Photo

O's Claim INF Hanser Alberto


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#41 CA-ORIOLE

CA-ORIOLE

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,323 posts
  • LocationSOCAL

Posted 13 January 2019 - 09:04 PM

So, I read an article dated Jan 2018 that Max Scrhock was the 8th ranked second base prospect. I'm not blown away by that, but it's ok..respectable. What do we think he is now after posting a 627 OPS in AAA PCL over basically a full season? It was his first year in AAA and he did have  a very good year in AA the year before. Still that doesn't rationalize his obvious limitation and profile imo. In fairness the article did sat that the Cards were considering him at 3B and OF as more of a utility player. So, perhaps ha has more versatility in that rp;e than I thought (even if the Cardinals didn't really act on it). 



#42 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,045 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 13 January 2019 - 09:28 PM

I don't know why the info/stats I presented about Shcrokc is "flawed". I literally read them off baseball reference.com. You didn't argue anything as to why they are "flawed" other than state he's the Cardinals 11th ranked prospect. I'm not a scout either, but what do you think is so good about him. You've brought him up 3-4 times now and I didn't respond before, but since you've raised the bar to we (and every other team) are stupid for not taking him in  the rule 5 draft, what do you think is so great about him and what did I state that is "flawed". You must have read some scouting reports on him to keep bring him up and going up anther level of disgusted for not taking him. What so good about him that we had to add him as a rule 5 pick when we already have 2 rule 5 IF's?  

 

For starters, I'm ok with a number of plans because I think there's more than one way to get there.  Not that it matters, but I guess I sort of track a number of players for whatever reasons.  Schrock was ranked a top10 2B before last season and fell off the list given his 2018 struggles (I believe).  I started mostly paying attention after the Cardinals added him despite having Wong signed at 2B.  From a cost of Availability perspective, it's easier to work Talent from another team when that talent can be viewed as surplus (goes back to Fit for every team).  He's basically blocked but has a quality profile that should be what we're looking for.

 

from mlb.com...

Schrock has shown his approach from the left side of the plate works wherever he's at in the lineup. In his first two-plus seasons of pro ball, he had a .324 average and a .372 on-base percentage, with his .321 average and .379 OBP in 2017 each good for second in the A's system and in the top five for both in the Texas League. He's walked nearly as much as he's struck out, managing the strike zone extremely well and utilizing excellent bat speed to drive the ball. He even has some surprising power, given his size, with double-digit home runs a possibility in the future.

A second baseman only because of his fringy arm strength, he does have solid enough range and hands to profile well there defensively. That, combined with his skill with the bat, point to the kind of overachieving college performer who finds his way into a daily big league lineup in the near future.

 

A number of people (here and when he was discussed before) have banged on his defensive limitations.  Personally, I'm not that interested in everyone being a Utility Player.  Let your Utility players be the Utility players.  Find starters that add real production.  His defensive woes seem (scouting report) limited to his "fringy arm strength", not a function of his feet or hands. 

 

In 2+ seasons coming out of SC as a 20 year old, he posted an .800 OPS at A, A+ and AA (full season leagues).

 

in 2016 he slashed .331/.373/.449 (.823) across 3 levels in his first full season after the 2015 draft.

in 2017 he slashed .321/.379/.422 (.801) at AA.

 

Good hitter, came out of the draft gates strong, recognizes a walk, doesn't strike out a lot, may have some developing pop, has showed decent speed (just SB totals) and could be an average or better defender at 2B....I mean...isn't that the profile you'd want, even if you were trying to compete and wanted to work a younger player in ?



#43 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,045 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 13 January 2019 - 09:51 PM

I do think that it is irresponsible to suggest that there is an off field issue ( particularly suggesting a DV issue)that may have caused teams to pass on the guy without any evidence to back it up.

 

A) Don't be a snowflake.

 

B) He's exactly the profile teams should be looking for.  No idea why anyone thinks he has to be 21 at AAA.  Nobody is suggesting he's the best player or even an impact player.  Everything in his profile to this point suggests he has tools in his toolbox.

 

IF he was selected in the Rule5 draft, he would have been taken for nothing.  Most of the times there's a conflict for teams as to whether a player will get selected from their system whether they have any value based on the current level they're at.  Schrock played the entire year at AAA in 2018 (not well, got it, but he's had success at AA) so his experience level nearly assured if they didn't protect him and ANYONE wanted/needed him, he'd be taken.  

 

Schrock was drafted in 2015.  He hasn't burned one option yet.  All the Cards had to do was find a way to keep him on the 40-man (not even the 25-man) and they could have allowed him to continue at AAA for the next 3 seasons.  Since they were comfortable allowing him to go for NOTHING, you'd think, before the Rule 5, if anyone (any of the 29 other teams) offered ANYTHING for him, they'd just trade him and move on with something of better value (FIT) than some piddly Rule5 cash.

 

The Cardinals were willing to let him go for nothing, they didn't want to use an option on their #11 prospect and 29 other teams didn't want him for nothing or even bother trading something minor for him.

 

If he was selected in the Rule5 or traded, he would be on his 4th team (DC, OAK, STL, new) in 4+ years.

 

Maybe we don't need to know the issue....but that's not just smoke, that's a full fledged fire. If someone told me, I could certainly adjust my view on acquiring him, but I tend to be more willing to allow people to recover from things both real and perceived (I'd still take Addison Russell).



#44 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,045 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 13 January 2019 - 10:09 PM

It was an obvious jab at his lack of plate discipline. I'm guessing everyone got it but you. 

 

In fairness to me, my first comment was I couldn't tell if the comments were serious.  



#45 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,243 posts

Posted 13 January 2019 - 10:12 PM

He's right, dude. It's fucked up to suggest that maybe Schrock has a failed drug test or a domestic violence issue as the explanation without anything to back that up.

It's enough to leave it as vague speculation that there must be something on him that teams don't like. Its irresponsible to put the specificity on it of wild guesses as to what it could be. Responsibility on the internet cuts both ways, and that's something that stupid, careless people might read, misinterpret, and propogate forward and then all of a sudden it's a rumor or "something I read".
  • BSLBobPhelan and BSLSteveBirrer like this

#46 CA-ORIOLE

CA-ORIOLE

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,323 posts
  • LocationSOCAL

Posted 13 January 2019 - 10:20 PM

At

 

For starters, I'm ok with a number of plans because I think there's more than one way to get there.  Not that it matters, but I guess I sort of track a number of players for whatever reasons.  Schrock was ranked a top10 2B before last season and fell off the list given his 2018 struggles (I believe).  I started mostly paying attention after the Cardinals added him despite having Wong signed at 2B.  From a cost of Availability perspective, it's easier to work Talent from another team when that talent can be viewed as surplus (goes back to Fit for every team).  He's basically blocked but has a quality profile that should be what we're looking for.

 

from mlb.com...

 

A number of people (here and when he was discussed before) have banged on his defensive limitations.  Personally, I'm not that interested in everyone being a Utility Player.  Let your Utility players be the Utility players.  Find starters that add real production.  His defensive woes seem (scouting report) limited to his "fringy arm strength", not a function of his feet or hands. 

 

In 2+ seasons coming out of SC as a 20 year old, he posted an .800 OPS at A, A+ and AA (full season leagues).

 

in 2016 he slashed .331/.373/.449 (.823) across 3 levels in his first full season after the 2015 draft.

in 2017 he slashed .321/.379/.422 (.801) at AA.

 

Good hitter, came out of the draft gates strong, recognizes a walk, doesn't strike out a lot, may have some developing pop, has showed decent speed (just SB totals) and could be an average or better defender at 2B....I mean...isn't that the profile you'd want, even if you were trying to compete and wanted to work a younger player in ?

 

I've addressed everything already. At this point, he's an averagish second base prospect with limited tools, skillset, upside and utility value. The guy had a horrid offensive year in a notorious hitters league last year. You can't just ignore that. Martin clearly is a better profile as a rule 5 pick. I'll go with the organization decision taking the other guy over Shcrock as well. I wouldn't have been upset if we chose Schrock (and Martin) as rue 5 guys and I'm not bothered in the slightest that we didn't select him under our present set of circumstances. 



#47 russsnyder

russsnyder

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 13 January 2019 - 10:36 PM

A) Don't be a snowflake.

B) He's exactly the profile teams should be looking for. No idea why anyone thinks he has to be 21 at AAA. Nobody is suggesting he's the best player or even an impact player. Everything in his profile to this point suggests he has tools in his toolbox.

IF he was selected in the Rule5 draft, he would have been taken for nothing. Most of the times there's a conflict for teams as to whether a player will get selected from their system whether they have any value based on the current level they're at. Schrock played the entire year at AAA in 2018 (not well, got it, but he's had success at AA) so his experience level nearly assured if they didn't protect him and ANYONE wanted/needed him, he'd be taken.

Schrock was drafted in 2015. He hasn't burned one option yet. All the Cards had to do was find a way to keep him on the 40-man (not even the 25-man) and they could have allowed him to continue at AAA for the next 3 seasons. Since they were comfortable allowing him to go for NOTHING, you'd think, before the Rule 5, if anyone (any of the 29 other teams) offered ANYTHING for him, they'd just trade him and move on with something of better value (FIT) than some piddly Rule5 cash.

The Cardinals were willing to let him go for nothing, they didn't want to use an option on their #11 prospect and 29 other teams didn't want him for nothing or even bother trading something minor for him.

If he was selected in the Rule5 or traded, he would be on his 4th team (DC, OAK, STL, new) in 4+ years.

Maybe we don't need to know the issue....but that's not just smoke, that's a full fledged fire. If someone told me, I could certainly adjust my view on acquiring him, but I tend to be more willing to allow people to recover from things both real and perceived (I'd still take Addison Russell).

Lol.


Didn't see anything in your novel that indicated that this kid is some kind of bad apple.

You are just throwing shit against a wall (why didn't you say he fits the profile of a serial killer?) with your suppositions. You are so full of yourself that you are reaching for stuff that isn't there

You're delusional dude.

The kid had a bad year and he is slipping off the radar.

If you keep throwing this shit out there Max might fire you as the president of his fan club.
  • CA-ORIOLE likes this

#48 CA-ORIOLE

CA-ORIOLE

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,323 posts
  • LocationSOCAL

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:03 AM

He's right, dude. It's fucked up to suggest that maybe Schrock has a failed drug test or a domestic violence issue as the explanation without anything to back that up.

It's enough to leave it as vague speculation that there must be something on him that teams don't like. Its irresponsible to put the specificity on it of wild guesses as to what it could be. Responsibility on the internet cuts both ways, and that's something that stupid, careless people might read, misinterpret, and propogate forward and then all of a sudden it's a rumor or "something I read".

I don't disagree with you, but that "responsibility on internet" line made me laugh. 



#49 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,045 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 14 January 2019 - 01:33 AM

Didn't see anything in your novel that indicated that this kid is some kind of bad apple.

 

I only know that the team that has him and the other 29 teams in the league aren't interested in him.

 

If I gave you the choice between Schrock and Alberto, which one would you take?  

 

The Orioles choose Alberto, a guy that gets bumped off the Yankees roster over the Cardinals #11 prospect.

 

I have no idea what the issue is. 

In the absence of information that would change my mind, I wish the Orioles had added him.



#50 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,045 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 14 January 2019 - 02:05 AM

He's right, dude. It's fucked up to suggest that maybe Schrock has a failed drug test or a domestic violence issue as the explanation without anything to back that up.

It's enough to leave it as vague speculation that there must be something on him that teams don't like. Its irresponsible to put the specificity on it of wild guesses as to what it could be. Responsibility on the internet cuts both ways, and that's something that stupid, careless people might read, misinterpret, and propogate forward and then all of a sudden it's a rumor or "something I read".

 

What would have to be wrong with the guy for you to not take him?

 

Personally, I don't get it. 

He's exactly the type of guy this team should be acquiring, he was available for free and we passed. 

The Cardinals were willing to let him go for nothing.  29 other teams passed too. 

 

Again, the Orioles acquire a 26 yr old maybe utility IF with 2 years of service that has done nothing...

....but won't take a shot at the Cardinals #11 prospect at a position of need?

 

There's literally no risk in taking him in the Rule 5....if he's too short when he gets to Spring Training, offer him back.

 

<<shrug>> obviously we aren't getting him so on to other things we aren't going to do.

Fortunately, there's an interesting battle shaping up in Spring Training for the Orioles Utility position. :)



#51 russsnyder

russsnyder

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 06:58 AM

I only know that the team that has him and the other 29 teams in the league aren't interested in him.

If I gave you the choice between Schrock and Alberto, which one would you take?

The Orioles choose Alberto, a guy that gets bumped off the Yankees roster over the Cardinals #11 prospect.

I have no idea what the issue is.
In the absence of information that would change my mind, I wish the Orioles had added him.

The Cardinals are interested in him. He's in their system. You act like this guy is going to play independent ball or something.

I would take Alberto to work into the utility player mix over Schrock. Alberto is a more versatile infielder than Schrock. Alberto may not even be on the 40 man roster when spring training begins. I doubt the Orioles are done making moves and he is likely number 40 on the roster.

The Orioles already have two rule 5 infielders whom are primarily shortstops. (Martin and Jackson) From what I have read, Jackson is a bit more versatile and is a strong candidate for the utility role.

I think the issue may be as simple as the guy regressed somewhat in Triple A last year.

#52 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,243 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 08:43 AM

I don't disagree with you, but that "responsibility on internet" line made me laugh. 

 

Yeah, agree.  I guess I wish there was some, rather than thinking that it does exist.



#53 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,243 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 08:44 AM

What would have to be wrong with the guy for you to not take him?

 

Personally, I don't get it. 

He's exactly the type of guy this team should be acquiring, he was available for free and we passed. 

The Cardinals were willing to let him go for nothing.  29 other teams passed too. 

 

Again, the Orioles acquire a 26 yr old maybe utility IF with 2 years of service that has done nothing...

....but won't take a shot at the Cardinals #11 prospect at a position of need?

 

There's literally no risk in taking him in the Rule 5....if he's too short when he gets to Spring Training, offer him back.

 

<<shrug>> obviously we aren't getting him so on to other things we aren't going to do.

Fortunately, there's an interesting battle shaping up in Spring Training for the Orioles Utility position. :)

 

I'd have been absolutely on board with taking Schrock in the Rule 5 or trading something small for him at this point.



#54 russsnyder

russsnyder

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 09:01 AM

I'd have been absolutely on board with taking Schrock in the Rule 5 or trading something small for him at this point.


IMO, the Orioles picked two players in the Rule 5 ( Martin and Jackson) that are better players and have more upside than Schrock. Why trade anything for Schrock at this point? They already have a similar guy in Wilkerson.

#55 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,243 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 09:24 AM

IMO, the Orioles picked two players in the Rule 5 ( Martin and Jackson) that are better players and have more upside than Schrock. Why trade anything for Schrock at this point? They already have a similar guy in Wilkerson.

 

If you could trade for him, you don't have to keep him on your active or even your 40-man roster.  Trading for him now would be better than taking him in the Rule 5, IMO.

 

Schrock is at least a real prospect, whereas Wilkerson is not.  Schrock had decent to good offensive numbers prior to a bad year at 23 in AAA.  Wilkerson didn't even reach AAA until last year at age 26 and has never had impressive results offensively.  They are not similar guys, IMO.



#56 russsnyder

russsnyder

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 10:12 AM

If you could trade for him, you don't have to keep him on your active or even your 40-man roster. Trading for him now would be better than taking him in the Rule 5, IMO.

Schrock is at least a real prospect, whereas Wilkerson is not. Schrock had decent to good offensive numbers prior to a bad year at 23 in AAA. Wilkerson didn't even reach AAA until last year at age 26 and has never had impressive results offensively. They are not similar guys, IMO.

They are similar in that they are primarily second baseman who have limited versatility. Neither guy is considered much of a shortstop, can play third and maybe COF.

Maybe Schrock is/was considered more of a major league prospect than Wilkerson, but Wilkerson is currently on the Orioles 40 man and Schrock is not. They are basically the same player IMO.

#57 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,243 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 10:18 AM

If they are basically the same player then so are Joey Rickard and Cedric Mullins.  

 

One guy is a prospect, the other is not.  However limited the ceiling may be for the prospect, the main difference between them and an older player (who perhaps had a similar profile years before) is that the prospect has not proven what he can or can not be.  there is still hope that they could be a regular player or consistent contributor.  That hope doesn't exist for the older guy, you're just trying to salvage some immediate use out of them.



#58 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 80,731 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 14 January 2019 - 10:18 AM

Looking at one year of a guys MiL career to judge him is wrong.

 

As Mackus said, he had pretty good numbers before last year.  He is clearly a better prospect than Wilkerson is...its not even close.

 

When Wilkerson played his 23 y/o season, he was in the Sally League (way old for that league) and put up a 747 OPS, including a slugging of 371.

 

Schrock was in AAA at age 23..Now, he didn't have a good season but he was good before that and was way younger at higher levels than Wilkerson was.

 

For example, Wilkerson got his first real look at AA at age 25 and he put up a 775 OPS.  Schrock was in AA at age 22 and put up an 801 OPS.


@BSLRobShields

#59 russsnyder

russsnyder

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 10:25 AM

Looking at one year of a guys MiL career to judge him is wrong.

As Mackus said, he had pretty good numbers before last year. He is clearly a better prospect than Wilkerson is...its not even close.

When Wilkerson played his 23 y/o season, he was in the Sally League (way old for that league) and put up a 747 OPS, including a slugging of 371.

Schrock was in AAA at age 23..Now, he didn't have a good season but he was good before that and was way younger at higher levels than Wilkerson was.

For example, Wilkerson got his first real look at AA at age 25 and he put up a 775 OPS. Schrock was in AA at age 22 and put up an 801 OPS.

I have acknowledged that Schrock is/was a better prospect than Wilkerson. However, there is no guarantee that Shrock will ever amount to much more than Wilkerson at this point. ( Just like there is no guarantee that Mullins will turn out to be a better player than Rickard.) I wish the kid the best, but I don't think the Orioles are missing out on that much by not acquiring Schrock at this point.

#60 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 80,731 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 14 January 2019 - 10:33 AM

I have acknowledged that Schrock is/was a better prospect than Wilkerson. However, there is no guarantee that Shrock will ever amount to much more than Wilkerson at this point. ( Just like there is no guarantee that Mullins will turn out to be a better player than Rickard.) I wish the kid the best, but I don't think the Orioles are missing out on that much by not acquiring Schrock at this point.

There never is.

 

There is no guarantree that Bobby Witt Jr will amount to more than Wilkerson.


@BSLRobShields




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners