Hobgood MAY be behind schedule

[DrShorebird]

Just a quick and UNOFFICIAL update on Matt Hobgood's progress in Sarasota. My sources in Sarasota feel that Matt is not progressing according to plan. They also suggest that he still seems to have some soreness in his shoulder. I don't know when his scheduled follow-up MRI is to occur, but I'll see what I can find out. Again, this is not confirmed or official.

[UpstateNYfan]

How would you ever know if he is on schedule?? He was a nice story and all, the O's got sucked in he has become a huge #1 mistake.!

[crowmst3k!]

Meanwhile, Mike Minor is putting up a 2.42 ERA in AAA for the Braves.

[jabba72]

Hobgood was an economizer pick. Nothing more. You would think Jordan would have found some higher rated players at #5. Hopefully he can still turn his career around.

[JDubs]

Is the news ever good with this kid?

[Gurgi]

Give him a bat and see if he can play 1st or DH. He was a California Player of the Year and a lot of that has hitting.

[Gurgi]

I think he must of come to us injured. He didnt have any velocity when he got to Bluefield. What a total bummer.

If you had to predict it right now I would say he never pitches an inning in the big leagues.

[eb45]

Meanwhile, Tyler Matzek has a 2.27 ERA. Wait, no, that's his WHIP. His ERA is 9.22. Maybe Hobgood was a bad pick, but Matzek would have been far more crippling.

[Stotle]

Meanwhile, Tyler Matzek has a 2.27 ERA. Wait, no, that's his WHIP. His ERA is 9.22. Maybe Hobgood was a bad pick, but Matzek would have been far more crippling.

Huh? How are either "crippling"?

[Can_of_corn]

Meanwhile, Tyler Matzek has a 2.27 ERA. Wait, no, that's his WHIP. His ERA is 9.22. Maybe Hobgood was a bad pick, but Matzek would have been far more crippling.

Matzek went 5-1 2.92 ERA with 88K's in 89.1 innings last season. Heck he is averaging over K/inning now. He does have serious control problems but I would rather take my chances with him.

Not sure how he would have been "crippling" in any case.

[Can_of_corn]

Huh? How are either "crippling"?

Maybe he means the O's wouldn't have signed all those overslot guys that are not really producing at a high level if they had signed Matzek.

[eb45]

Matzek's 3.9M bonus vs. Hobgood's 2.4. Also it was a shot at all the people complaining that picking Hobgood over Matzek was "crippling", "unjustifiable", or my personal favorite, that it "failed up" the Orioles' farm system.

[SrMeowMeow]

I really hope that nobody said picking Hobgood "failed up" our system. Because that doesn't mean anything. :p

[wildcard]

Aaron Crow says hi from the KC bullpen and will be moved to the rotation sometime in the next year.

http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=543070&c_id=kc#sectionType=career

[Dr. FLK]

Huh? How are either "crippling"?

Maybe crippling is an exaggeration, but throwing away a 1st round pick certainly is a setback.

[Stotle]

Maybe crippling is an exaggeration, but throwing away a 1st round pick certainly is a setback.

I guess I take issue with the idea that drafting Tyler Matzek was throwing away a 1st Round pick.

[Can_of_corn]

I guess I take issue with the idea that drafting Tyler Matzek was throwing away a 1st Round pick.

I agree he had a decent enough year last year and is still striking people out. Obviously his control right now is a huge red flag but I would not mind having him in the system.

[LookinUp]

Maybe crippling is an exaggeration, but throwing away a 1st round pick certainly is a setback.

I'm guessing the O's didn't know Hobgood would spend 2 years injured once they picked him.

People act like we drafted a total bum at #5. I too wanted Matzek, but that's not the point. The O's thought they were getting a good player and instead have gotten an injured player. That could happen to any team.

I'm just going to continue to root for Matt to get healthy and get his career back on track. I understand that gets less likely by the week/month, but it's all we can do.

[csgordos]

I just have this feeling that we are starting to go down the path toward surgical intervention. Sounds more and more likely.

[flashjordnk]

I'm guessing the O's didn't know Hobgood would spend 2 years injured once they picked him.

People act like we drafted a total bum at #5. I too wanted Matzek, but that's not the point. The O's thought they were getting a good player and instead have gotten an injured player. That could happen to any team.

I'm just going to continue to root for Matt to get healthy and get his career back on track. I understand that gets less likely by the week/month, but it's all we can do.

This is a fair perspective. If they thought he was healthy and it turned out that something happened and that's the issue, it's a lot harder to say the O's inherently screwed it up.

I'd be much quicker to fault the team if they took someone that was totally healthy and then totally a bust. But maybe that's just me. Or maybe the O's missed something in the physical...

[murrayfan420]

I'm guessing the O's didn't know Hobgood would spend 2 years injured once they picked him.

People act like we drafted a total bum at #5. I too wanted Matzek, but that's not the point. The O's thought they were getting a good player and instead have gotten an injured player. That could happen to any team.

I'm just going to continue to root for Matt to get healthy and get his career back on track. I understand that gets less likely by the week/month, but it's all we can do.

Or they knew they were getting a cheap player.

[LookinUp]

Or they knew they were getting a cheap player.

So what? Do only cheap players get injured? Do mid-first round picks (where most said he was valued) always stink? Wasn't he expected to be talented, only with a little less talent/upside than the top few guys available?

It would be one thing if Hobgood was pitching this whole time, throwing in the low 90's and just stinking. He's not doing that. He's injured. He's not what we thought we were getting. That could happen anywhere, and I don't remember anyone mentioning "injury" as one of the concerns after he was picked.

It's not a wasted pick because he was cheap. It's a wasted pick (to date) because he's injured.

[statman]

Aaron Crow says hi from the KC bullpen and will be moved to the rotation sometime in the next year.

http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=543070&c_id=kc#sectionType=career

That is exactly the player I wish we took with that pick. Can you imagine the strength he would be adding to our bullpen this year? It's a joke that we took Hobgood...an absolute joke.

[sdmarkakis]

Yeah, but I can't believe the jump Crow made considering he was pretty mediocre in the minors last year.

[Say O!]

So, if Hobgood came to the O's with a bum shoulder, shouldn't we be indicting the medical staff rather than criticizing the selection?

[Can_of_corn]

So, if Hobgood came to the O's with a bum shoulder, shouldn't we be indicting the medical staff rather than criticizing the selection?

Plenty of blame for both. If he was hurt goods then yes the medical staff should have picked up on it before they signed him. However even if Hobgood was healthy there are many of us that thought he was a reach where he was picked and would have preferred the O's had gone in a different direction.

[DrShorebird]

Good News! I have received a message from another source denying that Hobgood is behind schedule. My first source - a reliable sosurce - confirms that what he told me is what Matt told him. The second source - also reliable - says that Matt reports no problem. As they say, "bad news" travels fast I haven't YET had time to try to reach Matt or Orioles brass directly.

Edit: Perhaps it is a simple case of mis-hearing or mis-understanding.

[Frobby]

I'm guessing the O's didn't know Hobgood would spend 2 years injured once they picked him.

People act like we drafted a total bum at #5. I too wanted Matzek, but that's not the point. The O's thought they were getting a good player and instead have gotten an injured player. That could happen to any team.

I'm just going to continue to root for Matt to get healthy and get his career back on track. I understand that gets less likely by the week/month, but it's all we can do.

We don't know if he was hurt in 2009. We don't know if he was hurt in 2010. I'd like to think that he was healthy when we scouted him, and got injured afterwards and that's why he has been so disappointing. But, we don't know whether that is true or not. Might be, might not be. I just hope he overcomes his injuries and shows some flashes of why the Orioles thought he was worthy of the no. 5 pick.

By the way, the Orioles' history over the last 4 seasons belies the idea that they drafted Hobgood just to save money. They have not been shy about spending on their top pick.

[waroriole]

We don't know if he was hurt in 2009. We don't know if he was hurt in 2010. I'd like to think that he was healthy when we scouted him, and got injured afterwards and that's why he has been so disappointing. But, we don't know whether that is true or not. Might be, might not be. I just hope he overcomes his injuries and shows some flashes of why the Orioles thought he was worthy of the no. 5 pick.

