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

[El Gordo]

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.

If you are not willing to take advantage of the window to contend then you should trade Davis and Wieters and save the pick. Why is that so hard to grasp. Sitting on the fence and hoping for the best is the worst thing you can do. If you want to contend then you should sign the best bat and SP you can realistically afford. Screw the pick. It's one player and just a gamble.

[Il BuonO]

If you are not willing to take advantage of the window to contend then you should trade Davis and Wieters and save the pick. Why is that so hard to grasp. Sitting on the fence and hoping for the best is the worst thing you can do. If you want to contend then you should sign the best bat and SP you can realistically afford. Screw the pick. It's one player and just a gamble.

I think this is where you break down. There are other ways to build the team without losing the pick. They haven't necessarily taken advantage of them so I'm inclined to agree with you on some level, but the 'screw the pick' mentality is short sighted to say the least. And that comes from someone who wants to see them increase payroll. I do, however, live in reality.

[SrMeowMeow]

Stotle wins.

[Frobby]

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.

Losing the pick to get Kendrys Morales strikes me as poor decision making. It hurts us in the long run and doesn't help enough in the short run.

[atomic]

Losing the pick to get Kendrys Morales strikes me as poor decision making. It hurts us in the long run and doesn't help enough in the short run.

I would say the odds are it would not hurt us in the long run at all. I can provide plenty of examples of our picks that we were better than 17 that didn't help us at all if you would like.

[weams]

It appears that there will be no head spiking on this issue. The fans health is Dan Duquette most important objective.

[mdbdotcom]

I would say the odds are it would not hurt us in the long run at all. I can provide plenty of examples of our picks that we were better than 17 that didn't help us at all if you would like.

But they will all be from previous regimes' scouting, drafting, and developing, so they all will be irrelevant.

[Fla_O'sfan]

All this hand-wringing over the possibility that the Orioles might sign a Kendrys Morales or Nelson Cruz is laughable. PA probably wakes up in a cold sweat mulling over such a deal and believe me, the draft pick isn't what's giving him nightmares.

[Stotle]

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?

We can try this from another angle, though your words seem to indicate you're pretty well entrenched in some sort of binary analysis of the situation and I'm doubtful you have the desire to actually engage in earnest.

Tell me where you draw the line as far as prospects you'd trade in the system:

Guasman

Bundy

Harvey (midseason when eligible)

Rodriguez

Schoop

Wright

Berry

Davies

Sisco

Hart

Is everyone on the table? Common sense deals. Price will cost Gausman/Bundy + ERod/Schoop + Wright/Berry + low level guy. Headley will cost Schoop + Wright + low level guy.

You open to trading whatever it takes, provided equal value, to fill holes Baltimore has?

[weams]

We can try this from another angle, though your words seem to indicate you're pretty well entrenched in some sort of binary analysis of the situation and I'm doubtful you have the desire to actually engage in earnest.

Tell me where you draw the line as far as prospects you'd trade in the system:

Guasman

Bundy

Harvey (midseason when eligible)

Rodriguez

Schoop

Wright

Berry

Davies

Sisco

Hart

Is everyone on the table? Common sense deals. Price will cost Gausman/Bundy + ERod/Schoop + Wright/Berry + low level guy. Headley will cost Schoop + Wright + low level guy.

You open to trading whatever it takes, provided equal value, to fill holes Baltimore has?

I know you are not asking me, but my line goes between Rodriquez and Schoop. Thanks for the good insight into how these things really work BTW.

[25 Nuggets]

IF the Rays would trade in-division and IF the Orioles could extend Price, I would trade Bundy, ERod and Berry for him. Since I know these things won't happen, I'm not worried about the deal.

Price is special though. There aren't many players of his caliber out there. So unless it's one of those players, my line falls between Harvey and Rodriguez and I'd be stingy with ERod and Schoop.

[Stotle]

I know you are not asking me, but my line goes between Rodriquez and Schoop. Thanks for the good insight into how these things really work BTW.

Perfect; thanks. So let's keep going. Couple follow-up questions.

1. Would you be more willing to trade one of Gausman/Bundy/Rodriguez today if we currently had Zack Wheeler at the MLB level (assuming we drafted him instead of Hobgood and he developed identically)?

2. Would you be more willing to trade Harvey in July if BAL had a comparable talent also in the system, a year ahead of Harvey in development, in addition to the current crop of prospects?

[weams]

Perfect; thanks. So let's keep going. Couple follow-up questions.

1. Would you be more willing to trade one of Gausman/Bundy/Rodriguez today if we currently had Zack Wheeler at the MLB level (assuming we drafted him instead of Hobgood and he developed identically)?

2. Would you be more willing to trade Harvey in July if BAL had a comparable talent also in the system, a year ahead of Harvey in development, in addition to the current crop of prospects?

1. Yes. Hobgood is a real stumbling block, but Hunter and ERod really pick up a lot of that slack.

2. Yes. But they don't. And Hader was not it.

There were other misses that draft, but Hobgood really hurts.

[weams]

If there were a redraft today of last June, I think Hunter Harvey would go top ten.

[Stotle]

1. Yes. Hobgood in a real stumbling block, but Hunter and ERod really pick up a lot of that slack.

2. Yes. But they don't. And Hader was not it.

Perfect; thanks. So, as I would expect is the case with most folks, you seem uncomfortable with trading the young cost-controlled talent that has a potential to help out the big team (with upside) in the next year or two because it depletes BAL's reserve of those player types. And you correctly value those player types because BAL's desired payroll level seems to necessitate the org create opportunities for excess value at the MLB level in order to build a collection of talent that in the aggregate will compete with TAM/NYA/BOS/TOR, mostly by spending less (the latter three) or starting from a position where you are disadvantaged as to cost-controlled talent (the former).

With the 17th overall pick this year, it's easily conceivable BAL will have the opportunity to select a college arm that is more advanced than Harey, with a higher floor, and capable of helping the MLB team out a year or two more quickly. If you draft that player, you can move Harvey in a mid-season deal and actually be ahead of the game from both a strength-of-the-system standpoint and strength-of-the-big-club standpoint, because you will have replaced the MiLB talent with the pick and you will be trading for a player as good, or better, than someone like Morales or Cruz or Drew, etc.

In fact, you could argue the same for trading Bundy. You are probably sacrificing upside, but your also exchanging risk and winding up with a college arm that maybe helps you out in the rotation at the beginning of 2016 instead of mid-2015.

The pick is valuable for what it produces (the player) but it's equally valuable for the flexibility it gives you in adding to the overall talent in your MiLB, which is your cache for trading for impact talent.