Loving the bullpen arms

[SrMeowMeow]

I agree that us having high overall spending doesn't mean that we're as dedicated to going over slot or paying whatever it takes, but we do have to get a little credit for spending a lot of money. Not a lot of credit, but a little credit. At least we don't go cheap on our first rounders (usually).

[Sports Guy]

I agree that us having high overall spending doesn't mean that we're as dedicated to going over slot or paying whatever it takes, but we do have to get a little credit for spending a lot of money. Not a lot of credit, but a little credit. At least we don't go cheap on our first rounders (usually).

Yep..This is true and its not fair to the Orioles for us fans to overlook that fact.

[Frobby]

Yep..This is true and its not fair to the Orioles for us fans to overlook that fact.

OK, that's all I was really saying. I wish we could find a way to get some 1s picks and really go to town. Right now, I'm not sure any of Lee, Hardy, Vlad or Koji will be a Type A free agent -- it seems unlikely.

[skanar]

OK, that's all I was really saying. I wish we could find a way to get some 1s picks and really go to town. Right now, I'm not sure any of Lee, Hardy, Vlad or Koji will be a Type A free agent -- it seems unlikely.

Going by the current (May 30 2011) MLBTR rankings, Vlad, Koji, and Hardy are Type As right now. Lee isn't close to Type B. Of course there are a bunch of other things that have to happen even if they qualify.

[Sports Guy]

Going by the current (May 30 2011) MLBTR rankings, Vlad, Koji, and Hardy are Type As right now. Lee isn't close to Type B. Of course there are a bunch of other things that have to happen even if they qualify.

Vladdy will not likely turn down arbitration.

Koji has an option for 2012, so now arb eligible unless it is in his contract.

Maybe we can get something for HArdy but hopefully he is extended or traded first.

[SrMeowMeow]

I really don't understand why going overslot consistently isn't a no-brainer. If we could trade our 2nd rounder for another 1st rounder, we would, right? And it'd be a huge win even if we picked a signable first rounder for slot money with that pick. Why isn't going overslot basically the same thing?

[Stotle]

I really don't understand why going overslot consistently isn't a no-brainer. If we could trade our 2nd rounder for another 1st rounder, we would, right? And it'd be a huge win even if we picked a signable first rounder for slot money with that pick. Why isn't going overslot basically the same thing?

It is. The only reason I see (and I think there is some legitimacy to this viewpoint) is that when you pay X dollars for a player you potentially establish that floor for similar talent in future years.

[JayThomas]

It really does seem to come down to money. As others have mentioned, it's hard to imagine that JJ has been picking the BPA in rounds 2-5 for years. I know he says he's not constrained and he can pick whom he wants but that's just hard to believe.

SG has to be right about the baseball budget. There's no way that PA isn't keeping the cost side fixed at some limit - and if he is then what gets spent on the major league team comes at the expense of the other facets, including the draft. (And) remember that we seem to have been spending some $ on the spring training complex too. That's got to be coming out of somewhere.

I wish that the first round could be treated outside the rest of the draft budget. I would think that you would always want to get your first rounder signed. If you sucked enough the previous year to have access to really high cost talent in the draft, then you should spend it to fix yourselves and not hamper your budget for the rest of the draft. It does seem like JJ did not go for the top talent available rounds 2-5, and it seems likely that's because he was working within a framework of (overall draft budget) - (whatever it'll take to sign Bundy) for the rest of the draft. It seemed like he was operating that way when he signed Hobgood and went overslot a lot in the later rounds.

[Frobby]

I really don't understand why going overslot consistently isn't a no-brainer. If we could trade our 2nd rounder for another 1st rounder, we would, right? And it'd be a huge win even if we picked a signable first rounder for slot money with that pick. Why isn't going overslot basically the same thing?

