O's won't let lost draft pick keep them from pursuing free agents

[weams]

Huh?

Reds (for Choo)

Braves (for McCann)

Red Sox (for Ellsbury)

Cardinals (for Beltran)

Indians (competitive balance)

all have picks between 1st and 2nd Round

still potential to get picks in supplemental first:

Rangers (for Cruz)

Red Sox again (for Drew)

Cleveland (for Jiminez)

I think the poster got confused between the Comp Balance picks and supplemental. Which are essentially the same.

[Stotle]

I think the poster got confused between the Comp Balance picks and supplemental. Which are essentially the same.

The supplemental picks come before the comp balance picks, which is why I found it odd. FA compensation is actually more valuable than competitive balance compensation.

[weams]

The supplemental picks come before the comp balance picks, which is why I found it odd. FA compensation is actually more valuable than competitive balance compensation.

For a team like Boston, by a pick or two

[atomic]

Huh? I think you are confused by the terminology. Maybe you are only considering competitive balance lottery picks?? In any event, you are incorrect.

Reds (for Choo)

Braves (for McCann)

Red Sox (for Ellsbury)

Cardinals (for Beltran)

Indians (competitive balance)

all have picks between 1st and 2nd Round

still potential to get picks in supplemental first:

Rangers (for Cruz)

Red Sox again (for Drew)

Cleveland (for Jiminez)

You can only trade the competitive balance picks. You can't trade the picks you get for losing free agents. I am correct as the post said that good teams didn't trade away supplemental picks. Well since the only pick you can trade are competitive balance picks what else could they have meant?

[Stotle]

Ha. True. Nice spot to be in if you're the sox -- potentially three picks in the top 35 or so.

[weams]

You can only trade the competitive balance picks. You can't trade the picks you get for losing free agents.

Like the Orioles did? Instead of EdRod?

[BohKnowsBmore]

I believe the supplemental picks (competitive balance picks) are related to market conditions rather than wins and losses.

Well, aren't they new as of this year or so? I think asking about the history of teams trading them is a little premature.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weams]

Well, aren't they new as of this year or so? I think asking about the history of teams trading them is a little premature.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Second season of use. So yes. No track record.

[TonySoprano]

Rosenthal may think this is news (on an otherwise slow day) but we have heard this before. For example

Jimenez and Santana also are expected to receive lucrative, multiyear deals and come with an added burden — whoever signs them must forfeit a draft pick. In the Orioles' case, it would cost them the 17th overall pick next year.

That's something Duquette said he could live with, if it is the right situation. But he said his philosophy hasn't changed on that, even though several players attached to draft picks are still unsigned.

"We would take a look at that if it makes sense for us," Duquette said. "The first-round pick and the talent [you'd have to give up] is one part of the equation. The talent of the player we signed is another, and what we'd have to pay him, that's the third part of the equation. But we could take a look at that."

source - Dan Connolly

If we actually forfeited the pick, then we'd have news.

[El Gordo]

Tricky choice. Are Gausman and Henry the arm and bat that we need, or should we commit 60M for three years, plus two picks, for an arm and a bat that while being something we can use, may not be even as good?

[Stotle]

You can only trade the competitive balance picks. You can't trade the picks you get for losing free agents. I am correct as the post said that good teams didn't trade away supplemental picks. Well since the only pick you can trade are competitive balance picks what else could they have meant?

Actually, no. The quote said trade or sign away. You lose competitive balance picks via trade and FA comp picks by signing other applicable free agents (the Yankees had three such picks -- for Cano, Granderson, and Kuroda -- and signed them all away via McCann, Ellsbury, and re-signing Kuroda).

The point was "good teams do not trade away comp picks, or forfeit comp picks via FA signings."

[Rconnell]

Of course losing a draft pick won't be what stops us from signing a free agent, it will be the money that stops us

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

[VeveJones007]

Tricky choice. Are Gausman and Henry the arm and bat that we need, or should we commit 60M for three years, plus two picks, for an arm and a bat that while being something we can use, may not be even as good?

Everyone keeps comparing Gausman to Santana/Jimenez, but I think the more appropriate comparison is Norris to Santana/Jimenez. Does anyone really expect Norris to hold off Gausman for the whole season, let alone 3-4 years of the contract for Santana/Jimenez?

Either of those pitchers would be an nice upgrade over Norris.

[El Gordo]

Everyone keeps comparing Gausman to Santana/Jimenez, but I think the more appropriate comparison is Norris to Santana/Jimenez. Does anyone really expect Norris to hold off Gausman for the whole season, let alone 3-4 years of the contract for Santana/Jimenez?

Either of those pitchers would be an nice upgrade over Norris.

I can easily see Gausman putting up better numbers the next 3 years than Santana/Jimenez, and at 500K per v 13M. That's my point. If Santana/Jimenez were one year deals with out the loss of pick, there would be no question.

[DoubleStufOriole]

Of course losing a draft pick won't be what stops us from signing a free agent, it will be the money that stops us

I agree with the posters who have said that, if you're going to lose a pick or two, I would have rather the O's signed the top free agents available, the impact guys who were looking for long, multi-year deals but could back it up with game-changing talent. The penalty is the same if you bring in "elite" talent or simply "above average."

Unfortunately, the money issue is what separates the two categories and prevents the O's from signing a one-man game-changer.

Also -- I realize it's the agents who make the decisions more than the players, but does anyone think that Duquette sacrificing a pick or two to bring in Santana, Jimenez and/or Morales could have a positive influence on guys like Hardy, Wieters or Davis? They might see that this team is actually serious about being a contender, which would make them more inclined to stick around for awhile.

Of course, money talks...