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

[El Gordo]

Okay. Can we throw in Wieters, Bundy, Machado and Gausman?

None of those guys were #17 picks. Much higher. Big difference.

[atomic]

That doesn't actually support your point, though. It just shows that even top-top picks can perform below expectations or miss entirely.

The subject of your OP is the potential loss of the 17th overall pick. So, in other words, coming back and saying "look at all these good/possibly great players we got in the draft," but citing only top-five picks, doesn't really help your point (i.e., that losing the first round pick for Morales would be spike-worthy).

In the history of the draft 11 players have had at least 6 lifetime WAR with the 17th pick. Lets use 1965 to 2006 as years that we can count as guys after that could be productive one day. That gives us 11/42 = 26% chance of turning out to give at least 6 WAR. So you have basically a little bit better than 1/4 chance of helping your club more than you could expect to get out of Morales. Of course past performance does not gurantee future performance and we have no way to know if Orioles scouts will do better or worse at identifying and developing than average.

[Ommaculate]

Yes, yes, I know. And any thread about suicide by railroad spike is going to suffer from some hyperbole. But would you really be satisfied if I instead listed all the late-first picks who have gone on to stardom?

The point is, of all the available bats on the market, that we should be linked to an 800 OPS (and 330 OBP) hitter with no defensive value who will also cost us our first round pick is a bad joke. I mean, come on. Corey Hart got 1/5M to go to the MARINERS. He's projected for a 780ish OPS and can even play the OF. Signing Morales is just about the most backwards move I can imagine a team actually making.

The team has no DH.

[wildcard]

I am not concerned about signing Morales. He can't pass the O's physical with the ankle he broke. Maybe if it was a one year contract he would pass. But they shouldn't give up a pick to sign a guy for a year.

[MrOrange82]

Yes, yes, I know. And any thread about suicide by railroad spike is going to suffer from some hyperbole. But would you really be satisfied if I instead listed all the late-first picks who have gone on to stardom?

The point is, of all the available bats on the market, that we should be linked to an 800 OPS (and 330 OBP) hitter with no defensive value who will also cost us our first round pick is a bad joke. I mean, come on. Corey Hart got 1/5M to go to the MARINERS. He's projected for a 780ish OPS and can even play the OF. Signing Morales is just about the most backwards move I can imagine a team actually making.

Hart didn't play in a single game in 2013, and he's slightly older than Morales. Also, your OP didn't talk about money. Would you sign Morales (if possible, which I know it probably isn't) for 1/5M knowing that you'd have to give up the pick? What about 2/15M? Where is the ceiling on what'd be reasonable?

Personally, I wouldn't sign Morales for anything more than two years with an option, and probably not for more than 10-11M per year. I also realize that probably won't get a deal done. That said, I'm not going to freak out about losing a pick unless the O's give Morales a stupid contract. The act of signing him, independent of its monetary cost, isn't going to draw my fire.

[SrMeowMeow]

In the history of the draft 11 players have had at least 6 lifetime WAR with the 17th pick. Lets use 1965 to 2006 as years that we can count as guys after that could be productive one day. That gives us 11/42 = 26% chance of turning out to give at least 6 WAR. So you have basically a little bit better than 1/4 chance of helping your club more than you could expect to get out of Morales. Of course past performance does not gurantee future performance and we have no way to know if Orioles scouts will do better or worse at identifying and developing than average.

Why would you restrict yourself to the 17th pick and not to like the 15-20th overall bucket? You're asking for huge sample size issues. And a productive pick gives you huge surplus value by virtue of being under team control etc. And none of this gets around the main point that there were players of comparable talent out there that didn't require draft pick compensation or a big contract, Corey Hart being the first example off the top of my head and a really good one.

[SrMeowMeow]

Hart didn't play in a single game in 2013, and he's slightly older than Morales. Also, your OP didn't talk about money. Would you sign Morales (if possible, which I know it probably isn't) for 1/5M knowing that you'd have to give up the pick? What about 2/15M? Where is the ceiling on what'd be reasonable?

Personally, I wouldn't sign Morales for anything more than two years with an option, and probably not for more than 10-11M per year. I also realize that probably won't get a deal done. That said, I'm not going to freak out about losing a pick unless the O's give Morales a stupid contract. The act of signing him, independent of its monetary cost, isn't going to draw my fire.

I'd probably give up a pick for Morales if I got him at league minimum. But I wouldn't give him 10M a year even if he didn't have compensation attached. He's a low OBP DH. He's not very good. But for some reason he has this level of hype. I don't get it.

[MrOrange82]

In the history of the draft 11 players have had at least 6 lifetime WAR with the 17th pick. Lets use 1965 to 2006 as years that we can count as guys after that could be productive one day. That gives us 11/42 = 26% chance of turning out to give at least 6 WAR. So you have basically a little bit better than 1/4 chance of helping your club more than you could expect to get out of Morales. Of course past performance does not gurantee future performance and we have no way to know if Orioles scouts will do better or worse at identifying and developing than average.

