If we give up a draft pick for Kendrys Morales I will hammer a railroad spike through my head

[Il BuonO]

Maybe, and you could very well be right.

But, DD did give up a lot for Weeks, I know, a minority opinion here.

Clearly, he likes what he sees in Weeks, and the way they played Roberts over Flash, to me, its more of their opinion of him, and not the money, at that point, the contract was just about over and the money was gone, and they were in a playoff hunt, and they clearly kept saying, Roberts gave them their best chance..

I mean, I have no inside sources, but to me, it just seams to play out like that.

I don't know if he likes him all that much because of what he says in a press conference after he acquires someone. Of course, he's going to try and play up the positives. I don't think Weeks is the player DeJesus is but we'll see.

[Il BuonO]

Weeks will have to make tremendous strides defensively for Buck to "appreciate" his D.

[Ohfan67]

I think this is an oversimplification that misses a lot of points on a lot of levels. Attention paid to international acquisitions in latin america is the big one, but there's also the idea of understanding and operating within the parameters of the compensation system, and the overall import of developing talent or trading talent as opposed to solving MLB holes via free agency.

Additionally, while it's true there is talent to be found and developed outside of the top 60 or so picks, it comes with a lot riskier profile, and usually with a much lower ceiling.

It's not an oversimplification, it's a fact. Run a correlation between rankings of minor league systems and where organizations draft in the first round over several years and you will find a very weak relationship. I know because I did it. Same for winning percentage of the major league team and other related variables. I agree with some of your other points, but that's exactly what I was saying...losing a first round pick doesn't matter very much to the best organizations, but it does matter to the O's because they have produced so few good minor leaguers outside of first round picks (and really only the recent first round picks). And yes they did an incredibly poor job of playing the previous system. Hopefully the O's do a much better job of gaming the new compensation system.

[El Gordo]

In Flaherty's Rule 5 year, I recall some questions about his defense. Of course, he wasn't playing regularly. My feeling last season was that I was surprised by the relative glowing reports of his defense.

I guess the Fielding Bible and other stats based sites could shed light, but I don't even go there. Maybe I'll do it right now, as not to sound - whatever that word is.

I guess what I'm saying is - is Flaherty as good defensively as we have been told so that he is the end all and be all of utility infielder heaven? Hyperbole, I know. Is his defense that good?

Flaherty is a league average defender or better at every position he plays. And that is 6. And he has a .773 DP% at 2B, that's among the very best. He's the best SS after Hardy. The best 1B on the team, and the best 3B after Manny.

[Il BuonO]

Flaherty is a league average defender or better at every position he plays. And that is 6. And he has a .773 DP% at 2B, that's among the very best. He's the best SS after Hardy. The best 1B on the team, and the best 3B after Manny.

Care to rephrase? He's only the back up SS because Buck prefers to keep Manny at 3B if JJ needs a rest. You don't really think he's better than Manny at SS. And no I don't care that Manny has never played a ML inning there. And Flaherty is the best 1B on the team? You're basing that of course on the 23.1 innings he's played there as a MLer?

I like Ryan just fine to start at 2B, but let's not get carried away.

[Stotle]

It's not an oversimplification, it's a fact. Run a correlation between rankings of minor league systems and where organizations draft in the first round over several years and you will find a very weak relationship. I know because I did it. Same for winning percentage of the major league team and other related variables. I agree with some of your other points, but that's exactly what I was saying...losing a first round pick doesn't matter very much to the best organizations, but it does matter to the O's because they have produced so few good minor leaguers outside of first round picks (and really only the recent first round picks). And yes they did an incredibly poor job of playing the previous system. Hopefully the O's do a much better job of gaming the new compensation system.

It is an oversimplification. Losing a first round pick has a non-standard effect on teams. Losing a first round pick is a much bigger deal for BAL than TEX, CHN, NYA, etc. because those teams are aggressively utilizing other avenues for amateur acquisition. It's a bigger deal for BAL than MIN, STL, HOU, etc. because those orgs currently have much deeper systems and can currently construct trade packages to help fill holes.

