Nats spend $16.5 million on the draft?!?

[BrunoCherrytown]

I think it's a fallacy to judge a draft purely on dollars spent. Let's say the Orioles were willing to spend $7.5 mm on Bundy, but through shrewd negotiating, Jordan gets him down to $6.2 mm at the final hour. Do the O's get penalized for that?

Now, that said, I do think the O's should have been more aggressive in the early rounds of the draft. We only had one first round pick and no supplementals, so we should have been very aggressive in rounds 2-5.

On its own you could make the fallacy argument for our draft spend...but when you factor in how we underspend in literally every department...and the pathetic condition of our farm system compared to other crappy MLB teams...it's no longer a fallacy.

It's a disease at that point. Angelos and MacPhail are allergic to anything with a big ticket price on it. And the results speak for themselves.

[NCRaven]

On its own you could make the fallacy argument for our draft spend...but when you factor in how we underspend in literally every department...and the pathetic condition of our farm system compared to other crappy MLB teams...it's no longer a fallacy.

It's a disease at that point. Angelos and MacPhail are allergic to anything with a big ticket price on it. And the results speak for themselves.

The Orioles problem isn't the money they spend but how they spend it. ML payroll is in the middle of the pack and money spent in the amatuer draft has been near the top of baseball. But where they spend it, ie. relievers, washed up DH's/1B, and don't spend it is the problem.

[BrunoCherrytown]

The Orioles problem isn't the money they spend but how they spend it. ML payroll is in the middle of the pack and money spent in the amatuer draft has been near the top of baseball. But where they spend it, ie. relievers, washed up DH's/1B, and don't spend it is the problem.

After you take that annual top 5, first round pick out of the spend do you still think the Orioles spend in the top of baseball? They are #11 this year in draft spending even with Bundy in the fold. So no international budget, #11 draft budget, and Vlads and DLees as our big ticket FA signings...all in all a recipe for present and future failure.

[Stotle]

After you take that annual top 5, first round pick out of the spend do you still think the Orioles spend in the top of baseball? They are #11 this year in draft spending even with Bundy in the fold. So no international budget, #11 draft budget, and Vlads and DLees as our big ticket FA signings...all in all a recipe for present and future failure.

The issue this year, for me, was going to safe early on. The team shouldn't be penalized for getting Bundy on the cheap. The same, looking at what almost everyone else in the division had in terms of number of picks, I think it might have been well advised for Baltimore to go big for their first 4-5 picks.

[hoosiers]

Definitely-most of baseball disagrees with you on this. If unproven 16 year old kids from the Dominican Republic are getting 5 million-and there are players that are getting this that do not grade out as first round talents if they were in the draft-that are getting this-then Bell is surely worthy of $5 million. If Bell were a free agent-he would have gotten more. I understand that he got a bigger bonus than Bundy-but of course Bundy got a major league deal and teams obviously believed Bell's threat of going to college more than they did Bundy's. Based on talent alone-I have read that Bell would have been drafted in the top 15 picks of the draft. The Pirates signing Bell for $5 million was a major coup on their part.

If Bell was a top 15 talent, how does his signing bonus compare to those ranked, say, 10-15?

How many "unproven 16 year olds from the Dom Rep are getting $5M"?

[jcarm]

If Bell was a top 15 talent, how does his signing bonus compare to those ranked, say, 10-15?

How many "unproven 16 year olds from the Dom Rep are getting $5M"?

Nomar Mazara got a $5 million bonus from Texas this year-he was only ranked by BA as the 10 best international player that was eligible to sign this year and not viewed as a first round talent by most scouts from what I understand. The $5 million bonus that Bell received exceeds by a very good margin the bonuses given to the players drafted 10-15. But that is not really the point. Draft position is not the only thing that dictates bonus amounts. Leverage-or really the players willingness to sign is really what is important. Bell had written to all teams telling them that he was heading to Texas. He was reportedly seeking a bonus of $10 million. Due to this he created alot of leverage that he took advantage of. Of course-he was also fortunate enough to get drafted by a team that was willing to give him the $5 million-there were other teams that would have been willing to give him that as well. He would have probably been drafted in the first round if teams had known he would sign for $5 million. IMO-Toronto should have gone ahead and paid Beede the $3.5 million that he was asking to sign. I believe Bell was regarded as a better prospect than Beede.

[SrMeowMeow]

On its own you could make the fallacy argument for our draft spend...but when you factor in how we underspend in literally every department...and the pathetic condition of our farm system compared to other crappy MLB teams...it's no longer a fallacy.

