Photo

Luis Ortiz


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#21 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,407 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 02:03 PM

Hope he doesn't pull a Sid Fernandez and lose his fastball along with the weight.



#22 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 85,443 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 12 February 2019 - 03:45 PM

Roch:

 

Luis Ortiz said he lost 25 pounds in offseason. “Eating right.” Smaller portions, nothing after 8 pm. Not easy. “Real hard,” but he did it. So yes, best shape of his life. And hamstring feels good now #orioles

7 replies11 retweets114 likes
 

@BSLRobShields

#23 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 114,442 posts

Posted 24 March 2019 - 03:56 PM

BSL: https://www.baltimor...ring-2019-10-1/

 

(#8) Luis Ortiz, RHP

Ceiling: 45         Risk: Moderate        ETA: 2018       Role Description: Swingman
Ht/Wt: 6’3” / 230 lbs.          B/T: R/R         Highest Level: MLB             Age (as of April 1, 2019): 23y, 6m
Video | Report

Ortiz was one of the three prospects Baltimore returned for Jonathan Schoop last year. He got two appearances in the big leagues at the end of September and should get a chance to earn a role on the O’s staff in 2019. Ortiz works off a sinking fastball in the 90-to-94 mph range. His velocity wavered at times last season, more effective when he was fresh enough to work more at 93-to-94 mph. Both his mid-80s slider and changeup grade as playable offerings, able to stay around the zone with different speeds. No one pitch is dominant, but a sturdy frame and the sum-of-parts add up to a swingman or lesser #5 rotation piece. 



#24 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 114,442 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 12:53 PM

2019 AAA: 2 starts, 7 ip, 11 hits, 5 er, 2 hr's, 3 bb's, 5 k's



#25 BSLBobPhelan

BSLBobPhelan

    Movie & MMA Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 9,021 posts
  • LocationBel Air, MD

Posted 15 April 2019 - 12:45 PM

AAA: 0-1, 6.43 ERA. 7 IP, 5 K, 3 BB, 2.00 WHIP



#26 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 85,443 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 23 April 2019 - 09:28 PM

Another shitty start tonight.  Such a disappointment so far.


@BSLRobShields

#27 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,852 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 07:18 AM

I don't think he'll ever be much if anything, but this bad start feels like a bad stretch to me, rather than some new level of terrible.  Unless those watching can see if his velocity is down significantly or something like that, maybe he's got an underlying injury.  Or maybe he's struggling for some reason now that he's reportedly in a bit better physical shape.  

 

He's been pretty consistently decent in the minors while at young ages for each level, with about 7.5-8.0 K/9, 2.5-3.0 BB/9, and 1.0 HR/9, all solid if uninspiring numbers aside from the walks.  The variable for him has usually been hits, which can be flukey depending on defense and BABIP, but when he's been good he's been under a hit per inning (7.5-8.0 per 9) and when he's struggled he's given up more than a hit per inning (9.5-10.0 per 9). 

 

Everything is bad so far this year.  Tons of hits, tons of homers, tons of walks, very few strikeouts.  Still, only 15 innings.  Hopefully he gets back on track and maybe get a shot in the later part of this year at the MLB level.  He's certainly not in the upper tier of our minor league pitching prospects, but he's someone that still could have an impact if things break his way.  Or he could quickly fall apart into someone like Tate who I've got no hope of ever contributing at all.



#28 glenn__davis

glenn__davis

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,106 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 09:42 AM

Never was all that high on him.  Hopefully he can be a decent bullpen piece.

 

I continue to think the firesale of last year was mostly a failure.  The Gausman trade was awful, and neither the Britton nor Schoop trades seem likely to me to bring back any real useful pieces unless Carmona develops well.  I'm not really even all that high on Diaz.  Maybe Dean Kremer can be a serviceable starter.


  • Mackus likes this

#29 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,852 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 10:32 AM

It was a terrible firesale, agreed.  I hate that they valued quantity over quality and I hate that they valued dumping salary over optimizing the return in talent.

 

I like Diaz a lot.  A few other guys are worth paying attention to.  But to trade away that much talent and only get back one guy who you think has a better than 50/50 chance of being an contributor is a terrible job.  I think it was a failure of priorities rather than a failure of scouting.



#30 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 85,443 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 24 April 2019 - 12:22 PM

All the trades were fine for what we dealt and when we dealt them except the KG trade...that was awful.

 

I still wish we hadn't gotten Villar in the Schoop deal but Villar appears to be a good player, so maybe he can be turned into a useful piece.


@BSLRobShields

#31 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,852 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 12:30 PM

All the trades were fine for what we dealt and when we dealt them except the KG trade...that was awful.

 

I still wish we hadn't gotten Villar in the Schoop deal but Villar appears to be a good player, so maybe he can be turned into a useful piece.

 

Right, the complaints aren't that the overall value returned in any of the deals were unfair.  We got fair value in every deal, including the Gausman deal.

 

The problem is the things that Duquette chose to target in return.  He optimized slashing salary over getting talent back.  He preferred to diversify and get multiple lower upside players back over fewer prospects in return but some of higher caliber.  He took back a lot of value in international bonus money which turned into nothing because we never had any plan to spend it.

 

We should have never insisted on including a salary dump like O'Day in one of the deals and should have gone even further to have paid all of the remaining salary for every guy we traded and in return gotten back more value in prospects.  I also think we should have prioritized a small number of higher value prospects over a larger number of moderate (at best) value prospects.  



#32 BSLJordanKough

BSLJordanKough

    Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,639 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 12:33 PM

The problem is the things that Duquette chose to target in return.  He optimized slashing salary over getting talent back.  

 

This smells more like an ownership directive than a choice. We'll never know, but I can hardly believe, given the choice, the'd have gone down the same path either. 


  • BSLSeanJester likes this

#33 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 85,443 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 24 April 2019 - 12:45 PM

Right, the complaints aren't that the overall value returned in any of the deals were unfair.  We got fair value in every deal, including the Gausman deal.

 

The problem is the things that Duquette chose to target in return.  He optimized slashing salary over getting talent back.  He preferred to diversify and get multiple lower upside players back over fewer prospects in return but some of higher caliber.  He took back a lot of value in international bonus money which turned into nothing because we never had any plan to spend it.

 

We should have never insisted on including a salary dump like O'Day in one of the deals and should have gone even further to have paid all of the remaining salary for every guy we traded and in return gotten back more value in prospects.  I also think we should have prioritized a small number of higher value prospects over a larger number of moderate (at best) value prospects.  

Well, I think that was only the case in the KG deal.


@BSLRobShields

#34 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,852 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 12:53 PM

Well, I think that was only the case in the KG deal.

 

We could've paid the remaining freight on all the other guys we dealt and, presumably, gotten more back.  O'Day was an obvious salary dump so it's clearly there in the Gausman trade, but I think it applies to the others as well had the team considered the salaries a sunk cost and made a concerted effort to maximize the return.



#35 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,852 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 12:54 PM

This smells more like an ownership directive than a choice. We'll never know, but I can hardly believe, given the choice, the'd have gone down the same path either. 

 

Salary shedding very likely involved ownership, and is a big part of why I have no confidence in (and giving no benefit of the doubt to) the Angelos sons as owners.  I think they'll be every bit the detriment that they father was, if perhaps for slightly different reasons (cost thriftiness rather than personal pettiness).  Quantity over quality I think is a Duquette decision.



#36 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 85,443 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 24 April 2019 - 12:59 PM

We could've paid the remaining freight on all the other guys we dealt and, presumably, gotten more back. O'Day was an obvious salary dump so it's clearly there in the Gausman trade, but I think it applies to the others as well had the team considered the salaries a sunk cost and made a concerted effort to maximize the return.


Yea that’s possible..we don’t know that though.

We know you took less for KG by including ODay.

But sure, that’s possible.
@BSLRobShields

#37 BSLSeanJester

BSLSeanJester

    Restaurant / Travel Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,696 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 01:12 PM

Right, the complaints aren't that the overall value returned in any of the deals were unfair.  We got fair value in every deal, including the Gausman deal.

 

The problem is the things that Duquette chose to target in return.  He optimized slashing salary over getting talent back.  He preferred to diversify and get multiple lower upside players back over fewer prospects in return but some of higher caliber.  He took back a lot of value in international bonus money which turned into nothing because we never had any plan to spend it.

 

We should have never insisted on including a salary dump like O'Day in one of the deals and should have gone even further to have paid all of the remaining salary for every guy we traded and in return gotten back more value in prospects.  I also think we should have prioritized a small number of higher value prospects over a larger number of moderate (at best) value prospects.  

Do you think that was DD's doing, or did it come from somewhere else...perhaps, higher up? Or from the clubhouse?

 

I think what we got back had nothing to do with Dan Duquette's plan for the future of the team.


I never had friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?


#38 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,852 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 01:23 PM

Do you think that was DD's doing, or did it come from somewhere else...perhaps, higher up? Or from the clubhouse?

 

I think what we got back had nothing to do with Dan Duquette's plan for the future of the team.

 

I think shedding salary (dumping O'Day on Atlanta and not paying any money towards other vets we traded) was an ownership decision.  Only other explanation that makes sense to me would be that Duquette did it on his own in hopes of pleasing ownership into giving him an extensions, so that still could be considered an ownership decision if that is true.

 

I think taking back 4 or 5 lesser guys instead of 1 or 2 more premium prospects was a Duquette/front office decision rather than having been influenced by ownership.



#39 NateDelong

NateDelong

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 02:06 PM

I am in agreement with (I think) most of you. All of the deals looked solid considering the salary, performance, and service time that the traded O's players had remaining, EXCEPT for Gausman/O'Day deal. That one looks (at least at the moment) like a real stinker (this is a technical term) so far. The salary slash and quantity over quality COULD have come from ownership, but I think it's possible that it was a conscious decision by Duquette to go that route on his own. The system lacked both quantity and quality, so I think in some cases you would want both (although I personaly would not have gone after quantity when trading Gausman). Additionally, he may have wanted to use the cost savings to reinvest in some veterans in 2019 in hope that they become mid-season trade chips. Then again, he also probably knew that he wasn't going to be back in 2019.

 

Anyway, we probably won't ever know for sure if ownership had influence on the specifics of the fire sale. I think it's likely they did, but I think an argument can be made that Duquette acted on his own. Not that I would agree with that plan. 


@OriolesPG

#40 BSLSeanJester

BSLSeanJester

    Restaurant / Travel Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,696 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 02:19 PM

Ironically, based on just numbers and not age, pedigree or whatever, Zimmerman looks like the best player we got in return from the firesale of 2018.


I never had friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners