O's to take Archie Bradley? Nope, Dylan Bundy!

[allstar1579]

Is Jungmann going to be a tough sign?

How can they be worried about signability? There is a good chance that the new CBA will have a hard slotting system next year..This is the last year for these guys to get good money..The Orioles will have the leverage.

Tell me they aren't this stupid?

You have to wonder what the impact of signing guys like Vlad is on this?

I don't think he will be, haven't heard anything crazy about demands, my gut says easiest in the top 8 or so guys.

I wish I knew, I've been hoping it's just posturing to use in negotiations with their real target, but even then it doesn't make much sense. I'm afraid they are going to give us the ol' "we went cheaper in the first to spend more money later" excuse, which would make sense if they had more draft picks, but they don't. I'll accept that from the Rays or Red Sox even, not a team with 1 pick in each round.

All I know is they spent roughly 75% of their draft budget signing Vlad for one year, which is also stupid if you are going to nickel and dime later.

I mean for comparison's sake they could have thrown $8m-10m at Cole instead of Hobgood and dared him to walk away from it. What is the difference between the two picks you ask? Mike Gonzalez and getting back a 2nd round draft pick last year.

[allstar1579]

I can't imagine he'd be an easier sign. They still have to talk him into not playing football at Oklahoma. I think it's much more a poor evaluation, which frankly is equally as troubling.

The only thing that almost makes sense is that they can spread out the bonus with Archie or Starling. But even then, that's a stretch. Just screams like they are nickel and diming the area that got them into this non-competition mess in the first place. I'm hoping this is all just a moot point in a few hours, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried.

[J.D.]

The only thing that almost makes sense is that they can spread out the bonus with Archie or Starling. But even then, that's a stretch. Just screams like they are nickel and diming the area that got them into this non-competition mess in the first place. I'm hoping this is all just a moot point in a few hours, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried.

I'm just saying that it's entirely plausible that they just like Bradley more than Bundy at this point. I'm not saying that they're correct, but it's plausible. Or they could like them equally, and logic would state that if you like two players equally you go with the easier of the two to sign.

I don't assume to know what they're thinking, specifically. I just know that Bradley over Bundy would be a mistake, in particular for THIS organization. They should be taking Bundy, Starling, or Hultzen if Cole and Rendon are off the board.

[J.D.]

For the record, from the world of Twitter:

@keithlaw: "Come on. Nothing in common but HS. RT @emanskisheroes: @keithlaw Bradley over Bundy/Hultzen = Hobgood Part II?"

[allstar1579]

I'm just saying that it's entirely plausible that they just like Bradley more than Bundy at this point. I'm not saying that they're correct, but it's plausible. Or they could like them equally, and logic would state that if you like two players equally you go with the easier of the two to sign.

I don't assume to know what they're thinking, specifically. I just know that Bradley over Bundy would be a mistake, in particular for THIS organization. They should be taking Bundy, Starling, or Hultzen if Cole and Rendon are off the board.

But that would be assuming that there are no other players available to draft. If you are ONLY limiting yourself to either college or HS players in a draft you have no business running a draft. I can accept the possibility they could like him more than Bundy (although I'd almost call that stupid) but there's no way I believe they like him more than Bundy, Hultzen, Bauer, Jungmann, Gray, J. Bradley, Barnes etc.

I dunno, maybe I'm ranting more than evaluating, just Bradley even in the convo at #4 screams signability pick which is a DUMB move for this org., no matter WHO they draft later.

[Sports Guy]

I'm just saying that it's entirely plausible that they just like Bradley more than Bundy at this point. I'm not saying that they're correct, but it's plausible. Or they could like them equally, and logic would state that if you like two players equally you go with the easier of the two to sign.

I don't assume to know what they're thinking, specifically. I just know that Bradley over Bundy would be a mistake, in particular for THIS organization. They should be taking Bundy, Starling, or Hultzen if Cole and Rendon are off the board.

Which also says they are stupid.

[Roll Tide]

For the record, from the world of Twitter:

@keithlaw: "Come on. Nothing in common but HS. RT @emanskisheroes: @keithlaw Bradley over Bundy/Hultzen = Hobgood Part II?"

:rofl: This would just be pathetic....They havent learned their lesson from last season. Jordan should resign immediately and blame the penny pinching Angelos and MacPhail for these bad first round picks.

[RVAbird]

I said last night that they'd had discussions with Bradley re: cost. Mentioned he was second HS P on the board. If Bundy goes to ARI, he's a serious consider.

I think the nat'l media is running with it a little, but he's in the mix.

And BTW, this is NOT a Hobgood pick. Nowhere close.

[HokieOs]

Seriously... if we sign Bradley, EVERYONE involved should immediately resign. He isn't THAT much easier to sign than the other guys and he's a very risky pick. This doesn't look as bad as a Hobgood move... but there's a reason NOONE else has Bradley ahead of the other guys.... Nickel and diming on draft picks is the way to completely kill what's left of an organization.... but with Hobgood, there's already a precedent.

Sigh.

[RVAbird]

:rofl: This would just be pathetic....They havent learned their lesson from last season. Jordan should resign immediately and blame the penny pinching Angelos and MacPhail for these bad first round picks.

Did you not read the part where Law said "Come on. Nothing in common but HS?"

[allstar1579]

For the record, from the world of Twitter:

@keithlaw: "Come on. Nothing in common but HS. RT @emanskisheroes: @keithlaw Bradley over Bundy/Hultzen = Hobgood Part II?"

Yeah that's why I don't want to make the comparison between the two, but from an overdraft perspective it actually isn't THAT far off. Hobgood was a 15-20 guy, and Bradley is a 10-12 guy. I guess it depends on who's board, but there was similar hype for Hobgood the day of the draft (people saying he was hitting 98mph, with a hammer curve were the exact words) which ironically is how I've seen Bradley described today, so for him to say NOTHING in common is a bit of a stretch.

[Hank Scorpio]

For the record, from the world of Twitter:

@keithlaw: "Come on. Nothing in common but HS. RT @emanskisheroes: @keithlaw Bradley over Bundy/Hultzen = Hobgood Part II?"

Meaning Bradley >>>>>> Hobgood?

Well, those who like Keith Law should feel moderately placated by this.

[hoosiers]

Bradley is a top prospect - just not considered by experts on the small platform of the "super-elite".

I would be surprised if we pass on Hultzen given the opportunity, but there is plenty of projectability with Bradley.

I will remind folks in 2002 who we were wanting Loewen and were mocking those who mentioned Saunders, Francis and Fielder in the sense that those were not elite folks.

Frankly, I could care less of the "expert" opinions. Let our scouting director do his job and take his guy.

[Sports Guy]

I said last night that they'd had discussions with Bradley re: cost. Mentioned he was second HS P on the board. If Bundy goes to ARI, he's a serious consider.

I think the nat'l media is running with it a little, but he's in the mix.

And BTW, this is NOT a Hobgood pick. Nowhere close.

He may be more talented than Hobgood but in this draft, the pick is just as bad IMO.

[Fan4Life]

For the record, from the world of Twitter:

@keithlaw: "Come on. Nothing in common but HS. RT @emanskisheroes: @keithlaw Bradley over Bundy/Hultzen = Hobgood Part II?"

Does anyone think the Buck isn't detailed oriented enough to determine whether this organization is committed to winning or first committed to financial prosperity? Does anyone think Buck believes this team can be a factor in the division while passing on top tier talent due to finances? For those of you who believe Buck isn't at all involved or concerned about what happens in the draft, why do you think he accepted this job if there was no commitment to winning?