By the way, the Orioles' history over the last 4 seasons belies the idea that they drafted Hobgood just to save money. They have not been shy about spending on their top pick.

Is it really such a big deal if they did draft Hobgood to save money? Maybe for one draft, they took a different appoach to see what would happen. Because this is the draft where they had alot of over-slot guys later. Including 2 late rounders that got $1M bonuses. They basically spent the same amount of money, but spread it out more. I don't remember that draft having anyone that made you say "We need to spend $5-6M on this guy."

[RVAbird]

We don't know if he was hurt in 2009. We don't know if he was hurt in 2010. I'd like to think that he was healthy when we scouted him, and got injured afterwards and that's why he has been so disappointing. But, we don't know whether that is true or not. Might be, might not be. I just hope he overcomes his injuries and shows some flashes of why the Orioles thought he was worthy of the no. 5 pick.

By the way, the Orioles' history over the last 4 seasons belies the idea that they drafted Hobgood just to save money. They have not been shy about spending on their top pick.


Is it really such a big deal if they did draft Hobgood to save money? Maybe for one draft, they took a different appoach to see what would happen. Because this is the draft where they had alot of over-slot guys later. Including 2 late rounders that got $1M bonuses. They basically spent the same amount of money, but spread it out more. I don't remember that draft having anyone that made you say "We need to spend $5-6M on this guy."


I don't think that the Orioles picked Hobgood in order to suppress their overall draft budget or because they were afraid of giving too large a bonus at the top.

I do think that Joe Jordan decided that he wanted to go overslot in the later rounds, and that an effective way to do so would be to grab a slot talent at the top to leave him more wiggle room to fill out the supporting rounds. I think if he thought there was a clear runaway for BPA he would have selected him and forgone that strategy, but that he decided Hobgood was in the same universe as some of the other prep arms and would sign a deal for a 25-40% discount.

That's not a terrible strategy in general terms, but I take issue the specific execution for two reasons - 1) I do not believe that Hobgood was in the same universe as the other prep picks even if he was sitting low 90s and touching mid-90s when they observed him because of the lack of physical projection, and 2) I don't think Joe Jordan did a good enough job of utilizing his subsequent picks to justify the strategy.

The fact that Hobgood has been injured has just piled frustration on top of frustration. If the medicals were clear, you can't blame that on Jordan. However, injury is a significant risk with any pitcher, especially a HS pitcher, which is why in my view there needs to be enough upside and projection to mitigate the risk when selecting one with the first pick. I don't think Hobgood fits that mold.

[srock]

Hobgood has been behind schedule since the day he was drafted. And he has a long way hill to climb to get back on schedule.

[Hutman]

What about Zach Wheeler and Shelby Miller two other studs from that class, now both top 25 talents. Ugh!

[jgdomino]

I love all the GM's and Scouting directors we have here Bringing up names that if we would have taken them at number 5 the year the draft occured would have been freaking out just the same as when we took hobgood.

THE MLB DRAFT IS A CRAP SHOOT. WHEN WILL YOU LEARN THAT YOUR SOUR GRAPES ARE MORE THAN ANNOYING.

[RVAbird]

I love all the GM's and Scouting directors we have here Bringing up names that if we would have taken them at number 5 the year the draft occured would have been freaking out just the same as when we took hobgood.

THE MLB DRAFT IS A CRAP SHOOT. WHEN WILL YOU LEARN THAT YOUR SOUR GRAPES ARE MORE THAN ANNOYING.

I know. I can't believe we waste valuable resources employing a scouting director, area scouts and cross-checkers. One drunk night in Vegas and AM would be able to pick out a name as good as anybody else in the draft. It is a literal crap shoot.

[HokieOs]

Wasn't a Hobgood a signability pick more than a legit "should be taken #5 pick"? If I remember correctly, we took a guy at #5 who likely would have STILL been there in the second round. Why?

[eb45]

There was pretty much no way Hobgood would have been available in the second round.

[Can_of_corn]

Wasn't a Hobgood a signability pick more than a legit "should be taken #5 pick"? If I remember correctly, we took a guy at #5 who likely would have STILL been there in the second round. Why?

He was charging hard up the draft boards in the days before the draft. I heard at the time that he was more of a 10-15 guy.

[RVAbird]

He was charging hard up the draft boards in the days before the draft. I heard at the time that he was more of a 10-15 guy.

Yeah, he was a late helium candidate. More conservative boards (aka my humble board) had him 20-25, but I wouldn't have been surprised to see him get popped 10-15 by an org who believed even if BAL had passed. Still a stretch in my opinion, but certainly believable. Every year one or two prep arms get plucked higher than expected. There's a lot more subjectivity and projection-based assessment with prep arms, and some SD's can fall in love.

[byrdz]

Let's just convert Hobgood to a first basemen and see how many homers he can hit. :)

[jgdomino]

I know. I can't believe we waste valuable resources employing a scouting director, area scouts and cross-checkers. One drunk night in Vegas and AM would be able to pick out a name as good as anybody else in the draft. It is a literal crap shoot.

Well way to exaggerate the point of the post. Which is that It is much more likely a prospect misses in the MLB draft than in other pro sports. Comparing Hobgood to players who we weren't even considering isn't fair to him and is really annoying. We've hit on so many of our recent choices otherwise that Hobgood (who we really don't know if he is a bust yet or not) is/was bound to occur.

I hear the TB rays have no idea what they are doing because Tim Beckham isn't living up to their expectations.

[jamalshw]

Well way to exaggerate the point of the post. Which is that It is much more likely a prospect misses in the MLB draft than in other pro sports. Comparing Hobgood to players who we weren't even considering isn't fair to him and is really annoying. We've hit on so many of our recent choices otherwise that Hobgood (who we really don't know if he is a bust yet or not) is/was bound to occur.

I hear the TB rays have no idea what they are doing because Tim Beckham isn't living up to their expectations.

While it is certinaly exaggerated, so was the original post. The thing that makes the Hobgood pick so hard for Orioles fans to swallow was that he was a reach pick for signability. I wouldn't have a problem with the pick if he had the skills and talent (and projection) to go 5th overall, but was slotted in the mid-to-late first round by the rest of the world and we went out and took him early.

To me, the Hobgood pick is the one that we complain about, not the Rowell pick or any other top pick. Afterall, at least Rowell was regarded as top position talent in the draft and would have been taken in short order had we pasted up on him for someone else, meanwhile Hobgood would have and should have been on the board 10 picks after our pick.

[Stotle]

I hear the TB rays have no idea what they are doing because Tim Beckham isn't living up to their expectations.

He's much better this year. 21 in AA isn't so bad. Right now he's .306/.375/.439

[jgdomino]

He's much better this year. 21 in AA isn't so bad. Right now he's .306/.375/.439

Just another reason for all the Hobgood bashing to stop. Hs kids need time to develop, as much as we like most are not going to be ready or close to ready in 2-3 years. For a pitcher a 5 year timeframe is really what we should be looking at for a HS pitcher to develop and contribute.

We have no idea until the kid is healthy what he will become.He could get healthy this year and become the player the orginization thought he would be. If he doesnt get healthy its just one of the many risks and hazards that come along with the draft.

Comparing him to players that weren't even considered for the spot he was drafted is not fair to the player. If you want to compare him to anyone go with Crowe, matzek etc. not guys who now they are pitching well you decide were worthy of the O's draft spot.

[jgdomino]

While it is certinaly exaggerated, so was the original post. The thing that makes the Hobgood pick so hard for Orioles fans to swallow was that he was a reach pick for signability. I wouldn't have a problem with the pick if he had the skills and talent (and projection) to go 5th overall, but was slotted in the mid-to-late first round by the rest of the world and we went out and took him early.

To me, the Hobgood pick is the one that we complain about, not the Rowell pick or any other top pick. Afterall, at least Rowell was regarded as top position talent in the draft and would have been taken in short order had we pasted up on him for someone else, meanwhile Hobgood would have and should have been on the board 10 picks after our pick.

maybe a reach pick, but to me thats not the orginizational M.O. We've taken the best player possible pretty much every draft Joe Jordan has run, I don't see why people would assume that Jordan just go against his draft philosophy and take a player he didnt really like better, when all of the evidence is to the contrary. Let's let the situation unfold give a HS pitcher some time to develop and then bash away.

