Joe Jordan on Hobgood's selection: "I am due scrutiny on that."

[Sports Guy]

Part 2 is up:

Sounds like there was a strict overall draft budget, which contributed to Hobgood's being chosen.

Which is what I have always thought.

I think PA allowed him to spend a certain amount of money and he just tried to work within that budget.

[Bradysburns]

I'm 30 years old, and you put 4 million in my bank account....there's gonna be some stupid decisions being made.

I agree with your post, I'm just saying....age is only slightly relevant

At 30, I might have made a stupid decision to buy Microsoft stock instead of Apple. At 19, I would have made the stupid decision to buy a new Lamborghini and a whole lotta hookers and donuts and beer... and have Snoop Dogg play my Labor Day house party.

Still, there seems to be a question of motivation with Hobgood. And regardless, Joe can't write that off just on the prospect. Because it was his job in the first place to evaluate the character of the player, and then manage him properly. But JJ seemed to allude to that. I give him props for owning up to this apparently flawed draft decision, and non follow-up.

What's so SO frustrating is that we're trying to build our team with young pitching. We're told: We can't sign pricey hitters. We won't sign pricey pitchers. We'll build through young pitching and the draft and an occasional bargain bat. Then we screw the pooch on the ONE key area of our whole plan: drafting pitching.

And we only get one shot a year at a top draft pick. So to think: we now have to wait a year for another chance is maddening.

[TonySoprano]

Who even cares? Hobgood isn't performing very well by any measure. He's not showing the velocity he had in high school, he's been out of shape, and now he has a shoulder issue (and he may have had that issue all along, I think). None of that relates to whether he was a "value pick." Even if he'd been drafted in the latter half of the first round, as many expected, his performance to date would be very disappointing and these issues would be major concerns.

If he had been drafted in the latter half of the first round, his shoulder issues would be some other team's problem. I'm not saying anyone could have foreseen that problem, but the "value pick" issue relates to the decision to sign him.

[LookitsPuck]

So, not only did you reach for Hobgood and waste a top 5 pick(when it is imperative that you "hit" on those picks), you also don't follow up on him enough with his off season conditioning programs?

Wow, this just keeps getting worse and worse.

Athletes are going to do what they want.

Look at Terrell Suggs. Jacko signed a huge contract, then shows up to camp completely out of shape and puts up his worst year of his career.

[Frobby]

If he had been drafted in the latter half of the first round, his shoulder issues would be some other team's problem. I'm not saying anyone could have foreseen that problem, but the "value pick" issue relates to the decision to sign him.

My point is, the problems he is suffering could have been suffered by a pitcher whether drafted in the top 5, or much later. You go see a guy, he's throwing 95 mph, so you pick him. Then he shows up throwing 87-88 mph. That's unrelated to whether he was a value pick.

[Stotle]

My point is, the problems he is suffering could have been suffered by a pitcher whether drafted in the top 5, or much later. You go see a guy, he's throwing 95 mph, so you pick him. Then he shows up throwing 87-88 mph. That's unrelated to whether he was a value pick.

I disagree here. Part of the reason it was a poor pick, even as a value pick (in my opinion), is that there is no projectability with Hobgood. That means what you see as the "now" velocity, etc. isn't likely to get any big natural boosts due to physical growth.

Many, many HS arms see a reduction in stuff as they move to having to pitch more frequently, with more effort, over a longer season. It isn't just the idea of a slow ramp up to build arm strength. It's the fact that you can't simply throw as hard as you want as a pro. Usually you sacrifice some velo to develop more command and you need to put more physical effort into executing pitches against better competition.

When you remove projectability from a HS draftee, you are removing a weapon he has to fight against all those things listed in the paragraph above. A more projectable kid is going to face the same hurdles, but he's equipped with nature, that could be providing additional strength, velo, etc. as he continues to grow and mature.

If you are going to go with a "safe" pick, and you have an entire draft class to choose from (save four kids), I'd be willing to bet that the correct move is almost certainly not a non-projectable right-handed HS pitcher (regardless of his "now" stuff). The poor performance of Hobgood is not separate from the idea of him being a safe pick -- it underscores the dubious reasoning behind tabbing Hobgood as a safe pick.

To be clear, I'm not saying all of this is 100% fact. It is some commonly accepted scouting beliefs, mixed with some personal analysis. But I don't think you can remove the motivation behind the pick from the overall analysis. It all matters.

[Arthur_Bryant]

Hindsight is always 20-20, but this is the epitome of why the Orioles haven't gotten out of the cellar in the AL east.

When you're picking that high up in the draft, flat out, you have to get talent. There can't be misses, there can't be 'value' picks... The Yankees, Sox, Phillies -- they can all outbid the Orioles for FA's. The draft is the one area where the Orioles control their own destiny. Drafting Hobgood was inexcusable then, and it's just as bad now. Jordan deserves his fair share of scrutiny. As mentioned earlier in this thread, if Hobgood was truly the BPA -- there's a bigger problem then Hobgood here.

I agree with the substance of your post, but re: the bolded, there will always be misses. It's a crapshoot. You try to get the odds in your favor as much as possible, but if you really want to minimize risk, you just take the best college bat available.

I agree with looking for talent, but the guy I most wanted in that spot (Matzek) has not exactly lit it up so far, though a case could be made that he was in over his head in the Sally League at age 19. I certainly like his chances better than Hobgood's at this point, but Matzek could well cr@p out.

[Ruzious]

Was the selection of Hobgood dictated at all by upper management or made due to any financial constraints?

"No. I had no one telling me to do this because of the money. This was my decision and my decision only. I had the reports on file to justify taking the guy. That's the kind of evaluation we had on him.

"The fact that I did sign him for what I signed him for, gave me the ability to do some things later in the draft. So yeah, that's what I did. But there wasn't anyone anywhere telling me I had to do this because we could sign him for X."

I guess he's not condradicting what he's said before, even if he is throwing in budgetary restraints. I do wish he had been that clear before, though.

[strik3]

I disagree here. Part of the reason it was a poor pick, even as a value pick (in my opinion), is that there is no projectability with Hobgood. That means what you see as the "now" velocity, etc. isn't likely to get any big natural boosts due to physical growth.

Many, many HS arms see a reduction in stuff as they move to having to pitch more frequently, with more effort, over a longer season. It isn't just the idea of a slow ramp up to build arm strength. It's the fact that you can't simply throw as hard as you want as a pro. Usually you sacrifice some velo to develop more command and you need to put more physical effort into executing pitches against better competition.

When you remove projectability from a HS draftee, you are removing a weapon he has to fight against all those things listed in the paragraph above. A more projectable kid is going to face the same hurdles, but he's equipped with nature, that could be providing additional strength, velo, etc. as he continues to grow and mature.

If you are going to go with a "safe" pick, and you have an entire draft class to choose from (save four kids), I'd be willing to bet that the correct move is almost certainly not a non-projectable right-handed HS pitcher (regardless of his "now" stuff). The poor performance of Hobgood is not separate from the idea of him being a safe pick -- it underscores the dubious reasoning behind tabbing Hobgood as a safe pick.

To be clear, I'm not saying all of this is 100% fact. It is some commonly accepted scouting beliefs, mixed with some personal analysis. But I don't think you can remove the motivation behind the pick from the overall analysis. It all matters.

So your basically saying, you have no idea how an OFP on a player is established?

[Stotle]

So your basically saying, you have no idea how an OFP on a player is established?

Putting aside the insulting nature of the question, I know what aspects of a player's skill set are preferred by the Major League organization I scout for. But I'm happy to learn something new from you if you'd share your wisdom.

[Sports Guy]

My Take

1. Jordan went with a strategy. He didn't feel there was much difference between Hobgood and the other HS pitchers. It's possible he even liked Hobgood better than some of the others. Even possible he liked him best. Aside from that, he knew he could sign Hobgood for slot and use the money saved (compared to going for a Matzek) and get one or two extra second round talents (some will debate whether Coffey and Ohlman were 2nd round talents).

2. Even if Hobgood had been a late first round pick or even a supplemental pick, the reported velocity (87-90) would be disappointing and the pick would be getting criticized. Certainly, because he was the 5th overall, it gets magnified.

3. Jordan saw Hobgood sit 92-94 and touch 96-97. You can argue that Hobgood wasn't projectionable but you can't argue that he would have worn down immediately at Bluefield and never reach those numbers. If Hobgood was hitting 92-93 in April and then sitting 87-88 in Augutst, I'd buy the wearing down theory. In this case, I don't buy it. According to all reports, the velocity was never there. Now, are there any logical explanations? One certainly could be the conditioning angle. Another could be the shoulder angle. The one problem I have with the shoulder angle is the use of the word "strain". I'm no doctor but it's hard to believe that a strain will not heal for two years. I'd be more inclined to think he has some small tear in his rotator cuff if it is indeed an injury that is to blame. The fact is that no one really knows why the velocity hasn't been there. Even Jordan admits that it's just speculation.

4. Bottom line. As long as Hobgood has conditioning issues and possible injury, those such as myself, willl use that as an excuse for Jordan, in that he saw the talent and he didn't misjudge the talent itself.

At the same time. Those who hated the pick or hate it now cannot be convinced otherwise until Hobgood peforms as advertised. If by some miracle, Hobgood comes back this year, puts up good numbers, and averages 91-93 mph, will some who were against the pick, recant?

No..because the pick will only be good if he makes it to the bigs and succeeds. So, while a good year in the minors will put him closer to that, being good in Frederick means nothing if he can't continue to follow it up.

The pick will look better if he shows improvement though.

[Hallas]

No..because the pick will only be good if he makes it to the bigs and succeeds. So, while a good year in the minors will put him closer to that, being good in Frederick means nothing if he can't continue to follow it up.

The pick will look better if he shows improvement though.

If he lights it up next year and the year after, putting up 1.95 ERAs and a 6:1 K/BB ratio from Frederick to Norfolk, then blows his arm out and never pitches again, is it Jordan's fault for drafting a failed pitcher, or bad luck for drafting someone that could have succeeded but got hurt?

Just saying... that line of thinking can get harsh and lead to slightly ridiculous conclusions.

[Sports Guy]

If he lights it up next year and the year after, putting up 1.95 ERAs and a 6:1 K/BB ratio from Frederick to Norfolk, then blows his arm out and never pitches again, is it Jordan's fault for drafting a failed pitcher, or bad luck for drafting someone that could have succeeded but got hurt?

Just saying... that line of thinking can get harsh and lead to slightly ridiculous conclusions.

Should he get credit for drafting a guy who does well in the minors and never gets to the majors and performs? No, he shouldn't.

Doing well in the minors does us no good.

I wouldn't draft a HS pitcher, with a top 5-8 pick, unless they were very special and one of the reasons is the injury factor. So yes, it would be his fault in that he took a risk on a pitcher no one else agreed with and, on top of that, he got hurt.

You know, we have heard people say that the Orioles have graduated players and that's why the minors aren't any good....we have also heard that the Rays had a lot of top picks, which allowed them to build a good system.

You know who else has had a lot of top picks over the years? The Orioles....who has drafted smarter and better?

[Ruzious]

My Take

1. Jordan went with a strategy. He didn't feel there was much difference between Hobgood and the other HS pitchers. It's possible he even liked Hobgood better than some of the others. Even possible he liked him best. Aside from that, he knew he could sign Hobgood for slot and use the money saved (compared to going for a Matzek) and get one or two extra second round talents (some will debate whether Coffey and Ohlman were 2nd round talents).

2. Even if Hobgood had been a late first round pick or even a supplemental pick, the reported velocity (87-90) would be disappointing and the pick would be getting criticized. Certainly, because he was the 5th overall, it gets magnified.

3. Jordan saw Hobgood sit 92-94 and touch 96-97. You can argue that Hobgood wasn't projectionable but you can't argue that he would have worn down immediately at Bluefield and never reach those numbers. If Hobgood was hitting 92-93 in April and then sitting 87-88 in Augutst, I'd buy the wearing down theory. In this case, I don't buy it. According to all reports, the velocity was never there. Now, are there any logical explanations? One certainly could be the conditioning angle. Another could be the shoulder angle. The one problem I have with the shoulder angle is the use of the word "strain". I'm no doctor but it's hard to believe that a strain will not heal for two years. I'd be more inclined to think he has some small tear in his rotator cuff if it is indeed an injury that is to blame. The fact is that no one really knows why the velocity hasn't been there. Even Jordan admits that it's just speculation.

4. Bottom line. As long as Hobgood has conditioning issues and possible injury, those such as myself, willl use that as an excuse for Jordan, in that he saw the talent and he didn't misjudge the talent itself.

At the same time. Those who hated the pick or hate it now cannot be convinced otherwise until Hobgood peforms as advertised. If by some miracle, Hobgood comes back this year, puts up good numbers, and averages 91-93 mph, will some who were against the pick, recant?

You're asking others to recant if they're wrong, but you refuse to recant if you're wrong. Conditioning was an issue when they drafted him, so I don't see how you can throw that out. Also, lack of projectibility (or what I would call "upside") on his fastball was an issue when he was drafted - and continues to be - another reason to question the pick.

[Moose Milligan]

Where did I say that? Right now, I feel like we haven't seen Hobgood's real talent, either because of injury or conditioning. If it's determined that Hobgood is healthy and he never shows the stuff in HS, I'll admit that Jordan blew it. Even if Hobgood never regains his stuff for whatever reason, I'll admit that Jordan blew it. As far as admitting I was wrong, I have no problem with that. However, I said from the beginning that Jordan was going out on a limb with the pick. All I'm saying now, is the same thing Jordan is. The final chapters haven't been written yet. Too soon to tell who is right or wrong.

BTW, I don't recall anyone questioning Hobgood's conditioning when we drafted him.

Though I have been tough on Jordan and Hobgood lately, I agree with this. The final chapters have indeed not been written here. While all draft picks are going out on a limb to a certain extent, Hobgood was further out on that limb for being picked at the slot he was picked at, especially when better options were available on the board.

I do recall some people taking his weight into consideration when we drafted him but I don't think anyone worried this much about his overall conditioning.

At any rate, 2011 is a huge season for Hobgood...if it's a repeat of 2010, I think he's probably going to be written off by many.