This argument has been made before, and I don't really like it because it's a small sample size affected by a laundry list of variables. I'd think a sample size involving a larger number of picks grouped around 17 would be more useful. But then you're still leaving out changes to scouting/development methodologies, finances, and the game itself that are difficult to account for. Plus, we're still dealing with the Orioles, and the Orioles alone. This team doesn't get to free-ride off of the good fortune of other, historical teams/draft classes.

[VeveJones007]

It makes sense if you proceed to trade Davis for pitching. Otherwise, it's a misuse of resources.

[El Gordo]

Yes, yes, I know. And any thread about suicide by railroad spike is going to suffer from some hyperbole. But would you really be satisfied if I instead listed all the late-first picks who have gone on to stardom?

The point is, of all the available bats on the market, that we should be linked to an 800 OPS (and 330 OBP) hitter with no defensive value who will also cost us our first round pick is a bad joke. I mean, come on. Corey Hart got 1/5M to go to the MARINERS. He's projected for a 780ish OPS and can even play the OF. Signing Morales is just about the most backwards move I can imagine a team actually making.

Corey Hart wouldn't pass the physical. Signing Morales at the right price wouldn't be a bad move at all. It depends on the SP. If they can get one of Garza, Arroyo or Burnett, who don't require a pick, then Morales or Cruz at a reasonable price would be worth the gamble that a #17 pick will be another Pujols.

[atomic]

This argument has been made before, and I don't really like it because it's a small sample size affected by a laundry list of variables. I'd think a sample size involving a larger number of picks grouped around 17 would be more useful. But then you're still leaving out changes to scouting/development methodologies, finances, and the game itself that are difficult to account for. Plus, we're still dealing with the Orioles, and the Orioles alone. This team doesn't get to free-ride off of the good fortune of other, historical teams/draft classes.

Well Morales could disappoint as well. I could go back and do a range of picks. Maybe 15-20. But as you get higher picks you might end up with better results as teams that do better drafting better as they have better records. Seems we have more international players now than we did in 1965. So if anything it should be harder to get a good pick at 17 than it was in the past as the draft is a lower part of the total talent pool in the Major Leagues.

[El Gordo]

I'd probably give up a pick for Morales if I got him at league minimum. But I wouldn't give him 10M a year even if he didn't have compensation attached. He's a low OBP DH. He's not very good. But for some reason he has this level of hype. I don't get it.

280 .333 .480 .813 27 HR, 90 RBI, 162 G career ave., not very good? :rolleyestf:

[SrMeowMeow]

This argument has been made before, and I don't really like it because it's a small sample size affected by a laundry list of variables. I'd think a sample size involving a larger number of picks grouped around 17 would be more useful. But then you're still leaving out changes to scouting/development methodologies, finances, and the game itself that are difficult to account for. Plus, we're still dealing with the Orioles, and the Orioles alone. This team doesn't get to free-ride off of the good fortune of other, historical teams/draft classes.

If you believe that the O's are so incompetent at drafting and development that you significantly discount the value of our picks and prospects compared to other teams, then you also believe there's no way (and I mean NO WAY) to build a winning team until that changes. You cannot build a winner off of free agent signings and trades alone. Drafting and development gives you your only pipeline for talent that provides actual surplus value, which is the only asset that has consistent trade value, and the only way to get to 90+ wins when a win in free agency costs upwards of 5M.

And the drafting and development woes have been seriously overblown.

[SrMeowMeow]

280 .333 .480 .813 27 HR, 90 RBI, 182 G career ave., not very good? :rolleyestf:

If you think that's particularly valuable from a poor 1B defender who really should just DH, then...we have reached a fundamental difference and don't need to argue any more.

[MrOrange82]

I'd probably give up a pick for Morales if I got him at league minimum. But I wouldn't give him 10M a year even if he didn't have compensation attached. He's a low OBP DH. He's not very good. But for some reason he has this level of hype. I don't get it.

League minimum for Morales, but 1/5M for Hart? Really?

You know Hart's only had two seasons with OBPs above .340, right (and one at .340 exactly)? In nine seasons (seven "full" seasons), his average is .334. Morales has played in seven seasons (three "full"), and his career average is .333. Morales' OBP in 2010, when he broke his leg, was .346. If Morales had kept that up, that would have left him with OBPs of .355, .346, .320, and .336 over his last 4 years. That lines up pretty close to Hart, whose last 4 years were .335, .340, .356, .334.

Particularly in light of the act that Hart's coming off a totally-missed 2013, I don't really get the gulf that separates the two players in your mind. I think Morales is likely to be worth 10M over the next couple of years. I wouldn't go above that, but I wouldn't be super pissed, either.