Keith Law hating on the Orioles big time.

[Sports Guy]

Well, to be clear I wasn't critiquing the portion they spent on the 1st pick. I was pointing it out as a huge factor in why their overall spend has been so large.

Regarding the bolded, you are generally correct. The basic reasoning is that the overslotters grabbed in the 2-5th (I'd extend around there, but it stretches into the later single-digits as well) are generally considered signable, but for overslot. When you drop later, you have highly talented prospects whose $ demands are a bit too excessive and less talented prospects whose $ demands are not bank breaking, but generally set bad precedent for future negotiations.

Typing that out, I think 2007 is a bad example of mine as to a draft that could have been improved upon -- the talents added after the fifth round were in all likelihood not game-changing. I think it remains an example of a large draft spend due to an early expenditure. In fact, it is sort of tells a story in and of itself. It is possible to spend big on the draft and still lag some in total talent brought in. 2007 was much more a result of losing picks than failure to spend, I agree.

There is some evidence for the 1st para but not that I know of as in the public realm.

Right...AM wants a pat on the back because of how much they have spent but he doesn't acknowledge that sucking has had his team drafting in the top 5 every year and that becomes expensive.

What I would like to know is if you take away those picks, where do we fall with the rest of the division when it comes to overslot picks and things like that?

I mean, credit to the O's for not going with a cheap signability pick when they drafted Matusz, Machado and Wieters but you have to do a lot more than that.

[Arthur_Bryant]

Right...AM wants a pat on the back because of how much they have spent but he doesn't acknowledge that sucking has had his team drafting in the top 5 every year and that becomes expensive.

What I would like to know is if you take away those picks, where do we fall with the rest of the division when it comes to overslot picks and things like that?

I mean, credit to the O's for not going with a cheap signability pick when they drafted Matusz, Machado and Wieters but you have to do a lot more than that.

Actually, Matusz was not an overslot pick. IIRC he signed for slot, or close to slot, but he did get a major league contract.

[Oriolidae85]

For the Record, Law was more against the Orioles signing Uehara (insider article).

Saying (in the comments section) $5M dollars was better spent on a more proven SP...hah! I like some of the posters points in the comment section more than his.

But I did like reading this article of Law (I remember it being discussed on OH last year)

I don't see Gonzalez making a huge difference for the Orioles in 2010, since contention is close to out of the question next year -- but they're going to be a dark horse in 2011 as their young starters gain experience, more kids like Josh Bell and maybe Brandon Snyder arrive, and Matt Wieters unleashes hellfire on the American League. At this point, having a premium late-game reliever would make more sense, both in baseball and financial terms.

(insider article)

What a year a difference makes

[carolinaoriole]

For the Record, Law was more against the Orioles signing Uehara (insider article).

Saying (in the comments section) $5M dollars was better spent on a more proven SP...hah! I like some of the posters points in the comment section more than his.

But I did like reading this article of Law (I remember it being discussed on OH last year)

(insider article)

What a year a difference makes

I think he forgot that he said that. It would be interesting to ask him to comment on what he thinks of thoughts of that nature, and then reveal to him who wrote them.

[srock]

The Keith Law interview is being posted in its entirety.

Part 1.

How can the Orioles get better and get more draft picks if they don't sign talent that can be traded or that might bring in compensation picks? That's what I'm saying, Mr. Law.

His points about the lack of international signing is perfectly cromulent.

[Lateralus]

The Keith Law interview is being posted in its entirety.

Part 1.

How can the Orioles get better and get more draft picks if they don't sign talent that can be traded or that might bring in compensation picks? That's what I'm saying, Mr. Law.

His points about the lack of international signing is perfectly cromulent.

Yes, he's embiggened that role with his cromulent performance.

[hoosiers]

2) A large part of Baltimore's draft spend has been on expensive 1st Rounders (e.g. $5.25M on Machado for over half of draft spend, $6M on Weiters for over 80% of total draft spend). 2009 was buoyed by Ohman/Coffey bonuses, which were headscratchers for most in industry. 2008 was a solid spend, and not surprisingly one of the better draft classes in Jordan's era.

Are you sure of this claim (especially since it is brought up so much and since Wieters and Arrieta were drafted before AM arrived) ..... that increases in Bmore's draft spend are isolated to the expensive first rounders?

What is the spend within the division in the draft after the fifth round since AM took over? How many overslots per team with signing bonuses above $500k, above $250k and above $100k?

AM has been here for three drafts and I am pretty sure that such signings have increased dramatically compared with the three drafts before that. It would not surprise me if the Os have generally caught up with or passed the Jays or Rays in this time frame.

[srock]

Part 2 of the interview in all of its infamy.

[Stotle]

Are you sure of this claim (especially since it is brought up so much and since Wieters and Arrieta were drafted before AM arrived) ..... that increases in Bmore's draft spend are isolated to the expensive first rounders?

What is the spend within the division in the draft after the fifth round since AM took over? How many overslots per team with signing bonuses above $500k, above $250k and above $100k?

AM has been here for three drafts and I am pretty sure that such signings have increased dramatically compared with the three drafts before that. It would not surprise me if the Os have generally caught up with or passed the Jays or Rays in this time frame.

I'm not sure how you made the leap from "a large percentage of BAL's draft spend has been on their first rounder" to "they are solely increasing spending with expensive first rounders". Especially considering the post you quote points to overslot spending in the later rounds like Ohlman/Coffey.

Toronto's front office has one draft under its belt and it was an atypical draft with lots of extra picks. Not sure what you're looking for in comparing BAL's draft (1st, 3rd, 4th Rd) vs Toronto's (1st, Sup-1st, Sup-1st, Sup-1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, Sup-3rd, 4th Rd) or even Tampa's (1st, 1st, Sup-1st, 2nd, 2nd, 4th Rd).

Whatever your looking for, this info is all available on the web. I don't feel like tallying various forms of overslot bonuses to prove a point I 1) don't really understand, and 2) never made in the first place.

[hoosiers]

Ha ha. Great stuff, Stotle. Next time, as a little courtesy, if you are going to quote me, please use the actual quote and do not insert words I did not include in my post. Thanks.

_________________________________________________

Anyway, let's review the following assertion that has been made several times:

A large part of Baltimore's draft spend has been on expensive 1st Rounders (e.g. $5.25M on Machado for over half of draft spend, $6M on Weiters for over 80% of total draft spend).

In the three drafts performed with Andy MacPhail as GM, the first rounders drafted were Matusz, Hobgood and Machado - signing bonuses of $3.2M, $2.4M and $5.25M respectively. These bonuses total approx $10.9M and average $3.6M.

In the three drafts performed prior to AM arriving, the first rounders were Snyder, Rowell and Wieters - signging bonuses of $1.7M, $2.1M and $6.0M. These bonuses total approx $9.8M and average $3.3M (rounding).

The difference in these bonuses averages just over $350k and 10%. Edit - 11%.

The increase in draft spend under Andy MacPhail has not been driven by higher spend on first rounders. That is not a "huge" factor so let's stop hinting to the board that it has been.

[Stotle]

Ha ha. Great stuff, Stotle. Next time, as a little courtesy, if you are going to quote me, please use the actual quote and do not insert words I did not include in my post. Thanks.

_________________________________________________

Anyway, let's review the following assertion that has been made several times:

In the three drafts performed with Andy MacPhail as GM, the first rounders drafted were Matusz, Hobgood and Machado - signing bonuses of $3.2M, $2.4M and $5.25M respectively. These bonuses total approx $10.9M and average $3.6M.

In the three drafts performed prior to AM arriving, the first rounders were Snyder, Rowell and Wieters - signging bonuses of $1.7M, $2.1M and $6.0M. These bonuses total approx $9.8M and average $3.3M (rounding).

The difference in these bonuses averages just over $350k and 10%. Edit - 11%.

The increase in draft spend under Andy MacPhail has not been driven by higher spend on first rounders. That is not a "huge" factor so let's stop hinting to the board that it has been.

I didn't say anything about an increase being attributed to the 1st round. I only commented on total draft spend.

:-/

Did you look up the total number of overslot signings, since that seemed important? I'm interested to know what you find.

I know your "thing" is to protect BAL's draft strategies, but the fact is it's been an uneven strategy applied in some questionable ways (at times). In some years the overslot has been significant when grabbing later talent. In others it has not. In the "significant" years, there have been questionable spends like Coffey/Ohlman.

It's impressive to understand a process and "get" the intricacies -- which I think you clearly do. But it's also okay to question whether that process is a good one, which I think you don't like to do.

I completely agree that the "total" draft spend for BAL has been good. But it is no where close to "enough" if you are talking about keeping up with BOS/NYA/TOR in bringing in amateur talent, and TAM appears to simply scout better, so their results have been better despite not outspending BAL.

[Stotle]

Ha ha. Great stuff, Stotle. Next time, as a little courtesy, if you are going to quote me, please use the actual quote and do not insert words I did not include in my post. Thanks.

Wait, what? I just saw this. Are you being serious? You said "isolated" to expensive first rounders and I said "solely" increasing with expensive first rounders.

THAT is what you are upset about? Decaf......decaf.....

[SrMeowMeow]

I completely agree that the "total" draft spend for BAL has been good. But it is no where close to "enough" if you are talking about keeping up with BOS/NYA/TOR in bringing in amateur talent, and TAM appears to simply scout better, so their results have been better despite not outspending BAL.

I don't think we have a big enough sample size to make that claim. Prospects are so random.

[mapierce]

I mean, credit to the O's for not going with a cheap signability pick when they drafted Matusz, Machado and Wieters but you have to do a lot more than that.

Exactly. It would be nice to actually sign some top Latin American talent to supplement our draft signings.

[hoosiers]

Wait, what? I just saw this. Are you being serious? You said "isolated" to expensive first rounders and I said "solely" increasing with expensive first rounders.

THAT is what you are upset about? Decaf......decaf.....

Are you serious you are unable to quote someone appropriately? Really? What a trip you are.