It's a disease at that point. Angelos and MacPhail are allergic to anything with a big ticket price on it. And the results speak for themselves.

A fallacy is a fallacy. Our draft spend was fine this year. Our lack of picks - not as fine. Our international non-spending - inexcusable. But the draft outlay itself was fine.

[BrunoCherrytown]

A fallacy is a fallacy. Our draft spend was fine this year. Our lack of picks - not as fine. Our international non-spending - inexcusable. But the draft outlay itself was fine.

I know we are getting into a semantics issue here, but our dear leader GM has made the draft his lone method for acquiring talent. So coming in #11 in spend and going after a bunch of slot relievers + Esposito and Delmonico was fine?

If we had some semblance of an international program it'd be fine. If we were serious about bidding big for legit free agents, then it would be fine.

But if this is your only bullet you are firing to rebuild the Orioles, I think #11 is pathetic. Especially since on numerous occasions he's pulled out that top spending draft team card to justify his joke of a rebuild program.

If this was the best draft in ages, we should've treated it as such. Ten other teams seem to have treated it a little more seriously. I know some had more picks than us. But to go grab relievers instead of potential impact players seems to have been a misguided move.

From what I read we made nobody's winner or loser's list for the draft. Nice safe middle of the road draft. And that gets you last place in the AL East when it's your only talent acquisition method.

[Stotle]

IMO-Toronto should have gone ahead and paid Beede the $3.5 million that he was asking to sign. I believe Bell was regarded as a better prospect than Beede.

I think your full post was solid. Regarding the above, I don't have issue with Toronto not giving the $3.5 since they signed everyone else up top, including Norris/Comer. Bell vs. Beade, I think you are right that most evaluators viewed Bell as a true 1st Round talent, with Beede splitting evaluators between 1st and Supp-1st Round due to arsenal/projectability.

[jcarm]

I think your full post was solid. Regarding the above, I don't have issue with Toronto not giving the $3.5 since they signed everyone else up top, including Norris/Comer. Bell vs. Beade, I think you are right that most evaluators viewed Bell as a true 1st Round talent, with Beede splitting evaluators between 1st and Supp-1st Round due to arsenal/projectability.

Yeah-Norris I believe was even regarded as a better prospect than Beede by most. Toronto is one of the bigger spenders on the international market(though definitely not the biggest-that seems to be Texas this year). It just surprised me that they would hold the line with Beede.

Here is a question that BA's Jim Callis answered this week about Beede:

Bret (Toronto): If the Jays had given Tyler Beede the $3.5M he asked for, or even met him halfway at $3M, would that have been out of line given the prices similar talent was paid in the draft?

Jim Callis: No. Look at it this way ... If the Jays signed Beede for $3 million, they'd control his salaries in the major leagues for six years (three of which he'd be arbitration-eligible) before he became a free agent. So before he becomes a FA, if he's as good as he's supposed to become, he probably earns around $20 million between his bonus and big league salaries. And if he's that good, he's delivering $60 million or more worth of production. That's a whopping ROI. If he's not that good, he's not making much on top of his bonus in big league salaries. And the Jays obviously though he had a high chance of being that good if they offered him $2.4 million. Not faulting them for drawing a line, but no, $3 million would not have been out of line, especially in this draft market. Remember, too, the bonus is not solely dependent on talent. It's also dependent on leverage, willingness not to sign (Beede obviously was willing) and how much the team values you. http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/chat/2011/2612226.html

Toronto obviously decided to hold the line-which is their right to do.

[hoosiers]

Nomar Mazara got a $5 million bonus from Texas this year-he was only ranked by BA as the 10 best international player that was eligible to sign this year and not viewed as a first round talent by most scouts from what I understand. The $5 million bonus that Bell received exceeds by a very good margin the bonuses given to the players drafted 10-15. But that is not really the point. Draft position is not the only thing that dictates bonus amounts. Leverage-or really the players willingness to sign is really what is important. Bell had written to all teams telling them that he was heading to Texas. He was reportedly seeking a bonus of $10 million. Due to this he created alot of leverage that he took advantage of. Of course-he was also fortunate enough to get drafted by a team that was willing to give him the $5 million-there were other teams that would have been willing to give him that as well. He would have probably been drafted in the first round if teams had known he would sign for $5 million. IMO-Toronto should have gone ahead and paid Beede the $3.5 million that he was asking to sign. I believe Bell was regarded as a better prospect than Beede.

Good for Pittsburgh for paying getting a quality prospect in the system, but I've seen nothing that you have posted that would justify a $5M bonus, or one close to it, relative to the players drafted where you say Bell was rated.

I understand about paying over-slot and over-market, but IMO the story is that these HS kids create a dramatic fiction about wanting to go to college unless someone steps forward and pays a ramson well in excess of market value FOR THE US DRAFT. IMO, these kids do not know the difference between $3M, $4M and $5M. I am sure I will be corrected quickly, but I am not aware of 5 HS prospects that have turned down offers in excess of $2M or $3M to go to college in the past five to 10 years.

I also understand the type of payoff for the team is immense if the player turns out even to be a big league regular or better - as Callis notes the potential ROI. However, that's best case scenario only.

[NCRaven]

The issue this year, for me, was going to safe early on. The team shouldn't be penalized for getting Bundy on the cheap. The same, looking at what almost everyone else in the division had in terms of number of picks, I think it might have been well advised for Baltimore to go big for their first 4-5 picks.

Do you think Jordan went "safe" with those choices on guys like Esposito, Simon, Wright and Taylor because they were cheap? Or that Jordan thought the higher ceiling players available at those spots in the draft presented a higher level of risk than he wanted to accept?

Clearly he wasn't totally risk averse, or cheap, as he showed with the Delmonico pick. Everyone knew Delmonico wanted mid-late first round money and would be a tough sign at #6. Jordan took him and signed him anyway. In the end, if Simon makes it to Baltimore's bullpen and becomes a solid contributor by 2013 and Delmonico never shows up, both possible, which was the better pick?

[jcarm]

Good for Pittsburgh for paying getting a quality prospect in the system, but I've seen nothing that you have posted that would justify a $5M bonus, or one close to it, relative to the players drafted where you say Bell was rated.

I understand about paying over-slot and over-market, but IMO the story is that these HS kids create a dramatic fiction about wanting to go to college unless someone steps forward and pays a ramson well in excess of market value FOR THE US DRAFT. IMO, these kids do not know the difference between $3M, $4M and $5M. I am sure I will be corrected quickly, but I am not aware of 5 HS prospects that have turned down offers in excess of $2M or $3M to go to college in the past five to 10 years.

I also understand the type of payoff for the team is immense if the player turns out even to be a big league regular or better - as Callis notes the potential ROI. However, that's best case scenario only.

Whether you feel or not whether the bonus was justified-obviously Pittsburgh thought it was and Toronto and Boston would have probably paid it too if they knew he was signable for $5 million. I would think that Washington may have given it to him as well. Pittsburgh was not alone in thinking that the $5 million was justified from what I understand. If this is the case then his talents/leverage did indeed justify the $5 million bonus. I understand you may still not agree-and you are entitled to your opinion.

[Frobby]

I know we are getting into a semantics issue here, but our dear leader GM has made the draft his lone method for acquiring talent. So coming in #11 in spend and going after a bunch of slot relievers + Esposito and Delmonico was fine?

If we had some semblance of an international program it'd be fine. If we were serious about bidding big for legit free agents, then it would be fine.

Overall I agree with your general message. I do wonder if our international efforts are as weak as you think. Our DSL team is doing very well, and our GCL team, which has a lot of Latinos this year, also is doing well. I feel that perhaps there has been progress there even if we haven't made splashy big dollar signings. But, I'm not sure.

[Stotle]

Do you think Jordan went "safe" with those choices on guys like Esposito, Simon, Wright and Taylor because they were cheap? Or that Jordan thought the higher ceiling players available at those spots in the draft presented a higher level of risk than he wanted to accept?

Clearly he wasn't totally risk averse, or cheap, as he showed with the Delmonico pick. Everyone knew Delmonico wanted mid-late first round money and would be a tough sign at #6. Jordan took him and signed him anyway. In the end, if Simon makes it to Baltimore's bullpen and becomes a solid contributor by 2013 and Delmonico never shows up, both possible, which was the better pick?

No, I think Mr. Jordan did a great job constructing a draft class on his budget, spreading risk and making solid selections throughout -- all under the shadow of a potentially expensive pick in Bundy (though it didn't turn out that way).

It is just personal preference that I would have gone more "swing for the fences" through the first 4 or 5 rounds, considering the depth in the draft class (especially HS arms) and the sheer number of picks that the Rays/Jays/Sox had. My preference was sealed at the end of Day 1 when I saw that none of Toronto/Tampa/Boston targeted signability guys in the 1st/Supp-1st, despite having a large number of picks. They were clearly trying to max out on talent in a stacked draft class. That would have pushed me to be as aggressive as possible with only 5 picks in the first five rounds.

Of course, maybe that line of thinking is why Mr. Jordan has the responsibility of running a scouting department and I am submitted reports to my org as an associate scout...