Can_of_corn

For the record I'm not at all sure about this draft. I'm defending the strategy in general not this particular example. I'm concerned they relied too heavily on projections based off a small sample size. Also no way I was going to avoid making a KC reference.

The Orioles traded with the same team your Ravens did in your hypothetical situation.

It's balderdash. Ballyhoo, it's only talk.

So the O's traded the #2, #103 and #133 for #8, #48 and #50. Same thing. You can't expect to get similar value for MLB picks that you get for NFL picks.

They had plenty of sport reporters, they worked for things called newspapers that were a popular means of receiving the news.

Partial scholarships are going to hurt the economically disadvantaged that want to use baseball as a means of going to college. I am sure that one year of education at Duke or Kentucky does those players a world of good. I think the only reason they are forcing the kids to go to college was that they didn't like the bust rate or kids out of HS. Kwame Brown anyone?

First off that's 2013 and secondly that wasn't what I meant by holding out. Football players under contract hold out. When is the last time you've seen a baseball player under contract refuse to come to camp? It happens but it's a lot more rare.

You do know that the college teams have 13 full scholarships to offer in basketball (a full roster). College baseball teams have 11.7 full scholarships.

So instead of taking the BPA available at #2, they trade down to #10. When they trade down they get something in return right? Like maybe a couple of second round picks? The value of picks from one sport to another varies but that is essentially what the Orioles did here.

So HS kinds shouldn't be part of the draft? College baseball should be outlawed? I'm trying to brainstorm ways to fix this "broken" system.

You mentioned the NFL, do you think NFL teams take the BPA every pick? Do you think that occasionally NLF teams won't take a QB with a top pick since they won't fit into the team's payroll?

So the players having some small degree choice means the system is broken? Also when is the last time a baseball player held out?

When has a GM been "forced" to take a player? That would fall on ownership more than anything. I'm betting Martin signs for less than slot for the second pick.

I've seen all the data on the #2 guy produces this much WAR, the #4 guy has this chance of making the majors. All of that is somewhat useful and mildly interesting. I wonder if being selected say five slots higher has any meaning when the overall scouting grade is the same?

But if one of them had a substantially better shot at making it they'd be graded higher right?

You think a group of guys can all be rated at 50 and still have substantially different likely future values?

I was multi-tasking and got tangled up.

Oh right, sorry I'm distracted. I liked Matzek in 2009. He was who I was talking about before. Got myself twisted up a bit.

Sorry, wrong year, I don't recall who I wanted in 2008. I might not have had a real preference.

He should have tight control over the messaging from the players.

The player I would have picked instead of Hobgood.

My guy from that draft is at 2.8 rWAR.

Just because it failed in this one instance doesn't mean the approach won't work in other situations. Astros had good luck with it. It isn't something I would do much, if at all, but it can work.

Ohh are we piling on Dwight Smith? Let me get my shoes.

I'm pretty sure I was the most vocal about being disappointed with the selection. That being said I loved the Coffey pick and we know how that turned out.