BP's Jonathan Bernhart: O's and Astros will vie for the overall #1 pick for next year

[nadecir]

And the primary reason for rooting for a decent season (near .500) over a truly bad season:

So we don't engage in the same debate that we've had over and over again about whether losing more games is worth the #1 pick in the draft.

This is a debate that we've had at least once per season the last 10 or so seasons.

We usually have a thread that debates the merit of losing a few more games to get the number 1 pick sometime in August or September. Pessimism must be nearing an all time high when we have this debate even before the season starts.

[Singleton]

It can't be a surprise if the O's have the worst record this year. We won 69 games last year and had the 4th worst record. While it can be argued we'll be better, it can certainly be argued the other way. If we see the Matusz of last year, the Hardy of 2009, Markakis struggles to get back, etc. it could easily happen.

As for the other debate, if we'd been a middle road team for a while like ...hmm...the White Sox or maybe the Jays...winning 85 games wouldn't mean that much and could actually distract from the end goal. But as a team that hasn't had a winning record for 14 years, getting to 85 wins would be huge.

[atomic]

Nope. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. No difference between the Red Sox and Orioles last season except the O's pick much higher in the draft this year.

That is nonsensical. My favorite Orioles season was 1982. The comeback and the final game to get into the playoffs. Too bad they didn't make it but it was exciting for sure.

It is much more fun to have meaningful games after June. And having exciting games up to the last game of the season does mean something when deciding whether to attend a game or not.

[DrungoHazewood]

That is nonsensical. My favorite Orioles season was 1982. The comeback and the final game to get into the playoffs. Too bad they didn't make it but it was exciting for sure.

It is much more fun to have meaningful games after June. And having exciting games up to the last game of the season does mean something when deciding whether to attend a game or not.

I actually agree with you on something. Anybody who thinks an 89-win season and a 59-win season are the same look like they just hit the fast sim button on their baseball simulation and only look at the results afterwards. Sure, in OOTP or Mogul or something you could tank five season in a row, pile up draft picks, and by next Tuesday your franchise is rebuilt. In real life not too many people want to punt on their favorite activities for five years.

[allstar1579]

Is that really accurate? Here are the last 10:

Cole

Harper

Strasburg

Beckham

Price

Hochevar

Upton

Bush

Young

Bullington

I can't say that I followed the draft all that closely up until a few years ago. How many of these would you say were "consensus" number ones? I'd say about half. If you look at the 2002-06 group (Bullington, Young, Bush, Upton, Hochevar) you really have only one good player out of the five. I do think there is more value in the no. 1 pick than any other, by a significant margin, but it's not like you are sure to get a superstar there. And it's my impression that, at least right now, there is no consensus no. 1 for the 2012 draft or a clear leader for 2013. But, I don't really follow things all that closely.

Yeah, remember some of those first picks went because the team wasn't necessarily taking the best player, but the one they could or wanted to sign.

2002-Bullington - I can't remember if this was a consensus year or not but I'm pretty sure BJ Upton was higher rated than Bullington.

2003-Young - Non-consensus year, weak draft at the top.

2004-Bush - S. Drew $$ scared them into taking Bush. Weaver was also projected at the top with Verlander in discussion somewhere.

2005-Upton- Very deep draft at the top, a couple of legit #1 options, but I remember Gordon was the one everyone thought was going #1.

2006-Hochevar- Longoria was the guy projected to go #1, he slipped all the way to 3, but I can't remember if it was injury concerns or what.

2007-Price- He was pretty much consensus, but Wieters was in the discussion.

2008-Beckham- Pedro Alvarez was the consensus, but injury concerns with the wrist shook up this year to 4 different players being in the mix.

2009-Strasburg- No brainer year.

2010-Harper- See above.

2011-Cole- Consensus #1 with Rendon in talks most of the year.

I think Appel is a fairly clear leader at this point for this year, but it's still early, the gap should be closed (or he runs away with it) during the couple months leading up to the draft, this is how it goes every year.

[allstar1579]

I actually agree with you on something. Anybody who thinks an 89-win season and a 59-win season are the same look like they just hit the fast sim button on their baseball simulation and only look at the results afterwards. Sure, in OOTP or Mogul or something you could tank five season in a row, pile up draft picks, and by next Tuesday your franchise is rebuilt. In real life not too many people want to punt on their favorite activities for five years.

We've already punted for 15 years trying it the other way.

[allstar1579]

That is nonsensical. My favorite Orioles season was 1982. The comeback and the final game to get into the playoffs. Too bad they didn't make it but it was exciting for sure.

It is much more fun to have meaningful games after June. And having exciting games up to the last game of the season does mean something when deciding whether to attend a game or not.

So finishing upper-middle of the pack and never making the playoffs would make most of the population around here happier than being really bad for a couple years and getting a couple top picks?

Genuinely curious, because I just really don't feel that way.

[atomic]

So finishing upper-middle of the pack and never making the playoffs would make most of the population around here happier than being really bad for a couple years and getting a couple top picks?

Genuinely curious, because I just really don't feel that way.