[Can_of_corn]

He's much better this year. 21 in AA isn't so bad. Right now he's .306/.375/.439

I see they still have him at SS will he stick there?

[RZNJ]

I get the feeling that the O's are just delaying the inevitable which seems to be surgery. Sure seems like Hobgood was never 100% in pro ball. He says he felt some pain early at Bluefield and he was on the DL twice at Delmarva for "shoulder tendinitis". Maybe Hobgood was a bad pick, but not sure we have gotten to see the real talent he showed in HS. It doesn't look too promising as rotator cuff surgery is tough to come back from 100%.

[jamalshw]

maybe a reach pick, but to me thats not the orginizational M.O. We've taken the best player possible pretty much every draft Joe Jordan has run, I don't see why people would assume that Jordan just go against his draft philosophy and take a player he didnt really like better, when all of the evidence is to the contrary. Let's let the situation unfold give a HS pitcher some time to develop and then bash away.

If it's not a signability pick, I think that makes it worse for me than if it was. If it's signability it was for strategy for the entire draft and could be understood (though I don't agree). If he really like Hobgood as the 5th overall selection in the draft, I have more concerns because he would have been the only executive to do so (and by a wide margin). It then turns into an issue of poor talent evalution than it does of questionable draft strategy. Which of those is worse?

As for giving it time, I'm not saying that Hobgood as zero chance to develop into a solid big league arm, but I am saying his chances are far less than others that were available when he was selected (that was true at the time of the draft as well as today). All in all, I'm willing to eat crow (and actually am hoping that day will come) when Hobgood proves us all wrong, but until then I will maintain that this was a poor pick.

[Stotle]

maybe a reach pick, but to me thats not the orginizational M.O. We've taken the best player possible pretty much every draft Joe Jordan has run, I don't see why people would assume that Jordan just go against his draft philosophy and take a player he didnt really like better, when all of the evidence is to the contrary. Let's let the situation unfold give a HS pitcher some time to develop and then bash away.

Not personally taking a stand as to Mr. Jordan's motivation in 2009, but draft "strategy" has to be fluid, for good scouting departments. This means adapting to the make-up of the draft class. No one would say the Pirates have skimped on recent draft picks, but they went down most boards to take Tony Sanchez because they thought there wasn't a standout elite talent worth the price, and getting Sanchez for a pre-draft deal filled a need and gave them money to grab some overslot kids later on (which they did).

[jgdomino]

I feel this is a good example of what could have happend. 3-5 arms the O's valued about the same so they took the one that would allow them to spend more later. Did they save money yea but it does not mean they didn't like Hobgood as much as any other pitcher that was available.

[RVAbird]

I feel this is a good example of what could have happend. 3-5 arms the O's valued about the same so they took the one that would allow them to spend more later. Did they save money yea but it does not mean they didn't like Hobgood as much as any other pitcher that was available.

Again, the strategy itself isn't fatally flawed in theory. My issue with this is that 1) I think it was a mistake to group Hobgood in with the top tier arms and 2) JJ did not do a particularly good job executing overslot selections in the rest of the draft.

[RZNJ]

Again, the strategy itself isn't fatally flawed in theory. My issue with this is that 1) I think it was a mistake to group Hobgood in with the top tier arms and 2) JJ did not do a particularly good job executing overslot selections in the rest of the draft.

If Coffey and Ohlman were to develop as top 10 Oriole prospects over the next two years, would that change your thinking?

[RVAbird]

If Coffey and Ohlman were to develop as top 10 Oriole prospects over the next two years, would that change your thinking?

Not really. It's about probability. I wouldn't be surprised to see Coffey, Ohlman and one or two others develop nicely, but I think the overslots selected could have come with better probability.

[Tony-OH]

After talking with Jordan multiple time about that draft, I don't think he felt there was anyone special that deserved a "special" (read: overslot) bonus. In his mind Hobgood was worth what he was going to ask for and he was the next guy on his list. As I've said before, if you feel player A is better then player B, but not be much, and Player A was talking about wanting $5 million while player B is asking for slot, it probably makes sense to go with player B when you can use the saved money to sign overslot guys. Now whether Coffey and Ohlman end up being guys worth overslot remains to be seen, but the strategy is solid if you ask me.

Jordan has said that Hobgood was the highest guy on his board at that selection but I still wonder if his board takes salary demands into consideration. My guess is it would and if I remember the next time I talk with Joe I'll ask him.

[RVAbird]

After talking with Jordan multiple time about that draft, I don't think he felt there was anyone special that deserved a "special" (read: overslot) bonus. In his mind Hobgood was worth what he was going to ask for and he was the next guy on his list. As I've said before, if you feel player A is better then player B, but not be much, and Player A was talking about wanting $5 million while player B is asking for slot, it probably makes sense to go with player B when you can use the saved money to sign overslot guys. Now whether Coffey and Ohlman end up being guys worth overslot remains to be seen, but the strategy is solid if you ask me.

Jordan has said that Hobgood was the highest guy on his board at that selection but I still wonder if his board takes salary demands into consideration. My guess is it would and if I remember the next time I talk with Joe I'll ask him.

Perfectly logical and I assume this is exactly how he'd explain it.

I just disagree on the particular names in question.

[brotherlo38]

Not really. It's about probability. I wouldn't be surprised to see Coffey, Ohlman and one or two others develop nicely, but I think the overslots selected could have come with better probability.

I'm not sure what you mean by "could have come with better probability". If you're going overslot late, really after the first five rounds if not sooner there's a certain element of risk involved. I believe Ohlman just had to be bought out from a college commitment so that's probably as safe as it comes. Coffey was coming off of an injury but we've had other guys succeed, or at least are doing well, coming off of injuries like Bundy, Arrieta, etc.

[hoosiers]

Jordan has said that Hobgood was the highest guy on his board at that selection but I still wonder if his board takes salary demands into consideration. My guess is it would and if I remember the next time I talk with Joe I'll ask him.

I have no issue with the Hobgood selection and what JJ tried to do with the 09 draft. JJ says he has the reports, saw Hobgood pitch at an appropriate level and made the call. This is the same scouting team that selected Olson, Berken, Matusz, Britton, Arrietta and David Hernandez and has seen them all reach the majors - while Erbe and Spoone demonstrated considerable success getting to AA before injury issues.

I will say, however, that it would not be surprising (either human nature or subconsciously) if an evaluator will play up the positives of the cheaper talent and the negatives of the more expensive one to the point where the raw talent evaluation is clouded. I believe this happens in many decisions - baseball-related and not baseball-related. The draft seems to be filled with many more stories of teams going cheap and regretting it than teams who went for value and were ultimately justified, but it must be a tough call on a case-by-case basis.

[brotherlo38]

I have no issue with the Hobgood selection and what JJ tried to do with the 09 draft. JJ says he has the reports, saw Hobgood pitch at an appropriate level and made the call. This is the same scouting team that selected Olson, Berken, Matusz, Britton, Arrietta and David Hernandez and has seen them all reach the majors - while Erbe and Spoone demonstrated considerable success getting to AA before injury issues.

I will say, however, that it would not be surprising (either human nature or subconsciously) if an evaluator will play up the positives of the cheaper talent and the negatives of the more expensive one to the point where the raw talent evaluation is clouded. I believe this happens in many decisions - baseball-related and not baseball-related. The draft seems to be filled with many more stories of teams going cheap and regretting it than teams who went for value and were ultimately justified, but it must be a tough call on a case-by-case basis.

I'm not sure an evaluator, at least not the initial scout, will play up those who don't have high demands. In fact I might think a scout would be more likely to play up the skills of someone with high demands since he knows the team won't take the player unless he is deemed worth the money.

Now scouting directors I could see accentuating the positives of a talent who will sign for slot.

That's just my opinion, I'm sure Stotle could give us his experience.

[Stotle]

I'm not sure an evaluator, at least not the initial scout, will play up those who don't have high demands. In fact I might think a scout would be more likely to play up the skills of someone with high demands since he knows the team won't take the player unless he is deemed worth the money.

Now scouting directors I could see accentuating the positives of a talent who will sign for slot.

That's just my opinion, I'm sure Stotle could give us his experience.

In my experience, the Area Scout's input has very little to do with the guys selected that high. It's purely a SD/X-checker/GM decision. They have reports from Area Scouts, but no one is going to go by the reports and disregard what they see with their own eyes -- and selecting that high the SD would get several in person looks at the player, and probably have them work out specifically for the org if the opportunity is there. My Area Scout turned in some 2nd + Round guys for this draft, and our regional director has seen all of them extensively, with the SD and X-checkers getting multiple looks on many of them, as well. In the end, my reports to the Area guy and his reports to our bosses are not likely to sway the evaluations they have made on their own.

As you move down the board, the odds the SD has seen the player are less and less, so the Area input is weighed more heavily.

[bobmc]

Just a quick and UNOFFICIAL update on Matt Hobgood's progress in Sarasota. My sources in Sarasota feel that Matt is not progressing according to plan. They also suggest that he still seems to have some soreness in his shoulder. I don't know when his scheduled follow-up MRI is to occur, but I'll see what I can find out. Again, this is not confirmed or official.

Melewski had this yesterday,"I have been asked often about Matt Hobgood. He continues to make progress during his throwing program and has not had any setbacks.
He is likely to pitch in some games at some point after the Gulf Coast League season starts in late June. It could lead to him moving later in the summer to a full-season affiliate. The bigger plan is for Hobgood to be fully healthy and ready to pitch a full season in 2012."

http://www.masnsports.com/steve_melewski/2011/05/minor-league-updates-on-machado-mahoney-hobgood-and-more.html

[Can_of_corn]

Melewski had this yesterday,"I have been asked often about Matt Hobgood. He continues to make progress during his throwing program and has not had any setbacks.
He is likely to pitch in some games at some point after the Gulf Coast League season starts in late June. It could lead to him moving later in the summer to a full-season affiliate. The bigger plan is for Hobgood to be fully healthy and ready to pitch a full season in 2012."

http://www.masnsports.com/steve_melewski/2011/05/minor-league-updates-on-machado-mahoney-hobgood-and-more.html

Sounds like they have effectively punted on the 2011 season which is going to make him 21 in Fredrick as a best case scenario.

[BaysoxFan39]

The Orioles must get better in the draft. They have hit a few (Wieters, Werth, Matuz, Markakis) and the failures are to numerous to mention. We should go with the best talent on the board and see how it works out and not slot by who is cheaper.

[Frobby]

The Orioles must get better in the draft. They have hit a few (Wieters, Werth, Matuz, Markakis) and the failures are to numerous to mention. We should go with the best talent on the board and see how it works out and not slot by who is cheaper.

Other than Hobgood, when have we been accused of choosing a player because of price? Even in Hobgood's case, Joe Jordan denies that he picked him based on price.

[TGO]

Other than Hobgood, when have we been accused of choosing a player because of price? Even in Hobgood's case, Joe Jordan denies that he picked him based on price.

Yeah, I think you have to go all the way back to Chris Smith (2001) to make that claim.

[sangar]

Yeah, I think you have to go all the way back to Chris Smith (2001) to make that claim.I remember a lot of people here were pulling their hair out when we picked Smith but wasn't he projected to be above average as either a pitcher or a position player? I remember he was a reach but I don't recall him being discussed as a money saving pick. Am I wrong?

[TGO]

I remember a lot of people here were pulling their hair out when we picked Smith but wasn't he projected to be above average as either a pitcher or a position player? I remember he was a reach but I don't recall him being discussed as a money saving pick. Am I wrong?

He signed a week after the draft for less money than Beau Hale got 7 spots later the year before (Smith at 7, Hale at 14).

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2001-06-13/sports/0106130278_1_chris-smith-camden-yards-orioles

I don't know for sure that he was a signability pick but the likelihood seems pretty high. The article also says he thought he would be drafted by the Padres, who picked 14th that year.

[sangar]

He signed a week after the draft for less money than Beau Hale got 7 spots later the year before (Smith at 7, Hale at 14).

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2001-06-13/sports/0106130278_1_chris-smith-camden-yards-orioles

I don't know for sure that he was a signability pick but the likelihood seems pretty high. The article also says he thought he would be drafted by the Padres, who picked 14th that year.Okay, I remember now. You have a good memory. Thanks.