LookinUp

I think the question of whether to tank several rounds of a draft for one very talented guy comes down to this: 1. Does the org have a mature farm system with depth? While the O's aren't fully there yet because the international guys haven't really arrived, I think that answer is close to a yes. 2. Do your models project you to get more value from that elite talent than from spreading the money around? I assume the O's models say no. 3. Is the spread out model a better approach to future trades where you can get elite, mature, talent through trades? I think that answer is yes. So I'd bet the O's think they aren't necessarily skipping on that elite talent as much as building a better way to acquire it, in their own eyes.

BTW, I think Porter's potentially a higher rated prospect than Westburg, and that our rounds 3-10 picks are not as highly rated as our 11-20, so I'm closer to agreeing that Porter would have been worth punting the rest of the draft than I am with trading Westburg for the O's 11-20 prospects.

If Basallo is top 10 (which I agree he should be, but maybe not quite yet), depending on other changes, that also means Beavers and/or Kjerstad/Stowers would fall too. Then you have Vavra, whatever pitching creeps in and up and coming international guys. Either way, I'm taking 11-20, which for the O's is pretty stacked IMO. And to be clear, I love Westburg and hope he's a fixture here for years to come. I think he's a Rutschman-like leader and a damn good ball player.

I really like Westburg, but don't think he's a transcendent talent or anything. Heck, with Mayo, Henderson, Norby, Wagner and Holliday, there's an argument he could be essentially replaceable (or very close to it) from that list. Add Prieto, Basallo, Baumler. Yeah, it's not even close.

Yes. I'd definitely take 11-20 over Westburg. It's not even close.

Well, I understand your conclusion, but I really think the O's value spreading out risk and do think it would have been a bad strategy to have a 4 man draft. Their alternative really would have been similar to Texas. Draft Rocker or Johnson at 1-1 and add Porter later. That's where you could get savings necessary to not tank the rest of the draft.

If you wanted Brock Porter, I think you're complaining about the wrong pick. Slot for this pick was $571,000. Porter agreed for $3.7 million, I think. Where does the other $3.1 million come from? If the O's wanted Porter, they had to get him earlier and from a higher slot, IMO.

Will be tough for me at 2:00. I'll try to fill in the gaps if possible.

He's a 4th round pick. He'll have to get better to be a MLer. No doubt. I think this org really likes Maverick Handley as Adley's future backup. I think this kid fits that Handley plus defense mold. Helps the pitchers in the minors and, if he hits enough, profiles as a future backup. Then you hope something really clicks with the bat and he becomes a guy who can start in the majors, but that's not what I think's likely. Still, the offensive profile is good enough to make it at least seem possible.

Seems like a guy who did get a lot better with the bat this year over last. Many more home runs and doubles. OPS jumped 200 points. K/BB ratio close to 1. So maybe there is some offensive upside here even though his BA was only .271. https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=ardoin000sil

Probably similar projection for a lower cost.

https://www.mlb.com/news/day-3-of-draft-how-to-watch-best-available?t=mlb-draft-coverage

Nobody's ignoring that. I said as much in another thread within the last hour. I think teams mostly respect the players when they say they have a deal in place. Porter's just an example of an over slot guy. He was the biggest example though. Smaller examples would require smaller trade offs, obviously.

I feel like we don't really know. People are thinking Beavers, Wagner, McLean and Bright could be over slot guys, but it doesn't feel like any of them are really way over slot. My best guess is that if ownership allows Elias to go to 104.9% of his draft pool, he still has some money to spend. It also seems like he won't be allowed to go over budget like that.

Porter's a perfect example though. If you go over slot to get him, you probably do need to do it much earlier where the slot is still large. Your savings on other picks is minimized that way. One way to do that would be to pick him with one of the 1b or 2a/b picks and punt another. That would essentially be trading two players for one. The other way is to draft him high and then go under slot for several others. That would essentially be pushing your board down by a round or two. In the end, I think you asked the right question. Do they just believe more in cheaper guys and I think the answer's yes. They prefer to spread the risk, and as it relates to pitching, they really do view those expenditures as more risky.

For me, they start at 10 and can be slotted in any order from there. Obviously hoping some of the international guys start to crash this party, Baumler gets healthy and performs, Mayo gets healthy and shows the world he's an elite prospect, etc. 1. Grayson 2. Gunnar 3. Holliday 4. Hall 5. Cowser 6. Mayo 7. Westburg 8. Stowers 9. Kjerstad 10. Beavers 11. Norby 12. Wagner 13. Prieto 14. Baumler

This pick feels like a pick for organizational need more than a pick based on a board. I don't know, maybe the O's are seeing a guy who's a great defensive guy and hoping they can develop the hit tool, but it's hard for me to say I'd want him picked before several of the pitchers or upside high school position guys that were still on the board at the time. I think it speaks to a draft plan that is not top heavy, meaning they don't fill the org with an 18th round senior catcher.

Part of me wants to point out that any pitcher not picked at the very top is a project, because it's true, particularly for high school arms. But it's also really fair to point out that a guy without previous dominance is more of a project than someone who has significant innings under his belt where he's learned a little bit of the art of pitching. The O's are taking a leap that the strong arm will also develop command and feel for multiple pitches. So, that's a project, or at least an increased risk IMO.

I think because they refuse to deviate significantly from their valuations to target a position. They clearly could have targeted pitching earlier, but they're not trying to pay $2 million for a $1 million guy (or whatever). I do also think that teams mostly respect pre-draft deals. Porter probably makes that deal with Texas, his reps tell everyone he's off the table unless he gets some number that nobody else was willing to pay for him.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=cheney000wya Not sure why he's listed on the MLB site as McLennan CC. He pitched 2 years for Oklahoma State as far as I can tell. https://okstate.com/sports/baseball/roster/wyatt-cheney/9536 https://twitter.com/Texas_PG/status/1522999142976524288?s=20&t=ja-T6lrbCC2zTwl2a0AAnw Initial Take: Short right-hander who transfered to a JUCO to finish off his college career that had stalled in Oklahoma. Low-90s fastball with a decent slider.

Well, we ended up with like 5 in the first 10 rounds I think, so it's a step up on pitching even if not early.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=weston000cam Just based on his numbers, he wasn't that good for UM in 2022, but then has had a nice summer in the Cape.

I have a feeling he'll replace Mountcastle at the next deadline.

This guy's a really good prospect.