Keith Law hating on the Orioles big time.

[Arthur_Bryant]

The cool thing about this is that Vlad took less money to come to Baltimore:rofl:

Except (see above) it isn't true.

Texas declined their option on Vlad.

[Stotle]

I do disagree with this...absolutely and unequivocally. History just doesn't bear it out.

Well, history does show that in the past BAL has had to save money in other departments to open up money to sign draftees in August. It happened at least once under MacPhail when they traded Bradford to Tampa.

I think that goes at least in part against your hardened stance.

[SrMeowMeow]

Well, history does show that in the past BAL has had to save money in other departments to open up money to sign draftees in August. It happened at least once under MacPhail when they traded Bradford to Tampa.

I think that goes at least in part against your hardened stance.

You've used that example before...I don't really buy it. I'm sure at most it was a "we are exceeding our budget, where can we make up the savings", or "Bradford is useless and we might have a chance to overspend, let's get rid of him". It's not like the draft budget was directly affected the moment they signed Bradford and dealing him removed the burden of his contract from the equation. It's just highly unlikely the two budgets aren't compartmentalized. They're certainly not on the same order of magnitude.

I'm trying to track down the relevant data now, but I predict zero correlation between adding payroll in an offseason and spending less on the amateur draft in that season. Do you disagree with that prediction?

[El Gordo]

You've used that example before...I don't really buy it. I'm sure at most it was a "we are exceeding our budget, where can we make up the savings", or "Bradford is useless and we might have a chance to overspend, let's get rid of him". It's not like the draft budget was directly affected the moment they signed Bradford and dealing him removed the burden of his contract from the equation. It's just highly unlikely the two budgets aren't compartmentalized. They're certainly not on the same order of magnitude.

I'm trying to track down the relevant data now, but I predict zero correlation between adding payroll in an offseason and spending less on the amateur draft in that season. Do you disagree with that prediction?

:agree: I think the two budgets are discrete, with discretionary deficit spending on PA's approval.

[El Gordo]

Yes. But I think it's an open question as to whether anyone is going to give up a A/AA level player with good/very good numbers for that level for two or three months of a 36-year-old DH.

Oh I think if Texas wasn't getting much production out of Napoli and Moreland and were in the hunt for the playoffs, they might be happy to give up Robbie Ross for Vlad.

[Stotle]

You've used that example before...I don't really buy it. I'm sure at most it was a "we are exceeding our budget, where can we make up the savings", or "Bradford is useless and we might have a chance to overspend, let's get rid of him". It's not like the draft budget was directly affected the moment they signed Bradford and dealing him removed the burden of his contract from the equation. It's just highly unlikely the two budgets aren't compartmentalized. They're certainly not on the same order of magnitude.

I'm trying to track down the relevant data now, but I predict zero correlation between adding payroll in an offseason and spending less on the amateur draft in that season. Do you disagree with that prediction?

Haha. Well, so long as you "don't buy it" I guess we can ignore it.

I don't disagree with the bolded (I have no reason to agree or disagree), but it seems like a silly exercise. Unless, of course, you are also privy to the books of the organizations you are examining and are also comparing to the inflow of cash and the money spent in any number of other areas. In short, I doubt you have access to the info you need in order to take any sort of meaningful look at the situation, but I'm interested to see what you put together.

In any event, I think you are too black and white with your analysis in this area. I'm wary of any set-in-stone generalities having any sort of utility. I think Bradford is a discrete example of needing to take money from one area and transferring it to another. I don't think it's a regular occurrence, but I think it happens.

[SrMeowMeow]

Haha. Well, so long as you "don't buy it" I guess we can ignore it.

I don't disagree with the bolded (I have no reason to agree or disagree), but it seems like a silly exercise. Unless, of course, you are also privy to the books of the organizations you are examining and are also comparing to the inflow of cash and the money spent in any number of other areas. In short, I doubt you have access to the info you need in order to take any sort of meaningful look at the situation, but I'm interested to see what you put together.

In any event, I think you are too black and white with your analysis in this area. I'm wary of any set-in-stone generalities having any sort of utility. I think Bradford is a discrete example of needing to take money from one area and transferring it to another. I don't think it's a regular occurrence, but I think it happens.

Well, I mean, I explained why I don't buy it. The whole concept just seems silly because the sizes of the two budgets aren't comparable - signing one relatively minor FA (e.g. Vlad) could eclipse the entire draft budget. And one good FA (e.g. Beltre) would dwarf draft expenditures in a way that makes it just absurd to even think about that money coming from the draft in any way.

And I don't see any alternative in analysis to seeking out rules and simplifications. What approach would you suggest instead?

[Stotle]

Well, I mean, I explained why I don't buy it. The whole concept just seems silly because the sizes of the two budgets aren't comparable - signing one relatively minor FA (e.g. Vlad) could eclipse the entire draft budget. And one good FA (e.g. Beltre) would dwarf draft expenditures in a way that makes it just absurd to even think about that money coming from the draft in any way.

And I don't see any alternative in analysis to seeking out rules and simplifications. What approach would you suggest instead?

I think you are over thinking it. BAL wanted to sign a little extra and it was probably okay'd in a "If you can find the money, go for it" kind of way. Had extra money been sitting there, I am sure that would have been used instead.

Some topics aren't capable of being boiled down to a few generalities. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging nuance and intricacies, and saying, "Generally, I don't know. In this specific instance I'd think..."

[SrMeowMeow]

I think you are over thinking it. BAL wanted to sign a little extra and it was probably okay'd in a "If you can find the money, go for it" kind of way. Had extra money been sitting there, I am sure that would have been used instead.

Some topics aren't capable of being boiled down to a few generalities. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging nuance and intricacies, and saying, "Generally, I don't know. In this specific instance I'd think..."

I don't think I'm overthinking it. The context of this thread is "Vlad is a bad signing if he comes at the cost of amateur draft expenditures", and I see no evidence to think that will be the case.

[Stotle]

I don't think I'm overthinking it. The context of this thread is "Vlad is a bad signing if he comes at the cost of amateur draft expenditures", and I see no evidence to think that will be the case.

We weren't talking about Vlad, we were talking about Bradford.

[Stotle]

As a broader statement, the idea isn't that LITERALLY the dollars that went to Vlad would have gone somewhere else. It is a critique of the decision making process that leads to the approval of $8M+ in spending on Vlad but does not okay that spending in other areas (or determines that more does not need to be spent in that area).

I don't know why this particular issue is such a tough one to discuss.

[SrMeowMeow]

As a broader statement, the idea isn't that LITERALLY the dollars that went to Vlad would have gone somewhere else. It is a critique of the decision making process that leads to the approval of $8M+ in spending on Vlad but does not okay that spending in other areas (or determines that more does not need to be spent in that area).

I don't know why this particular issue is such a tough one to discuss.

Because the critique has no basis...we've been consistently in the top third of the league in amateur draft spending the last three years, and, again, there is no evidence that putting money into free agency comes at the expense of the amateur draft budget. I mean, no offense, but if the money isn't literally going from the draft budget to Vlad, what are you even talking about?

Why do you believe that, despite a complete lack of evidence, the O's have displayed a decision-making process that favors putting money into FA at the expense of the draft? I just don't understand where you're getting your position from.

[Can_of_corn]

Because the critique has no basis...we've been consistently in the top third of the league in amateur draft spending the last three years, and, again, there is no evidence that putting money into free agency comes at the expense of the amateur draft budget. I mean, no offense, but if the money isn't literally going from the draft budget to Vlad, what are you even talking about?

Why do you believe that, despite a complete lack of evidence, the O's have displayed a decision-making process that favors putting money into FA at the expense of the draft? I just don't understand where you're getting your position from.

I for one would much rather the 8 million had been invested in young international talent.

Yes the O's have been spending in the draft (a substantial part of that is where they drafting..top 5 talent costs more). They have not been allocating substantial resources to young international talent.

[SrMeowMeow]

I for one would much rather the 8 million had been invested in young international talent.

Yes the O's have been spending in the draft (a substantial part of that is where they drafting..top 5 talent costs more). They have not been allocating substantial resources to young international talent.

Yes, but again...that issue is separate from FA. We just never spend on international talent. That's stupid. But it's not like last year our lower payroll resulted in us spending more internationally.

In a nutshell, there's no evidence that signing Vlad (or whoever) has an impact on what we spend on amateur talent.

[weams]

Yes, but again...that issue is separate from FA. We just never spend on international talent. That's stupid. But it's not like last year our lower payroll resulted in us spending more internationally.

In a nutshell, there's no evidence that signing Vlad (or whoever) has an impact on what we spend on amateur talent.

That is because it doesn't. No matter who thinks it should.