Jump to content
Greg Pappas

FWIW: My thoughts on the O's draft

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Greg Pappas said:

Now that five of the six prospects I targeted in this exercise have signed, there remains $7,433,900 to "sign" Austin Martin.  Whether Martin signs for that amount or less, the exercise was created to show what sort of talent we may have been able to draft if we went with A. Martin. I know that I would not have actually taken the exact same six players I pretend drafted, as I am certain to want to have targeted a couple of HS talents at some point. Guys I would have still targeted include A. Martin, McMahon and Bedell. Regardless, what these guys signed for would be for different amounts I'm sure because of different slots. I know this though, I hope Kjerstad and the rest of the 2020 draftees turn out great and they (and Elias/staff) have my full support. :)

The O's Draft Bonus Pool was $13,821,300.

  • Austin Martin went 5th (Blue Jays), though I would have taken him at #2 in my exercise.  The #2 slot bonus is $7,789,900. 
  • Chris McMahon went 46th (Rockies), though I would have taken him at #30 in my exercise. The #30 slot bonus is $2,365,500.  (Signed for $1,637,400)
  • CJ Van Eyk went 42nd (Blue Jays), though I would have taken him at #39 in my exercise. The #39 slot bonus is $1,906,800.  (Signed for $1,800,000)
  • Casey Martin went 87th (Phillies), though I would have taken him at #74 in my exercise. The #74 slot bonus is $844,200.  (Signed for $1,300,000)
  • Ian Bedell went 122nd (Cardinals), though I would have taken him at #103 in my exercise. The #103 slot bonus is $565,600. (Signed for $800,000)
  • Bryce Elder went 156th (Braves), though I would have taken him at #130 in my exercise. The #130 slot bonus is $422,300.  (Signed for $850,000)

Great exercise by you - something I wouldn't have the knowledge and smarts to do as well.  We should check back in several years to compare yours to the O's.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Greg Pappas said:

Now that five of the six prospects I targeted in this exercise have signed, there remains $7,433,900 to "sign" Austin Martin.  Whether Martin signs for that amount or less, the exercise was created to show what sort of talent we may have been able to draft if we went with A. Martin. I know that I would not have actually taken the exact same six players I pretend drafted, as I am certain to want to have targeted a couple of HS talents at some point.

I certainly think it's a valid exercise and helps self-reflect on reactions/discussion of the draft. Appreciate your commentary here and don't want this to come across as a criticism.

I would say regardless of what Martin signs for at this point, barring a shocker, isn't super important. If the Jays sign him for the ~7.4M you have remaining, I doubt he would have accepted that at the #2 slot as it would be ~$400K higher (everything we've heard suggests he wouldn't accept an "underslot" deal). I think this analysis does a good job of demonstrating the potential merit of the "underslot" strategy, as it looks like you wouldn't have had the dollars to sign your hypothetical draft class.

Again, I think it's great that you put a stake in the ground on which to judge your comments and don't want this to come across as a criticism in any way (rather its a discussion of the results for the exercise/experiment). 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

I certainly think it's a valid exercise and helps self-reflect on reactions/discussion of the draft. Appreciate your commentary here and don't want this to come across as a criticism.

I would say regardless of what Martin signs for at this point, barring a shocker, isn't super important. If the Jays sign him for the ~7.4M you have remaining, I doubt he would have accepted that at the #2 slot as it would be ~$400K higher (everything we've heard suggests he wouldn't accept an "underslot" deal). I think this analysis does a good job of demonstrating the potential merit of the "underslot" strategy, as it looks like you wouldn't have had the dollars to sign your hypothetical draft class.

Again, I think it's great that you put a stake in the ground on which to judge your comments and don't want this to come across as a criticism in any way (rather its a discussion of the results for the exercise/experiment). 

Agreed. I realize that different slots mean different amounts. It's all good... I hope we look back and marvel at how well Elias did. 

  • Like 1

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

    • Some thought passing thru my addled brain reminded me of this classic. By the HOFers.  
    • You have called Mike Elias a liar several times in your posts in the past few days. You have repeatedly said this was a bad decision. You are entitled to your opinion, as we all are. Despite several posters trying to explain the logic to you intelligently, you remain steadfast in your criticism and that any opinion you do not share is not legitimate. The opinion of 30 major league teams is that he is not worth his projected arbitration salary. Is that legitimate?  I am done. We have beat this to death. Down arrow me again, I dig it. I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I think we should argue with other people for a while. I need space. 😂 
    • I'd like the see the quote where Elias said that ownership was not allowed him to spend for Cozart  or anyone else.  The context would be interesting. Its isn't happening because its not part of Elias' rebuild model which is similar to the Astros.     Spending is part of your desired model.  I understand that.  But Elias is building a talent base first with young cheap players.  He will spend when its time to compete and he has holes. Right now he is still waiting on Adley.  He needs at better 2B and 3B and better starting pitching to compete the way he wants to in the future.   This stuff in coming but it not here yet.  Rodriguez, DL Hall, Gunnar, Westburg.   They are all part of Elias' plan.  And those guys will be cheap for a while.   I doubt seriously that ownership told Elias to cut Nunez.   Its more likely that Elias wants to develop Santander, Mullins, Hays, Diaz, and Mountcastle  to be part of the next contending team and needs the at bats to accomplish that.
    • Saying there hasn’t been evidence is just wrong. They values saved money over quality back in the 2018 deals. Elias essentially came out and said ownership wouldn’t allow the deal the Angels and Giants did where the Giants bought a prospect to take on Cozarts deal.  Elias said he would like to do something like that but basically isn’t allowed. And you absolutely can still spend money when you are rebuilding.  You don’t do it poorly of course but there are plenty of opportunities out there that isn’t happening and I don’t believe for a second Elias would be letting those deals go by if ownership allowed him to do what he wants.
    • Its appear your hatred for the Angelos family is impairing your judgement.  There is no evidence that ownership is holding back Elias spending.  What has happened over the last two years is just what happened in 2012-13 with the Astros rebuild.  First tear down.  Trade establish players for prospects.  Then build back with younger, cheaper players.  It was not until year 3 that they spent 30m on Scott Feldman.   Of course the Astros did not have to content with Davis' huge contract nor the loss of revenue from a pandemic.    We really have not reached the point where ownership should be spending in the rebuild.  But its coming.
    • I never said he’s an idiot. I also said I don’t believe it’s his decision. It’s the cheap ass ownership group that we unfortunately have to deal with.  I do think Elias is giving us GM speak as to reasoning why the decision was made.  Seeing as every single GM in the history of time does this, it’s not a leap to say this.
    • I think I first read the “Mauer with Power” line in Sports Illustrated’s Spring 2010 baseball issue, the year after Wieters debuted.  But the article said he’d been called that in the past, before Mauer hit 28 homers in 2009. https://www.google.com/amp/s/vault.si.com/.amp/vault/2010/03/15/the-total-package-rare-bird
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...