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

[Roll Tide]

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

This guy is no where near the fourth best player in the draft. He isnt in a area of need for the team. If they were reaching for Starling because he is a 5 tool bat guy I'd get it. But this is a selection they could make for all the wrong reasons. Theres no reward for finishing in the bottom handful of teams if you pass on the best players because of money.

[J.D.]

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.

Well, ESPN has Bradley rated as the #5 prospect on their board, ahead of Hultzen, Bauer, Jungmann, Gray, J. Bradley, and Barnes. Their order is Cole, Rendon, Starling, Bundy, Bradley. It's not like they're making some huge reach here like they did with Hobgood. Bradley's a legit top-5 to top-10 talent. My issue is that no matter how it's sliced, they're going to have the ability of a guy rated higher than Bradley, whether that's Bundy, Starling, or Rendon.

I'm not trying to defend their evaluation. I like Bundy much more, and considering his level of polish, I like him much more for the O's in particular considering how poorly they develop pitchers into reaching their ceiling. I just don't think it's strictly signability.

[Sports Guy]

The other issue with this pick would be the money aspect of things...Besides reaching for him, they would likely be drafting him because of money.

What does that say for us? The team continues to piss money away on horrible ML signings, leaving very little for amateur signings.

[clapdiddy]

If we draft Bradley, I'd still take the wait and see approach. It sounds as if he's not that much of a downgrade from Bundy, if at all.

[lovetoaster]

The other issue with this pick would be the money aspect of things...Besides reaching for him, they would likely be drafting him because of money.

I would not be a fan of the pick, but it is not like he would be an easy sign either.

[Mizerooskie]

Which also says they are stupid.

Really?

What advantages do Bauer/Bundy/et al. have over Bradley?

I'd love to hear your personal scouting report, since, you know, any team that apparently favors Bradley over them is "stupid".

[Sports Guy]

I would not be a fan of the pick, but it is not like he would be an easy sign either.

But he would likely be an easier sign than guys like Starling, Bundy and maybe even Hultzen, who has thrown out stupid requests.

But then why not just go get Jungmann or Gray? 2 guys with great upside, could be here soon and likely won't be as difficult signs as those guys either.

[Sports Guy]

Really?

What advantages do Bauer/Bundy/et al. have over Bradley?

I'd love to hear your personal scouting report, since, you know, any team that apparently favors Bradley over them is "stupid".

I am going by what I have heard, the Orioles past and their inability to make smart decisions.

There is just no way Bradley should be that high on their board.

Cole, Rendon, Bundy, Hultzen, Jungmann, Gray, Starling...Even if you want to say that Bradley has a potential higher ceiling than a few of those guys, you can't take him over those players IMO.

Big bonus demands are driving this IMO. It is just too obvious to ignore.

EDIT: I would probably prefer BRadley over the other Bradley and Bauer though.

[baltfan]

If this were the Ravens with their track record, I would be fine with this. But it isn't, would be huge mistake. Only thing supporting this pick would be Jordan lives in and knows Oklahoma. Hard for me to believe he is better than Bundy.

[Roll Tide]

I just dont understand why they wouldnt want to draft a bat when they will likely be able to get 1 of Rendon/Starling. I know Outfield is not a big need ...But we do need positional talent far more than another pitcher.

[DrOrioles90210]

I just dont understand why they wouldnt want to draft a bat when they will likely be able to get 1 of Rendon/Starling. I know Outfield is not a big need ...But we do need positional talent far more than another pitcher.

Because you don't draft for need in baseball.

[JTrea81]

The Orioles can't afford to pooch this pick and if one of Bundy, Starling or Rendon are there, you've got to take one of them.

Bradley is another Rich Stahl, Matt Hobgood, Adam Loewen etc. waiting to happen.

Based on Jordan's comments, I would think this Bradley thing is a smokescreen unless MacPhail stepped in.

[allstar1579]

Well, ESPN has Bradley rated as the #5 prospect on their board, ahead of Hultzen, Bauer, Jungmann, Gray, J. Bradley, and Barnes. Their order is Cole, Rendon, Starling, Bundy, Bradley. It's not like they're making some huge reach here like they did with Hobgood. Bradley's a legit top-5 to top-10 talent. My issue is that no matter how it's sliced, they're going to have the ability of a guy rated higher than Bradley, whether that's Bundy, Starling, or Rendon.

I'm not trying to defend their evaluation. I like Bundy much more, and considering his level of polish, I like him much more for the O's in particular considering how poorly they develop pitchers into reaching their ceiling. I just don't think it's strictly signability.

I just don't really agree with them. I had him outside my top 10 for most of the season. Keep in mind though that the ESPN lists are HEAVILY influenced by Law, who will use inside info and contacts to shape his rankings this time of year. I remember him vaulting Sanchez up higher after he found out PIT was taking him in a signability move.

I could be wrong, that's the nature of these opinion based things, but I just think there is a huge difference between Bundy and Bradley. I'm not a huge Starling fan, but I'd take him 10/10 times ahead of Bradley.

[Mizerooskie]

I am going by what I have heard, the Orioles past and their inability to make smart decisions.

There is just no way Bradley should be that high on their board.

Again, why shouldn't he?

As someone posted above, ESPN has Bradley ranked 5th on their board. The major story line with this draft is how fluid to top part of the draft could be, because the prospects are all so close.

The draft boards of the teams in every major sport are typically vastly different from those of scouting services.

It's just absurd that people love to bash draft picks (even before they're made) when they know nothing beyond what they've read online about them.

[allstar1579]

The Orioles can't afford to pooch this pick and if one of Bundy, Starling or Rendon are there, you've got to take one of them.

Bradley is another Rich Stahl, Matt Hobgood, Adam Loewen etc. waiting to happen.

Maybe, maybe not. He's got potential. My whole problem with him is he has a lot further to go development wise than say Bundy, and the more development room they have the greater the risk, I'm just not willing to gamble so much with the O's pick. He could be a HR pick for someone later, like Shelby Miller, but I liked Miller more than I like Bradley.