Jump to content
weams

2015 2nd (68) - Jonathan Hughes - RHP - HS (GA)

Recommended Posts

Thanks Weams! Appreciate the insight. If there is a second player involved I wonder who. 20th Round pick Adam Walton is a RS Soph at Illinois. He may want the extra cash to sign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, but how many of those draft picks and prospects will Duquette trade??? ;)

As many as we need him too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Weams! Appreciate the insight. If there is a second player involved I wonder who. 20th Round pick Adam Walton is a RS Soph at Illinois. He may want the extra cash to sign.

I have no insider knowledge of this. Only what I read the kid tell his hometown paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope...Not really. We had a great haul this year in regards to our picks and signing them. I dont mind putting this pick in our back pocket for next year now.

We are talking:

Our 1st

2 Comp picks (2 out of 3 of Wieters, Davis, Chen)

Our 2nd round Pick

Another 2nd round pick for not signing Hughes

Possibly Comp B pick

That is 7 and possibly 8 picks in the top 75. At worst it will be 6.

As upset as people may be with a step back next year (though not as pronounced as everyone thinks it will be). Having Gausmen, Mike Wright, Givens, Stewart, Alverez, Mancini and Bundy(I have faith) knocking on the door along with Harvey right behind them could ease fears about near term prospects.

Then you add 7 top 75 picks to Reyes, Cisco, Mountcastle, Peralta, McKenna, Heinrich, Fenter, and Curran for our long term development could completely re-shape this franchise.

Oh yeah, and we have Machado, Jones, and Schoop who are top 3 players at their position (Or in Schoops case, top 10 with a chance to be top 5 in the near future).

If you like Hughes because you like his baseball skills, then you sign him. There is nothing gained by moving him to next year unless you think it is a deeper draft class and you will get a better player.

Otherwise, saying you have 8 of the top 75 picks in next years draft is weaker than saying you have Hughes plus 7 of the top 75 picks next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you like Hughes because you like his baseball skills, then you sign him. There is nothing gained by moving him to next year unless you think it is a deeper draft class and you will get a better player.

Otherwise, saying you have 8 of the top 75 picks in next years draft is weaker than saying you have Hughes plus 7 of the top 75 picks next year.

If you think Hughes is a fourth round talent but you drafted him at 68 because you thought it could save money to sign a 20th rounder, then it turns out that it wouldn't save enough money to sign the 20th rounder, then yeah something is gained by not signing him as you are essentially trading a #69 pick in next year's draft for whatever you think Hughes' actual value is. If you think Hughes actual value is a fourth round talent, that difference is significant.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you think Hughes is a fourth round talent but you drafted him at 68 because you thought it could save money to sign a 20th rounder, then it turns out that it wouldn't save enough money to sign the 20th rounder, then yeah something is gained by not signing him as you are essentially trading a #69 pick in next year's draft for whatever you think Hughes' actual value is. If you think Hughes actual value is a fourth round talent, that difference is significant.

Bingo. You nailed it. This is just how the new draft pool works. So we either get Hughes and a overslot guy or we take a player with an actual second round grade next year. We always fawn over how teams can manipulate the draft so well. Well now we're doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you think Hughes is a fourth round talent but you drafted him at 68 because you thought it could save money to sign a 20th rounder, then it turns out that it wouldn't save enough money to sign the 20th rounder, then yeah something is gained by not signing him as you are essentially trading a #69 pick in next year's draft for whatever you think Hughes' actual value is. If you think Hughes actual value is a fourth round talent, that difference is significant.

Thanks Murph and that is exactly what I have alluded to previously. Its hard to justify doing this with a 1st round pick, but a 2nd is perfect. Take someone in the 2nd who has 4-6th round talent and 10+ round bonus demands. You still get a really strong prospect but also save a lot of money for other picks. The added leverage if getting that pick next year helps in negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still surprised that he wasn't signed, they would have known his numbers. Let's hope next year's draft is deeper than this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dang. I get the logic of what the O's were trying to do, but I hate having to wait another year for this pick. Our system is thin and we need every decent prospect we can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would love the details; has to be he changed his number or there was a physical issue, right? Can't imagine Baltimore drafted someone in the second round that wasn't interested in signing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you think Hughes is a fourth round talent but you drafted him at 68 because you thought it could save money to sign a 20th rounder, then it turns out that it wouldn't save enough money to sign the 20th rounder, then yeah something is gained by not signing him as you are essentially trading a #69 pick in next year's draft for whatever you think Hughes' actual value is. If you think Hughes actual value is a fourth round talent, that difference is significant.

Sounds believable to me. Good analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you think Hughes is a fourth round talent but you drafted him at 68 because you thought it could save money to sign a 20th rounder, then it turns out that it wouldn't save enough money to sign the 20th rounder, then yeah something is gained by not signing him as you are essentially trading a #69 pick in next year's draft for whatever you think Hughes' actual value is. If you think Hughes actual value is a fourth round talent, that difference is significant.

The problem with that is it requires your true valuation of the player to be lower than it should be for when he was selected. In other words, if the goal of the pick was to get an under slot signing you should be able to find a talent you like as a 2nd or 3rd round guy (most likely a guy you'd rather get with your pick in the next round but believe will not make it there). Either way (whether it's a 2nd/3rd or 4th round talent) if you are making an under-slot play you need to draft with certainty the player will sign. That means the phone call, the "we are looking to spend $X amount at this slot, is that something you'd consider?" talk, all of it.

Finally, if you view him as a fourth round talent than you should only be spending marginally above fourth round money for him, in which case you'd absolutely know on draft day whether the price you were offering (roughly 1.5 rounds below slot) was likely to get it done.

This is just weird to me. From a process standpoint I'm hoping it was something having to do with the physical, because it doesn't seem like a coherent approach to drafting and signing this kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • Lots of complications in these cases, per the article: At least one of those minor league cases, filed in Arizona and led by the Chattanooga Lookouts, has already been dismissed due to a virus exclusion in the policy. Insurers in many cases have insisted that financial losses caused by the coronavirus do not constitute physical loss or property damage. MLB is claiming the virus has led to both. “The presence of the coronavirus and COVID-19, including but not limited to coronavirus droplets or nuclei on solid surfaces and in the air at insured property, has caused and will continue to cause direct physical damage to physical property and ambient air at the premises,” the suit says. “Coronavirus, a physical substance, has attached and adhered to Plaintiffs’ property and by doing so, altered that property. Such presence has also directly resulted in loss of use of those facilities.” === Honestly, if that’s the best argument MLB has got, as a lawyer I’d rather have the defense side of this case.    But, it will probably take a year to shake out.     
    • Would Elias spend 4/40m on Kim when Henderson could be ready for the majors in 2 years?
    • The insurers did not pay.
    • Yellow is the only one you know for certain ends well. 
    • It's nuts how good we were in 2014 without Machado, Davis and Wieters. We still lose if the McClouth home run is called fair I think it was fine to use Ubaldo there, but Buck should have had a quicker hook It's down to Machado and Keeping Cruz over Davis. I think you have to believe we're World Series champions with Machado in 2014 to make that choice, and I can't say for sure that we would have been. I think I have to go with keeping Cruz over Davis, because it might have prevented the 2016 Ubaldo fiasco since Davis was awful in that game and Cruz might have scored us an extra run. Also, it would have been better for the teams long-term flexibility and could have helped the rebuild since we'd likely have been able to ship Cruz out for some good prospects
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...