It is a matter of whether you are likely to get a good return on your investment. Just because a guy won't sign unless he is paid overslot money doesn't mean he is worth it. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Let's say it's the second round and there is a guy available who would have been picked about 40th based on pure talent, but he wanted a $2 mm signing bonus or he wasn't going to sign, so he was passed over. You now have a chance to pick him, knowing he won't sign unless you pay him $2 mm. Meanwhile, there is some other guy who you have ranked 50th on your board, who you know is willing to sign for $750,000. Is the difference between the 40th and 50th best players availabe worth $1.25 mm? You have to consider that the no. 40 pick normally has about a 40% chance of making the majors, and the average career WAR is in the range of 2.5-3.0. The average no. 50 pick is only marginally less likely to make the majors and the average WAR is maybe 0.2 less. So, is that worth an extra $1.25 mm? (Obviously, you can play with where you think the talent level of the overslot guy is versus the slot guy, and the results will be a bit different, but this is the kind of analysis that you have to conduct.)

[SrMeowMeow]

It is a matter of whether you are likely to get a good return on your investment. Just because a guy won't sign unless he is paid overslot money doesn't mean he is worth it. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Let's say it's the second round and there is a guy available who would have been picked about 40th based on pure talent, but he wanted a $2 mm signing bonus or he wasn't going to sign, so he was passed over. You now have a chance to pick him, knowing he won't sign unless you pay him $2 mm. Meanwhile, there is some other guy who you have ranked 50th on your board, who you know is willing to sign for $750,000. Is the difference between the 40th and 50th best players availabe worth $1.25 mm? You have to consider that the no. 40 pick normally has about a 40% chance of making the majors, and the average career WAR is in the range of 2.5-3.0. The average no. 50 pick is only marginally less likely to make the majors and the average WAR is maybe 0.2 less. So, is that worth an extra $1.25 mm? (Obviously, you can play with where you think the talent level of the overslot guy is versus the slot guy, and the results will be a bit different, but this is the kind of analysis that you have to conduct.)

I don't think values are close enough for that analysis to be worthwhile. If they were, that would imply that it would often be smart to draft a 2nd round talent with a 1st round pick to save that marginal value, and I don't think that's the case. This isn't football where the #1 pick gets a 50M guaranteed contract (or whatever, I don't know anything about football ). So in theory you're right but in practice I don't think it's very relevant. And the dagger is that the draft is still so incredibly cost-effective that even overpaying a draftee in relation to slot is still going to be good value for the team long-term (on average of course, but that doesn't weaken the statement in any way).

[Stotle]

I don't think values are close enough for that analysis to be worthwhile. If they were, that would imply that it would often be smart to draft a 2nd round talent with a 1st round pick to save that marginal value, and I don't think that's the case. This isn't football where the #1 pick gets a 50M guaranteed contract (or whatever, I don't know anything about football ). So in theory you're right but in practice I don't think it's very relevant. And the dagger is that the draft is still so incredibly cost-effective that even overpaying a draftee in relation to slot is still going to be good value for the team long-term (on average of course, but that doesn't weaken the statement in any way).

I think Frobby's "slot" usage is incorrect (most likely you are talking about talents split further than 10 spots -- which to me is essentially the same talent in most cases by the 2nd round), but the analysis seems sound. Look at Esposito and Delmonico. Let's say Esposito is asking for around slot (fringe 7-figures) and Delmonico is asking for $2MM. I had Delmonico listed ahead of Esposito because of the upside in his bat. At the same time, Esposito is a much higher probability player -- solid to good defender at 3b already and has put up solid numbers at a competitive college program.

Who do you take? The upside says Delmonico is probably worth more than Esposito, but is he worth around $1MM more? Baltimore listed both as third basemen, but Esposito was the name they called in the 2nd Round. I imagine a lot of that is due to asking price and a much higher probability (floor).

[SrMeowMeow]

I think Frobby's "slot" usage is incorrect (most likely you are talking about talents split further than 10 spots -- which to me is essentially the same talent in most cases by the 2nd round), but the analysis seems sound. Look at Esposito and Delmonico. Let's say Esposito is asking for around slot (fringe 7-figures) and Delmonico is asking for $2MM. I had Delmonico listed ahead of Esposito because of the upside in his bat. At the same time, Esposito is a much higher probability player -- solid to good defender at 3b already and has put up solid numbers at a competitive college program.

Who do you take? The upside says Delmonico is probably worth more than Esposito, but is he worth around $1MM more? Baltimore listed both as third basemen, but Esposito was the name they called in the 2nd Round. I imagine a lot of that is due to asking price and a much higher probability (floor).

The historical evidence suggests that teams would rather pick a player valued at 2M and sign them for 2M in the first round than pick a player valued at 1M and sign them for 400k. I know I would be really upset if the Orioles chose the latter option. The draft is such good value anyway that it's better to spend as much as you can at market prices than to hunt for surplus value.

As an analogy, say I find a guy selling his collection of rare stamps and he has no idea how valuable they are, so they're all priced at 50% of their value (on average; individual stamps vary). The "value" move would be to look for bargains within that context - buy the stamps he's selling for 20% and avoid the ones he's selling at 80% - but the actual correct move is to spend as much of your money as you can on his stamps. Ideally you'd have enough money to buy them all. And you'd make more money buying a five dollar stamp for $3.50 than a one dollar stamp for one cent, and it would actually be the better choice in a situation where you had a limited number of buys (say, a draft ).

[Stotle]

The historical evidence suggests that teams would rather pick a player valued at 2M and sign them for 2M in the first round than pick a player valued at 1M and sign them for 400k. I know I would be really upset if the Orioles chose the latter option. The draft is such good value anyway that it's better to spend as much as you can at market prices than to hunt for surplus value.

As an analogy, say I find a guy selling his collection of rare stamps and he has no idea how valuable they are, so they're all priced at 50% of their value (on average; individual stamps vary). The "value" move would be to look for bargains within that context - buy the stamps he's selling for 20% and avoid the ones he's selling at 80% - but the actual correct move is to spend as much of your money as you can on his stamps. Ideally you'd have enough money to buy them all. And you'd make more money buying a five dollar stamp for $3.50 than a one dollar stamp for one cent, and it would actually be the better choice in a situation where you had a limited number of buys (say, a draft ).

I don't think this is correct. In this instance we are talking about a 6th round slot used to grab someone who's asking price is out of whack from his talent level. The question is whether or not it makes sense to sign him. What you are choosing between in the 6th round is maybe a $150K talent for $150K or an $800K talent for $2M.

In Frobby's example, he's talking about a set slot -- say the second round -- and deciding whether to take the slightly better talent for $2M or the slightly lesser talent (say 85% the talent) for half the cost. This is the analysis I'd assume almost every team utilizes when they are seperating a pick from a cluster of options.

[SrMeowMeow]

I don't think this is correct. In this instance we are talking about a 6th round slot used to grab someone who's asking price is out of whack from his talent level. The question is whether or not it makes sense to sign him. What you are choosing between in the 6th round is maybe a $150K talent for $150K or an $800K talent for $2M.

In Frobby's example, he's talking about a set slot -- say the second round -- and deciding whether to take the slightly better talent for $2M or the slightly lesser talent (say 85% the talent) for half the cost. This is the analysis I'd assume almost every team utilizes when they are seperating a pick from a cluster of options.

It all depends on how good a deal you think the draft is as a whole. If you think money spent on the draft comes back tenfold, you should obviously spend the higher bonus. If you think the current draft market is fair, you should (probably) take the better value prospect (the worse one). I definitely don't think the current draft market is fair. I think even the most overpaid draftee is money better spent than on market value contracts. Therefore, my analysis stands.

[Stotle]

It all depends on how good a deal you think the draft is as a whole. If you think money spent on the draft comes back tenfold, you should obviously spend the higher bonus. If you think the current draft market is fair, you should (probably) take the better value prospect (the worse one). I definitely don't think the current draft market is fair. I think even the most overpaid draftee is money better spent than on market value contracts. Therefore, my analysis stands.

I don't even understand what point you are trying to make now, so I'll just leave well enough alone now...