Welcome to the Orioles Nation Forums! Like most online communities, you must register to post on our message board. However, posting is free--it always will be--and registration is a simple process. Become part of the growing Orioles Nation community and register now!

Is Jordan's philosophy best suited for the O's?

Is Jordan's philosophy best suited for the O's?

PostPost #1 by docjj » May 25th, 2011, 3:04 pm

I was reviewing the toolsy, athletic high school types that Jordan has picked over the years. None of them has really stood out. Machado may be the lone exception.

Ryan Adams
Tyler Henson
Jerome Hoes
Xavier Avery

I wonder if we just don't have the right coaches, instructors, teaching to develop raw talent. Maybe we need more polished, refined guys, even if the ceilings aren't as high.
docjj
DSL Orioles
 
Posts: 182
Joined: January 2011
Reputation Score: 3

Re: Is Jordan's philosophy best suited for the O's?

PostPost #2 by A_K » May 25th, 2011, 5:54 pm

Whenever I hear people dispute varying philosophies, I turn to an investing-philosophy cliche that gained a bit of fame as part of the trailer to the Wall Street sequel last year.

"Bears make money. Bulls make money. Lambs go to slaughter."

The idea is, you can have plenty of success with any number of proven strategies. It isn't the particular strategy itself that's particularly important. What matters is that once you adopt one strategy over the other, you execute.

I'm sure there are examples of toolsy, unrefined prospects selected near the guys you mention in your list who have thus far panned out better than the guys we've drafted. Assuming those guys were missed picks (possible, but I'd argue premature at this point), the mistake is in the execution of the draft strategy, not the draft strategy itself.
A_K
GCL Orioles
 
Posts: 608
Joined: April 2011
Reputation Score: 43

Re: Is Jordan's philosophy best suited for the O's?

PostPost #3 by ofahn » May 25th, 2011, 9:33 pm

Perhaps it's a combination of both: a few draft misses (no one's perfect) and insufficient resources being devoted to developing our prospects.

Transitioning from high school to professional baseball is a difficult process. In addition to learning the game you thought you knew at a level and speed beyond your expectations, an eighteen year kid has to learn how to live on his own and be responsible for himself. Half of this young player's day is away from the ball park and unstructured. Bad habits can develop in their conditioning and behavior.

Minor league clubs have traditionally had no more than four coaches for 23 or 24 players and these coaches may be new to the teaching process.

Without the right kind of guidance a player may never develop to their full potential.

I'd like to see the team add to the quantity and quality of our player development staff. A year round nutritionist should be added as well as assigning a year round strength and conditioning coach to monitor the player's off season conditioning. This would allow us to avoid issues like Matt Hobgood's problems.

What I'm suggesting would cost the team about a half million dollars a year which is insignificant compared to the eight or nine million they spend on amateur talent. If we were to develop just one more player each year through the system, that rookie's 400K salary would be a lot cheaper than the average 5M it takes to sign a MLB veteran.
User avatar
ofahn
Aberdeen IronBirds
 
Posts: 4402
Joined: May 2011
Reputation Score: 85

Re: Is Jordan's philosophy best suited for the O's?

PostPost #4 by Don » May 26th, 2011, 10:25 am

I made light of this in another forum because people tend to group the ideas of age versus level too much on the idea of how well guys are doing.

Avery was never 100% focused on baseball and I was shocked that he turned down football becuase he may have been able to play on Sunday's. It was not until the point he signed with the Orioles that his life was now focused on baseball. He was a 18 year old with the baseball skills and knowledge of no where near his peers that we baseball addictive players. I say that his skills and fundementals were about as solid as a high school freshman or sophmore that played extensive summer ball. His tools and ability were not refined, but he was effective.

Look over his first few season, he shows bat speed, true plus speed, and almost average defensively that he makes up with his speed to play better than he should have at that time. He has faced competition that is his age, but they are well ahead of him in baseball terms. He has always taken the second stage, once he gets adjusted, to show he belongs. I do not think you will get a total grasp of his game until 23-24 years of age. It gives him 5-6 years of baseball focus and he still could have things to learn. His curve still shows alot of promise. He might not be a superstar, but his ability to hit will improve once he learns to use that speed effectively in games.

Honestly, I suspect he still has a good chance to be a .270-.280 hitter, 20-40 2B's, 70-100 runs, and 20-30 SB's. This is good enough to play center and even the corner with his other skills to provide balance in the lineup.

I just fear fans want every pick to be an All-Star and that is just an un-realistic approach. He can be a solid everyday player in the future and that is more than enough to ask for out of any player that is not drafted in the top 10.
User avatar
Don
Orioles Nation Staff
Director of Scouting
GCL Orioles
 
Posts: 699
Joined: September 2010
Reputation Score: 25



Return to MLB Draft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest