Photo

Ryan Mountcastle


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#1 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    Sr. Orioles Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 75,762 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 08 June 2015 - 09:30 PM

Dan Connolly @danconnollysun 15s16 seconds ago

Mountcastle is a 6-foot-3, 180-pound SS out of Oviedo, Fla. Ranked 123 by Baseball America. Looks like a below slot pick

0 retweets 0 favorites

@BSLRobShields

#2 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    Sr. Orioles Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 75,762 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 08 June 2015 - 09:31 PM

Mike Ferrin @MikeFerrinSXM 1m1 minute ago

Mike Ferrin retweeted JJ Cooper

Not a typical below slot pick. High upside. I know @StatsKing is a big fan


@BSLRobShields

#3 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    Sr. Orioles Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 75,762 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 08 June 2015 - 09:32 PM

Chris King @StatsKing 1m1 minute ago

Some swing and miss concerns in Mountastle's bat, but he took big steps forward this year. Has some bat speed and gets great extension


@BSLRobShields

#4 BSLChrisBacon

BSLChrisBacon

    BSL Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 20,848 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 08 June 2015 - 09:32 PM

#110 on MLBN.



#5 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    Sr. Orioles Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 75,762 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 08 June 2015 - 09:33 PM

Prospect Pipeline @TheProsPipeline 19s20 seconds ago

1:36 Baltimore Orioles, Ryan Mountcastle, Inf, Hagerty High School, #mlbdraft video http://fb.me/6FrE6OqHv


@BSLRobShields

#6 BSLMikeRandall

BSLMikeRandall

    Sr. Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,949 posts

Posted 09 June 2015 - 06:35 AM

Keep hearing the term "below slot pick". Is that a way of saying they reached, or is there some other rules or compensation in play here when you draft a guy below slot?
@BSLMikeRandall

#7 BSLChrisBacon

BSLChrisBacon

    BSL Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 20,848 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 09 June 2015 - 07:12 AM

Keep hearing the term "below slot pick". Is that a way of saying they reached, or is there some other rules or compensation in play here when you draft a guy below slot?


There is a slot amount of money for each draft pick in the first 10 rounds. For the first overall pick, it's like $8M, then slides down continuously.

Teams are expected to sign they player they draft with that pick at that slot number, but can increase or decrease what they give he player depending on how good he is. Through the ten rounds, a team can only spend $X without incurring a penalty.

For this pick, let's say the slot was $1M. The O's believe that they can sign Monthouse for less than $1M so that means he's below the slot.

Most teams will then use that remaining cash to try to sign a tougher guy later. However, the Orioles' history shows they don't really do that, instead, just pocketing the money.
  • BSLMikeRandall likes this

#8 Matt_P

Matt_P

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,552 posts

Posted 09 June 2015 - 07:42 AM

Most teams will then use that remaining cash to try to sign a tougher guy later. However, the Orioles' history shows they don't really do that, instead, just pocketing the money.

 

That's not true in the slightest.

 

Os went overslot on a number of guys in 2013. They pretty much had no money in 2014.


  • JeffLong likes this

#9 BSLChrisBacon

BSLChrisBacon

    BSL Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 20,848 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 09 June 2015 - 07:44 AM

Most teams will then use that remaining cash to try to sign a tougher guy later. However, the Orioles' history shows they don't really do that, instead, just pocketing the money.

 
That's not true in the slightest.

Well instead of just saying I'm wrong why don't you actually explain your thoughts and help explain to Mike the process.

#10 Matt_P

Matt_P

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,552 posts

Posted 09 June 2015 - 07:46 AM

Well instead of just saying I'm wrong why don't you actually explain your thoughts and help explain to Mike the process.

 

You're right about the first part.

 

The part where you claim the Os don't go overslot isn't accurate. They usually spend their whole budget like any other team. What the Os don't spend is their international budget.


  • Mackus, JeffLong and BSLMikeRandall like this

#11 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,663 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 09 June 2015 - 07:56 PM

these type of picks for the Orioles drive me crazy....it feels like Brandon Snyder without any positional value.

 

Exit velocity against HS pitching means nothing to me.  I think exit velocity will be a huge influence in the future (if it isn't already), but that's about finding value against guys already in the Majors, facing ML pitching.

 

We passed on a kid like Nathan Kirby to get Mountcastle HERE.  If you like him....it certainly seems reasonable that he'll be there in a later round.

 

There's a notion that the Orioles could overdraft a guy to build resources for other action, but they did the general over-draft thing and then seem to mess around and wind up paying slot (or more)....so they either don't have a good feel for the player or something.