This is baseball. Top picks gurantee nothing. We already have a bunch of top 5 picks. I would rather have the top pick than the 6th one. But I would rather finish one game out of the playoffs than worst in the league.

[DrungoHazewood]

So finishing upper-middle of the pack and never making the playoffs would make most of the population around here happier than being really bad for a couple years and getting a couple top picks?

Genuinely curious, because I just really don't feel that way.

Absolutely. The O's have shown for 15 years that being bad doesn't get you anywhere. Unless you have a very good organization having draft picks doesn't do anything for you. The last 3-4 years the O's have picked far ahead of the Rays, spent much more on payroll, and still are light years behind them.

If you're an 85-win true talent team, chances are good that you'll make the playoffs sooner or later. Obviously not every year, but sometimes. If you win 55 or 60 games a year you have nothing. You're putting all of your hope and faith in some hypothetical rosy future years and years down the road.

I'll definitely take my chances with the increased attendance, ratings, revenues, and attention an 80-something win team gets over an abysmal team that's impossible to watch but gets to pick BJ Upton.

[DrungoHazewood]

We've already punted for 15 years trying it the other way.

I just don't think you get it. The difference between the Rays and the O's isn't that the Rays got to pick three spots ahead of the Orioles. The last few years has pretty well proven that. The difference is that they have an excellent organization. Throwing in the towel for another five years does nothing to fix that, if anything it makes it harder as more and more LaCava's run in terror from Baltimore.

[allstar1579]

This is baseball. Top picks gurantee nothing. We already have a bunch of top 5 picks. I would rather have the top pick than the 6th one. But I would rather finish one game out of the playoffs than worst in the league.

You can't have it both ways, how can you say you disagree with me but agree with me at the same time?

[Justinlstn]

Is that really accurate? Here are the last 10:

Cole

Harper

Strasburg

Beckham

Price

Hochevar

Upton

Bush

Young

Bullington

I can't say that I followed the draft all that closely up until a few years ago. How many of these would you say were "consensus" number ones? I'd say about half. If you look at the 2002-06 group (Bullington, Young, Bush, Upton, Hochevar) you really have only one good player out of the five. I do think there is more value in the no. 1 pick than any other, by a significant margin, but it's not like you are sure to get a superstar there. And it's my impression that, at least right now, there is no consensus no. 1 for the 2012 draft or a clear leader for 2013. But, I don't really follow things all that closely.

Some of those picks were picked because they were affordable not because they were the best player.

[allstar1579]

Absolutely. The O's have shown for 15 years that being bad doesn't get you anywhere. Unless you have a very good organization having draft picks doesn't do anything for you. The last 3-4 years the O's have picked far ahead of the Rays, spent much more on payroll, and still are light years behind them.

If you're an 85-win true talent team, chances are good that you'll make the playoffs sooner or later. Obviously not every year, but sometimes. If you win 55 or 60 games a year you have nothing. You're putting all of your hope and faith in some hypothetical rosy future years and years down the road.

I'll definitely take my chances with the increased attendance, ratings, revenues, and attention an 80-something win team gets over an abysmal team that's impossible to watch but gets to pick BJ Upton.

You don't know that though, a team with both Uptons, Longoria, and Verlander is much different than a team with the players we ended up in that stretch. With that base how do you know we don't become a much better team and aren't in contention the end of the decade?

I just don't think you get it. The difference between the Rays and the O's isn't that the Rays got to pick three spots ahead of the Orioles. The last few years has pretty well proven that. The difference is that they have an excellent organization. Throwing in the towel for another five years does nothing to fix that, if anything it makes it harder as more and more LaCava's run in terror from Baltimore.

What is there to get? Do I have to agree with you because you don't agree with me? There is nothing that makes me wrong for having this view and opinion. And a lot of the difference between the Rays and O's are in fact the difference in those couple spots. You have to assume when faced with a much more sure pick that the right choice, where the difficult selections come in is outside of those first 1-3 players depending on the year.

I just personally feel even though we have had a terrible organization, if faced with no-brainer decisions because of the higher draft pick a trained monkey would get it right, no matter who was in the FO.

Call it optimistic, but it's no different from being optimistic that if it were somehow magically an 85 win team that they might have a chance of getting into the playoffs.

[atomic]

You can't have it both ways, how can you say you disagree with me but agree with me at the same time?

I don't agree with you. To me having a losing team that is out of the playoff race before the all-star break is not a plus what the record is. But to have a team in the playoff hunt until at least september and to have a winning record is a plus. Geez most of the games I have been to in the last 10 years the team hasn't even known what base to throw to know how to throw strikes or any of basic fundamentals of baseball.

Just being a superior fielding team, a team who knew the fundamentals, and pitching with great control would get me to more games. But if you ask me is it important that they win 68 games instead of 58 I will tell you it doesn't matter to me. But yeah 88 over 68 is. How hard is that to understand?

[Camden_yardbird]

The difference in success between a 59 win year and an 89 win year is not measured solely by draft position. An 89 win year where you just missed the playoffs affords you other advantages as well. The notion that they are the same is looking at things through entirely too small a lens.