Your Draft Philosophy

[Greg Pappas]

If asked to state it, what is your draft philosophy?

[Cheese Oriole]

It is very simple- draft the best player on your board at the time with no consideration to signability. Of course your board needs to be accurate. I like JJ's philosophy is taking a bat early and finding pitching later. I would agree with that by just taking into consideration the injury factor (Hale, Stahl, Smith, Loewen, & Townsend, etc in the 1st round). So much more can go wrong with a pitcher -elbow & shoulder can be career injuries. Position ploayer should be able to recover albeit maybe not as strong a fielder/arm as they were previously.

[Pruke]

BPA, always - if you compound, trade for gaps.

Ties go to College before HS - giving greater weight to reaching the majors sooner than ceiling on higher risk HS'ers

Ties go to the pitcher - giving greater weight to a skill that costs more at the ML level.

[Sports Guy]

Always best player available but if it is extremely close between 2 guys, take the bigger area of need.

For example, if the Orioles grade Matusz at 90% and GBeck at 88%, take GBeck.

[allstar1579]

Always best player available but if it is extremely close between 2 guys, take the bigger area of need.

For example, if the Orioles grade Matusz at 90% and GBeck at 88%, take GBeck.

Yeah, what he said

[Greg Pappas]

Besides the BPA angle, which I generally agree with, I wanted to add another important personal way of looking at the process.

For me, I'd rather take a HS kid with big upside than a college guy who projects as average ML'er tools, and is the safer bet.

Last year, as an example, I would've taken Texas HS'er Will Middlebrooks in the 4th Round, whereas the O's took pitcher Tim Bascom. I like Bascom, truly, but in my view Middlebrooks seemed to be the bigger upside prospect. Bascom may wind up as the better player, or not, hard to say... but regardless, I think it's important that we get away from last year's fiasco of taking 98% collegians. Some point out it was our desire to fill the roster of the new affiliate with plenty of ready talent... but the key word is 'talent'. There is no way that we had these college guys rated higher in virtually every round, in comparison to some higher upside HS'ers. It seems that the decision was out of JJ's hands, and he did what he could... that's my best guess. It was a bad idea then, and hopefully the process reverts to BPA this year. I believe it will. I'd also take waaaaay more chances with players considered unsignable or demanding too much $. Nick Adenhart and others have signed and been worth the 'risk'.

While I like him, the jury is still out on Joe Jordan.

[Sports Guy]

Besides the BPA angle, which I generally agree with, I wanted to add another important personal way of looking at the process.

For me, I'd rather take a HS kid with big upside than a college guy who projects as average ML'er tools, and is the safer bet.

Last year, as an example, I would've taken Texas HS'er Will Middlebrooks in the 4th Round, whereas the O's took pitcher Tim Bascom. I like Bascom, truly, but in my view Middlebrooks seemed to be the bigger upside prospect. Bascom may wind up as the better player, or not, hard to say... but regardless, I think it's important that we get away from last year's fiasco of taking 98% collegians. Some point out it was our desire to fill the roster of the new affiliate with plenty of ready talent... but the key word is 'talent'. There is no way that we had these college guys rated higher in virtually every round, in comparison to some higher upside HS'ers. It seems that the decision was out of JJ's hands, and he did what he could... that's my best guess. I was a bad idea then, and hopefully the process reverts to BPA this year. I believe it will. I'd also take waaaaay more chances with players considered unsignable or demanding too much $. Nick Adenhart and others have signed and been worth the 'risk'.

While I like him, the jury is still out on Joe Jordan.

Yea, i like drafting HS kids too....They have such great upside.

[Greg Pappas]

Depends which franchise I am running.

For the Orioles, you know you will never have the financial resources of Boston, and New York.... so you really can not afford to swing and miss when you spend your resources.

With that in-mind, I take college bats first... high school bats second, college pitchers third... and would be extremely rare for me to consider spending high draft picks on hs pitchers.

As SG said, I would always graviate to the best player available in-terms of overall raw ability, and ceiling but if you grade two guys extremely close, take the area of higher need...

I agree with the example of Matusz vs G.Beckham...

If talents fall in the draft, that should be higher picks... but teams are scared off because of dollars, I take those guys... would much rather invest in that talent than mediocre Major league players.

I stay away from guys with character issues regardless of talent... especially if there is questions of work-ethic..

I go after players that love the game...

Yeah... taking players who are 'gamers' and good defenders kind of go hand in hand with any teams desire to field a good group on the field, but sometimes these things have to be really looked at hard. Chorye Spoone had makeup questions, but he's worked out very well. It depends on each situation, as often young men, especially HS'ers are simply immature and make dumb decisions, yet grow to be good people and players.

[Ralph]

Two things...

Always BPA! Never draft for need.

Dont like to take a college pitcher in round 1 unless it's a Lincecum, Price type.

[byrdz]

Take the best overall player, no matter the position, college player is preferable, show him the money, hitters with plate discipline and athleticism.

[wayne25]

Besides the BPA angle, which I generally agree with, I wanted to add another important personal way of looking at the process.

For me, I'd rather take a HS kid with big upside than a college guy who projects as average ML'er tools, and is the safer bet.

Last year, as an example, I would've taken Texas HS'er Will Middlebrooks in the 4th Round, whereas the O's took pitcher Tim Bascom. I like Bascom, truly, but in my view Middlebrooks seemed to be the bigger upside prospect. Bascom may wind up as the better player, or not, hard to say... but regardless, I think it's important that we get away from last year's fiasco of taking 98% collegians. Some point out it was our desire to fill the roster of the new affiliate with plenty of ready talent... but the key word is 'talent'. There is no way that we had these college guys rated higher in virtually every round, in comparison to some higher upside HS'ers. It seems that the decision was out of JJ's hands, and he did what he could... that's my best guess. It was a bad idea then, and hopefully the process reverts to BPA this year. I believe it will. I'd also take waaaaay more chances with players considered unsignable or demanding too much $. Nick Adenhart and others have signed and been worth the 'risk'.

While I like him, the jury is still out on Joe Jordan.

Man I could not agreee with you more!!! I was having a heart attack watching us pick , not only all the college guys, but guys who would be old for any league they got to this year. No way they can do that again. As they say, with the college guys you think you know what you are getting, but with the H.S. guys , they can really suprise you. At the very least we should be getting 40% or more younger guys, (20 and younger)., just for balance, if for no other reason.

[baltimoriole]

pray that Pedro falls to us and anything else is playing with the houses money.

[PlumOriole]

I'm starting to think with a deep draft at 1b I'd go Alvarez, T Beckham and then Matusz in order of preference in the 1st and look for a big bat like Allan Dykstra in Rd 2.