 

They over-draft a bunch of slots....but don't build resources from that action.  Ugh.

 

and for MattP....because they spend something close to their draft budget isn't really the point because you have flexibility over your draft budget, but they don't use it.

 

If you are going to draft guys like Mountcastle and Hughes at #36 and #68....you should be able to do something bigger somewhere...let's see if they do... or this drags out to slot.



#12 BSLMikeRandall

BSLMikeRandall

    Sr. Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,949 posts

Posted 09 June 2015 - 08:14 PM

Heard DD said that Mountcastle and Hughes are a couple of guys that they really liked and specifically had in Camden yards for workouts.

Sounds to me like they put all thier eggs in one basket regardless of value. They had their eyes on them and wanted to make sure no one else got them. Even if they could have waited a couple more rounds.

Tough for me to comprehend whether or not the picks are good with that slot value stuff. Im used to a Ravens draft where they take the best player available. And Ozzie alwways looks like a genius at the end.

I guess we'll see if slot values means anything if we follow the Astros. Three players drafted, ranked in the top ten.


@BSLMikeRandall

#13 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,663 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 09 June 2015 - 08:29 PM

Heard DD said that Mountcastle and Hughes are a couple of guys that they really liked and specifically had in Camden yards for workouts.

Sounds to me like they put all thier eggs in one basket regardless of value. They had their eyes on them and wanted to make sure no one else got them. Even if they could have waited a couple more rounds.

 

I think this is just a crazy approach.  I know people like to use BPA as some metric for doing it right, but if you can get more top guys on your list by NOT using BPA....then you minimize your opportunity by using it.

 

The Orioles have done fairly well with later (after the 5th) picks so I have no issue believing they know something about some of these guys.....but IMO they just hammer their early round opportunity with their approach.



#14 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    HOF

  • Moderators
  • 10,429 posts
  • LocationLanham, MD

Posted 10 June 2015 - 06:09 AM

Lets not pretend anyone here really knows anything about Mountcastle or Hughes. Calling them reaches and pouting about these picks because you read some stuff online is pretty dumb in my experience.

 

Sure there are some guys that people could have preferred in a spot, but chances are just as good that player is going to bust that these two are going to be good. There's just no sense in getting worked up for a few years.

 

For perspective plenty of people were whining about taking some kid named Trout when he was picked. This is not the NFL draft, this is not something to evaluate real time. Get back to me in 3-4 years. Now if anyone wants to talk 2011-2012 draft, that'd be great.


  • MKlein76, Ricker Says, Mackus and 4 others like this
@JeremyMStrain

#15 BSLMikeRandall

BSLMikeRandall

    Sr. Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,949 posts

Posted 10 June 2015 - 06:40 AM

Lets not pretend anyone here really knows anything about Mountcastle or Hughes. Calling them reaches and pouting about these picks because you read some stuff online is pretty dumb in my experience.

Sure there are some guys that people could have preferred in a spot, but chances are just as good that player is going to bust that these two are going to be good. There's just no sense in getting worked up for a few years.

For perspective plenty of people were whining about taking some kid named Trout when he was picked. This is not the NFL draft, this is not something to evaluate real time. Get back to me in 3-4 years. Now if anyone wants to talk 2011-2012 draft, that'd be great.



I think we read what's online from the scouts who know a lot about these guys, because we don't know.

I agree its a crap shoot. But I think we can criticize the Os draft tactics because their drafts have sucked for a long time.
@BSLMikeRandall

#16 Matt_P

Matt_P

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,552 posts

Posted 10 June 2015 - 08:11 AM

and for MattP....because they spend something close to their draft budget isn't really the point because you have flexibility over your draft budget, but they don't use it.

 

If you are going to draft guys like Mountcastle and Hughes at #36 and #68....you should be able to do something bigger somewhere...let's see if they do... or this drags out to slot.

 

You mean like Bray and Ayers in 2013? Maybe they're not making the big splashes that you'd like to see but they're certainly doing something. I agree that you'd like to see the Os save some money on the Mountcastle pick and use that to go overslot in later rounds.

 

But seriously, you can argue that the Os squander their draft budget and use it stupidly. All I was saying is that they spend it.


  • Mackus likes this

#17 Matt_P

Matt_P

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,552 posts

Posted 10 June 2015 - 08:58 AM

I agree that you'd like to see the Os save some money on the Mountcastle pick and use that to go overslot in later rounds.

 

"Rajsich said he was surprised that high school right-hander Gray Fenter was still on the board when the Orioles drafted in Round seven.

 

"We realized, talking to their advisor, that we have the funds to do it," he said of trying to sign the pitcher. "It's a big arm for us. Maybe a top of the draft, first-day type talent that we were able to get in the seventh round, so we were very excited about that one."

Baseball America ranked Fenter No. 135 on their top 500 prospects, and the scouting report said this about him:

 

Fenter has two of the better pitches you'll see from this year's prep class, starting with a 90-94 mph fastball that touches 96-97 at its best. His fastball has surprising sink for a 5-foot-11 righthander and he pairs it with an inconsistent, but nasty breaking ball."

 

http://www.masnsport...-the-draft.html

 

He should cost about $400k and will probably take a bonus $250k overslot.



#18 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    HOF

  • Moderators
  • 10,429 posts
  • LocationLanham, MD

Posted 10 June 2015 - 09:34 AM

I think we read what's online from the scouts who know a lot about these guys, because we don't know.

I agree its a crap shoot. But I think we can criticize the Os draft tactics because their drafts have sucked for a long time.

 

They do know a lot, but it should say something that so many conflicting reports come from guys that know their stuff. Sure a lot of them are repeating 3rd party info so it comes down to sources, BUT even guys that watch first hand can have two completely different opinions on a guy after seeing different starts.

 

It's not the NFL in the sense that there are SOOOOO many players in the draft it's impossible to see them all enough to see everything. That ONE start you have a guy there to get a glimpse of the tools comes down to luck sometimes, compared to other times they might be kind of blah.

 

I don't agree with their draft history, if you look back you'll see I had my own preferences, but the thing is, I know that it's just a preference and there's no way of really knowing at the time. I wasn't real high on Sisco or Heim at the time and they are both doing pretty well.


  • BSLMikeRandall likes this
@JeremyMStrain

#19 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,663 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 10 June 2015 - 10:41 PM

You mean like Bray and Ayers in 2013? Maybe they're not making the big splashes that you'd like to see but they're certainly doing something. I agree that you'd like to see the Os save some money on the Mountcastle pick and use that to go overslot in later rounds.

 

But seriously, you can argue that the Os squander their draft budget and use it stupidly. All I was saying is that they spend it.

 

yeah, for whatever reason I think you are trying to create something more negative out of my comment than I intended.

 

The Orioles underspent their pool by by a little bit in 2013 which put them 14th or 15th in terms of money against the pool across MLB.  Bray and Ayers were 100k over the 100k....so they weren't a big deal (which you acknowledge...I think) and the Orioles did pop a number of other 100ks against >10rd that don't count against the pool (so they did spend some more)...

 

....but we still haven't seen them be very creative in using their pool.  They have have a habit of over-drafting (against some consensus) in the early rounds but don't seem to build any value out of those selections to get more biggerer things done.

 

I have nothing against Mountcastle and if they like him (I don't like the profile...whatever) then great but I don't like leaving Kirby on the board when you can certainly get Mountcastle at #68 (or #74 blah) and you should still get margin against the slot.

 

We absolutely have to wait and see how it plays out....but there's no history that says they are leveraging any position.



#20 Matt_P

Matt_P

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,552 posts

Posted 11 June 2015 - 07:58 AM

The Orioles underspent their pool by by a little bit in 2013 which put them 14th or 15th in terms of money against the pool across MLB. The Orioles did pop a number of other 100ks against >10rd that don't count against the pool (so they did spend some more)...

 

I agree with that. Here are the relevant links.

 

http://www.baseballa...db/2013pool.php
http://cdn.baseballa...-team-spending/
 

....but we still haven't seen them be very creative in using their pool.  They have have a habit of over-drafting (against some consensus) in the early rounds but don't seem to build any value out of those selections to get more biggerer things done.

 

Right.
 

yeah, for whatever reason I think you are trying to create something more negative out of my comment than I intended.

 

I don't know why you think that. I don't even know what you think I'm trying to create.

 

You're arguing that the Os are spending their budget but not doing so effectively, right? Wouldn't you be happy if the Os drafted Mountcastle in the second round but only gave him a 900k bonus and used the rest of the money to go wild? Or alternatively, wouldn't you be happy if the Os draft him in round four? I don't even know what you're disagreeing with.

 

The only possible thing I can think of is that you didn't realize that the conversation that you jumped into was about how the Os don't spend their draft budget. The point I was making originally is that they do. Whether or not it's stupidly spent is a different question.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners