to develop two back-of-the-rotation guys to complement them, taking six guys who might turn into two mediocre major leaguers (*) and winnowing them down as they move up through the organizational ranks is fine. On a lousy team, where you need to develop something like 4/5ths of a rotation -- if not 5/5ths -- you need impact players. You need the people likely to be #1 and #2 starters. Similarly on offense: you need the people likely to be cleanup hitters in the majors, not the guys who can fill out the bottom of the batting order.

This is getting ridiculous. The issue is whether the Orioles system is in the middle of the pack or whether it's abysmal. That was your term. Are you going to concede that there's a chance you might be wrong given that at least a couple professional talent evaluators don't agree with you? Of course the Orioles could use more impact players. Almost every team could. That doesn't make their system abysmal.

What about my question in #52? What set of moves would make you happy? I'm starting to think that you're too invested in your argument that the Orioles suck in every way possible to be satisfied with any outcome.

It's a shame that we can't talk about the state of the O's farm system right now without having to hash out the sins of the past or speculate about future ineptitude.

Good point.

For the record, the HWL seems to play as a very strong pitcher's league. As such, Wieters's raw line is more impressive than it looks.

I wasn't judging his numbers in the abstract, but compared to the league. Wieters had a .779 OPS; the league's OPS was .733 -- in other words, not bad, but he didn't destroy the league. (Contrast him to Brandon Snyder -- to say something positive about him -- who had a .942 OPS.) Maybe park effects played a role -- maybe he played in an extreme pitcher's park -- but he was only sixth on his own team in OPS.

These are all small sample sizes -- we're only talking about a 38-game season -- so we shouldn't read too much into it. I was mostly looking at it as an indicator of where he might start 2008. If he had demolished the league, maybe Bowie. But since he didn't, I suspect he starts in Frederick.

What about my question in #52? What set of moves would make you happy? I'm starting to think that you're too invested in your argument that the Orioles suck in every way possible to be satisfied with any outcome.

I'm not going to sit there and work out hypothetical deals, but I will say that what I would be happy with from trading these guys is, say, two Grade-A prospects, two Grade-B prospects, and a couple of Grade-C prospects. Now, by Grade-A I don't mean that they must be ready to be major league stars in 2008; I don't care per se how they do in 2008. I mean that they should (a) have a high ceiling, and (b) be close enough to the majors right now to be reasonably confident -- as confident as we can be, given that there are no guarantees -- that they can reach that high ceiling. Conversely, by Grade-C, I either mean someone who projects to be nothing special in the majors _or_ someone who's so far away from the majors that our confidence in his projection is low. Grade B is somewhere in between (duh).

(To avoid confusion, I'm using my own labels for these grades; I'm not using Sickels' grading system or BA's or anybody else's.)

Or sell

Happens more often, mostly likely faster, and no bad karma!

Yeaarrgghhhh, are you going to the meetup in Baltimore? DMN and Kevin are headlining, but you and David would probably steal the show.

"Wieters had a .779 OPS; the league's OPS was .733 -- in other words, not bad, but he didn't destroy the league."

He was 50 points of OPS above league average for all hitters, playing against older competition, as a catcher, and that doesn't ring your bell?

OK, I'm officially with the people who say that your standards are too high.

I'm not going to sit there and work out hypothetical deals, but I will say that what I would be happy with from trading these guys is, say, two Grade-A prospects, two Grade-B prospects, and a couple of Grade-C prospects. Now, by Grade-A I don't mean that they must be ready to be major league stars in 2008; I don't care per se how they do in 2008. I mean that they should (a) have a high ceiling, and (b) be close enough to the majors right now to be reasonably confident -- as confident as we can be, given that there are no guarantees -- that they can reach that high ceiling. Conversely, by Grade-C, I either mean someone who projects to be nothing special in the majors _or_ someone who's so far away from the majors that our confidence in his projection is low. Grade B is somewhere in between (duh).

Who are the grade A prospects the Orioles might be able to get for Bedard and Roberts? Would you be happy with, say, Votto and Cueto as the grade A, and Patterson and Gallagher as the grade B? I understand not wanting to work out hypothetical deals, but talking about this in the abstract is somewhat pointless.

Can you blame him? It's one thing to have a shitty manager or a shitty secondbaseman or whatever. Those things can be fixed.

But what can you do when you have a shitty owner? One thing:

Wait for him to die.

That's nice. Anyway, there's nothing MacPhail or I or DMN or anyone else can do about Angelos.

That is, on a good team, "depth" is fine; on an awful team, impact players are needed.

I think the exact opposite is true. Of course I'd prefer to have depth AND impact, but if I have to choose between the two and I'm the Orioles, I'll choose depth.

Disagree, an awful team needs an impact player or two more than it needs depth, an awful team is going nowhere until it has impact players.

The Twins need depth, if only to get Punto as far away from the lineup as possible, the Orioles need 2-3 more impact players* before they can even think about competing.

*assuming they still have Bedard and Markakis

He was 50 points of OPS above league average for all hitters, playing against older competition, as a catcher, and that doesn't ring your bell?

OK, I'm officially with the people who say that your standards are too high.

Is this just "throw arguments at the wall and hope David gets too tired to respond"? Wieters wasn't playing primarily against older competition. At 21, he was on the older side of the league, which varied mostly from 19-22.

Sure. Just like I was wrong to think that Jay Payton, Kevin Millar, and Aubrey Huff would not be an improvement on Jeff Conine, Kevin Millar, and Javy Lopez or Surhoff, Bigbie, and Byrnes, or -- well, you get the idea.

Huff and Millar posted an OPS+ of 103 and 106 respectively in 2007, which aren't earthshattering numbers for a DH or 1B, but they did perform like decent major leaguers which is more than I can say for the last hurrah period of Conine, Lopez or Surhoff, not to mention Byrnes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not thrilled with Huff simply because he makes too much money for a team rebuilding. I'm fine with Millar, obviously he's not a prototypical 1B, but at least he's patient at the plate, he's cheap, and he's hits ok. Payton blew last year but his sucky bat will look less sucky in CF and he did perform well below his career OPS last year so maybe he'll bounce back a bit.

DMN and Kevin are headlining, but you and David would probably steal the show.

Yeah, we need a steel catch match.

Yeaarrgghhhh, are you going to the meetup in Baltimore? DMN and Kevin are headlining, but you and David would probably steal the show.

I wonder if MacPhail will have managed to trade Roberts and Bedard by May 31.

I'll try, but between work and kids it'll be tricky.

#81:

Do you have weekends and/or evenings off?

Define "off." With a one year old and a five year old, that isn't an easy question to answer.

Off of work.

Off of work.

Define work! :)

yeah...I should have put a smiley on my comment. It's just that, with the one year old esp., I'm never off "work," at least not if my wife has anything to say about it.

OK, I just thought it would be fun if some actual Oriole fans were at the meetup. We've got fans of the Angels, Red Sox, Cubs showing up.

Well, as long as we're sending excess Red Sox fans to the overflow spot at Fayette & Monroe, I'm in.

/Give up on arguing with the lawyer.
//He was right last year, but at a certain point, the O's won't lose their closer and 7-8 starters in a season. Plus, who knows, scouting department might locate Latin America on a map...

In lieu of commenting on the O's (specifically Wieters, who I'm quite bullish on, despite his being a catcher - this guy is a grade A prospect by virtually any definition out there (caveat: I'm a GT fan, though not known for bias in that regard))...

Gregor Blanco will likely finish his career as a "bad major leaguer". He's a younger Reggie Willits, if you add a sizeable platoon differential (Gregor's a lefty); a teeny bit more pop - but only enough such that it's problematic, like Willie Wilson; more Ks, without being too harmful to the BA; poorer baserunning instincts. Gregor has been better at the same ages, but is unlikely to have as good of a career as Reggie.

I pretty much agree with David. A bad team needs to draft players who have high ceilings with a reasonable probability of hitting them (my definition of a Grade A prospect), because those types of players are extremely hard to acquire in any other way, and you cannot become competitive without them. Organization depth is "nice" to have, but more often than not bad teams are bad not because they don't have organizational depth, but because they don't have the thumpers or the aces. Look at the Pirates; they really don't have too many "horrible" players, but they keep winning 70-75 games because they don't have nearly enough front-line quality.

-- MWE

Reds claim Fiorentino off waivers