More esoterically, a first round pick is more valuable to STL than team X (not blowing anyone up, but draft/dev guys know the candidates) because STL has put in place an infrastructure that allows them to identify profile types they can develop, and a developmental system to facilitate that player growth.

If your general point is that the realization of a draft pick (as far as future MLB value) is hit-and-miss enough that a single pick does not carry with it a substantial amount of value, you can make that argument as an academic matter, using averages across the MLB universe in the aggregate. But as I said above, it's an oversimplification.

[scOtt]

It is an oversimplification. Losing a first round pick has a non-standard effect on teams. Losing a first round pick is a much bigger deal for BAL than TEX, CHN, NYA, etc. because those teams are aggressively utilizing other avenues for amateur acquisition. It's a bigger deal for BAL than MIN, STL, HOU, etc. because those orgs currently have much deeper systems and can currently construct trade packages to help fill holes.

More esoterically, a first round pick is more valuable to STL than team X (not blowing anyone up, but draft/dev guys know the candidates) because STL has put in place an infrastructure that allows them to identify profile types they can develop, and a developmental system to facilitate that player growth.

If your general point is that the realization of a draft pick (as far as future MLB value) is hit-and-miss enough that a single pick does not carry with it a substantial amount of value, you can make that argument as an academic matter, using averages across the MLB universe in the aggregate. But as I said above, it's an oversimplification.

You're dreamy! :hearts:

[scOtt]

It is an oversimplification. Losing a first round pick has a non-standard effect on teams. Losing a first round pick is a much bigger deal for BAL than TEX, CHN, NYA, etc. because those teams are aggressively utilizing other avenues for amateur acquisition. It's a bigger deal for BAL than MIN, STL, HOU, etc. because those orgs currently have much deeper systems and can currently construct trade packages to help fill holes.

More esoterically, a first round pick is more valuable to STL than team X (not blowing anyone up, but draft/dev guys know the candidates) because STL has put in place an infrastructure that allows them to identify profile types they can develop, and a developmental system to facilitate that player growth.

If your general point is that the realization of a draft pick (as far as future MLB value) is hit-and-miss enough that a single pick does not carry with it a substantial amount of value, you can make that argument as an academic matter, using averages across the MLB universe in the aggregate. But as I said above, it's an oversimplification.

Listen how that feeds off itself and then feeds off that and so on.

Know what they can develop well

Target those players

their development enhances what they drafted

It's like a vacuum tube overdriving to explode it's power.

[El Gordo]

Care to rephrase? He's only the back up SS because Buck prefers to keep Manny at 3B if JJ needs a rest. You don't really think he's better than Manny at SS. And no I don't care that Manny has never played a ML inning there. And Flaherty is the best 1B on the team? You're basing that of course on the 23.1 innings he's played there as a MLer?

I like Ryan just fine to start at 2B, but let's not get carried away.

Until they move Manny to SS he's the best option. And he's a better defensive 1B than Davis. The guy has a good glove. Deal with it.

[El Gordo]

It is an oversimplification. Losing a first round pick has a non-standard effect on teams. Losing a first round pick is a much bigger deal for BAL than TEX, CHN, NYA, etc. because those teams are aggressively utilizing other avenues for amateur acquisition. It's a bigger deal for BAL than MIN, STL, HOU, etc. because those orgs currently have much deeper systems and can currently construct trade packages to help fill holes.

More esoterically, a first round pick is more valuable to STL than team X (not blowing anyone up, but draft/dev guys know the candidates) because STL has put in place an infrastructure that allows them to identify profile types they can develop, and a developmental system to facilitate that player growth.

If your general point is that the realization of a draft pick (as far as future MLB value) is hit-and-miss enough that a single pick does not carry with it a substantial amount of value, you can make that argument as an academic matter, using averages across the MLB universe in the aggregate. But as I said above, it's an oversimplification.

If Baltimore is a rebuilding team then losing a 1st round pick is serious. If they are taking advantage of their 2 year window to contend then it is not.

[Stotle]

If Baltimore is a rebuilding team then losing a 1st round pick is serious. If they are taking advantage of their 2 year window to contend then it is not.

I disagree. Trade chips are immensely important to teams looking to bring in impact MLB talent. Adding high ceiling talent to the system allows you to move existing trade-eligble talent gutting your system. It all works together. Teams in a position to rely almost exclusively on free agency and international signings represent essentially the only cross-section where losing a pick is not a big deal.

Certainly the quality of the free agent being signed comes into play, but for an org like BAL that value bar is set higher than other orgs because draft picks, and in particular early draft picks, are more important based on a multitude of factors (many of which I touched on above).

[El Gordo]

I disagree. Trade chips are immensely important to teams looking to bring in impact MLB talent. Adding high ceiling talent to the system allows you to move existing trade-eligble talent gutting your system. It all works together. Teams in a position to rely almost exclusively on free agency and international signings represent essentially the only cross-section where losing a pick is not a big deal.

Certainly the quality of the free agent being signed comes into play, but for an org like BAL that value bar is set higher than other orgs because draft picks, and in particular early draft picks, are more important based on a multitude of factors (many of which I touched on above).

I don't get any of this BS you are spouting. The choice is simple and they need to make it. If they are looking long term, then they need to trade Davis, and Wieters, and save the pick. If they want to take advantage of their 2 year window of opportunity, then a # 17 pick is not a serious long range sacrifice.

[Il BuonO]

Flaherty is a league average defender or better at every position he plays. And that is 6. And he has a .773 DP% at 2B, that's among the very best. He's the best SS after Hardy. The best 1B on the team, and the best 3B after Manny.

Until they move Manny to SS he's the best option. And he's a better defensive 1B than Davis. The guy has a good glove. Deal with it.

League average is what you wrote but then you say he's good and back it up with nothing. How about this. DRS has him above average at 2B where he's a 4. Oh, yeah he's a 1 over 34 innings at SS if you want to nitpick. I'm sure that's a big enough SS for you.

I did deal with it. I said like him just fine to start at 2B, where he's actually rated above average. He turns a good DP. Maybe you should deal with the fact that you made some hyperbolic statements regarding the rest of the positions he plays.

[El Gordo]

I disagree. Trade chips are immensely important to teams looking to bring in impact MLB talent. Adding high ceiling talent to the system allows you to move existing trade-eligble talent gutting your system. It all works together. Teams in a position to rely almost exclusively on free agency and international signings represent essentially the only cross-section where losing a pick is not a big deal.

Certainly the quality of the free agent being signed comes into play, but for an org like BAL that value bar is set higher than other orgs because draft picks, and in particular early draft picks, are more important based on a multitude of factors (many of which I touched on above).

You have to pick a context. If they are rebuilding then you are certainly right. But if they want to take advantage of their two year window to contend then the # 17 pick is not that important. Which is it for you, or are you sitting on the fence with Mr. Angelos?

[Il BuonO]

You have to pick a context. If they are rebuilding then you are certainly right. But if they want to take advantage of their two year window to contend then the # 17 pick is not that important. Which is it for you, or are you sitting on the fence with Mr. Angelos?

Did you read his other posts? We are neither in the position of other teams that have the trade chips or teams that can afford to lose a pick and spend freely on FA. The picks are far too valuable to our organization because our system is not of the strength of some of the teams Stotle mentioned. There isn't a contextual argument to be made here. You don't know that Angelos is sitting on the fence, that's just rhetoric. It appears so, but as weams has said maybe he's deciding he wants to have some money repaid for past contracts.

All we know is the money isn't being spent that could be spent. Duquette must work within a framework that works for this organization under Angelos and it doesn't include giving away our 1st round picks for Kendrys Morales.