Prospects have little value. Bringing in talent is all that matters.

[mskrulz]

That is a rather extreme position. The average career value of a no. 13 pick is about 6 WAR. It's less than that if you only include the years before free agency, and then you have to consider the cost of the player during the six years you have him. The excess value of a no. 13 pick probably is in the 2-3 WAR range. There's also roughly a 43% chance that the no. 13 pick never makes the majors, and a 54% chance that the pick will never exceed replacement value.

Agree 100% it is that 43% that I have a problem with.

[Bahama O's Fan]

For teams with a set payroll, drafting and development is vitally important for salary reasons. What would we have paid for Machado's, Schoop's, Tillman's or any of our younger player's performance in FA over the last three seasons?

[mdbdotcom]

Unless we draft a 3rd or 4th round talent with that 13th pick. In addition, I would argue that signing a player like Jason Heyward (who everybody here loves), is more important than a 13th pick (which usually isn't usually that high) because he is a proven commodity.

Plus, because he is so young, you give him an opt out, which he takes, and you get the pick back with a QO when he leaves.

[Can_of_corn]

Unless we draft a 3rd or 4th round talent with that 13th pick. In addition, I would argue that signing a player like Jason Heyward (who everybody here loves), is more important than a 13th pick (which usually isn't usually that high) because he is a proven commodity.

I have stated that I would make an exception for Heyward.

Of course I expect Heyward to get a pretty ridiculous contract.

[mskrulz]

Plus, because he is so young, you give him an opt out, which he takes, and you get the pick back with a QO when he leaves.

Or you trade him for other teams prospects (which they have probably already developed) or ML talent, later.

[Morgan423]

... and you get the pick back with a QO when he leaves.

If the rules are still the same then. It could change in a couple of years.

[DrungoHazewood]

That is a rather extreme position. The average career value of a no. 13 pick is about 6 WAR. It's less than that if you only include the years before free agency, and then you have to consider the cost of the player during the six years you have him. The excess value of a no. 13 pick probably is in the 2-3 WAR range. There's also roughly a 43% chance that the no. 13 pick never makes the majors, and a 54% chance that the pick will never exceed replacement value.

I've made this point before. It is easy to overvalue the draft pick. But on the other hand, there are very limited ways to get comparable young talent to replace a draft pick you've given up. And, average value doesn't tell the whole story. Once every five or 10 years that #13 pick will become a MLB regular or even a star that should be part of the foundation of a good team for six+ years. A high draft pick isn't a lottery ticket, not unless you know of a lottery where you regularly win pretty big. The Orioles have drafted/developed poorly but still got Mussina, Markakis, Machado, Britton, Roberts, and others.

[mskrulz]

I've made this point before. It is easy to overvalue the draft pick. But on the other hand, there are very limited ways to get comparable young talent to replace a draft pick you've given up. And, average value doesn't tell the whole story. Once every five or 10 years that #13 pick will become a MLB regular or even a star that should be part of the foundation of a good team for six+ years. A high draft pick isn't a lottery ticket, not unless you know of a lottery where you regularly win pretty big. The Orioles have drafted/developed poorly but still got Mussina, Markakis, Machado, Britton, Roberts, and others.

Agree. But what's the bigger gamble, giving up that pick to sign a stud at a contract, that granted could be a boon or bust with the money involved, OR signing a lesser player or one coming back from injury (Span) and letting us make the pick. I'd argue that the combination of the risk in lesser player coupled with our draft history and the percentage of players that succeed from that pick regardless of the team that is drafting them makes the Free-Agent and giving up the pick the better value provided it's the right guy.

[Camden_yardbird]

Undervalued talent is all that matters. Efficiency is the name of the game and I think you will find that a vast majority of undervalued talent in the league is drafted home team players. There are however a number of avenues to find that undervalued talent other than the draft and I think the Orioles have exploited some of those very well in the recent past, whether it be Asian players (Chen), former top prospects (Pearce), solid replacement players (McLouth)n independent league players (Gonzalez) or perceived failed prospects (Davis). With the Orioles recent draft and development team history the success of the last few years is based almost entirely on what your OP is pushing for.

One of the best ways of course of doing this is also a complete tear down...

[Frobby]

I've made this point before. It is easy to overvalue the draft pick. But on the other hand, there are very limited ways to get comparable young talent to replace a draft pick you've given up. And, average value doesn't tell the whole story. Once every five or 10 years that #13 pick will become a MLB regular or even a star that should be part of the foundation of a good team for six+ years. A high draft pick isn't a lottery ticket, not unless you know of a lottery where you regularly win pretty big. The Orioles have drafted/developed poorly but still got Mussina, Markakis, Machado, Britton, Roberts, and others.

No question. Manny Ramirez was a no. 13 pick, as were Frank Tanana, Paul Konerko, Garry Templeton, Chris Sale, Gary Nolan and Aaron Hill. You have about a 15% chance of picking up a player of that quality with the no. 13 pick, and when you do, it's gold. But roughly 6 times out of 7, that's not going to happen.

[El Gordo]

No question. Manny Ramirez was a no. 13 pick, as were Frank Tanana, Paul Konerko, Garry Templeton, Chris Sale, Gary Nolan and Aaron Hill. You have about a 15% chance of picking up a player of that quality with the no. 13 pick, and when you do, it's gold. But roughly 6 times out of 7, that's not going to happen.

AJ was a #26 IIRC.

[sportsfan8703]

A place for those posts. Some good points made here. I want to keep the picks this year. I do.

The picks seemed more attractive when it looked like we were getting a bunch. MW taking the QO and us not getting a pick for him kind of killed the the idea of a bounty of picks this draft for me. Obviously this is based purely on emotion and not on value or statistics. But let's look at this offseason reasonably.

I'd like to have Chris Davis back. So there goes that comp pick. In fact, I don't even think about the comp pick when hoping that we resign him. So bringing Davis back feels like we could be in the playoff hunt again. So with that being said, why not get Gallardo? After watching the rotation in shambles last year, we're going to have to address it. Especially with Chen leaving. So there goes another pick.

But the thing is that would still leave us with the 1 first rd pick(Chen comp), and 3 second rd picks(our regular one, comp pick for Hughes, comp balance pick).

We shouldn't need a gang of 1st rd picks every year to improve the farm. It looks like 2 of our last 3 drafts have been really good. I don't see why we can't have a winning product at the MLB level while also building the farm system. And I'd really like to have a winning year next year. It's just too much fun. Even the two years we didn't make the playoffs.

[weams]

The picks seemed more attractive when it looked like we were getting a bunch. MW taking the QO and us not getting a pick for him kind of killed the the idea of a bounty of picks this draft for me. Obviously this is based purely on emotion and not on value or statistics. But let's look at this offseason reasonably.

I'd like to have Chris Davis back. So there goes that comp pick. In fact, I don't even think about the comp pick when hoping that we resign him. So bringing Davis back feels like we could be in the playoff hunt again. So with that being said, why not get Gallardo? After watching the rotation in shambles last year, we're going to have to address it. Especially with Chen leaving. So there goes another pick.

But the thing is that would still leave us with the 1 first rd pick(Chen comp), and 3 second rd picks(our regular one, comp pick for Hughes, comp balance pick).

We shouldn't need a gang of 1st rd picks every year to improve the farm. It looks like 2 of our last 3 drafts have been really good. I don't see why we can't have a winning product at the MLB level while also building the farm system. And I'd really like to have a winning year next year. It's just too much fun. Even the two years we didn't make the playoffs.

Oh. Ok. So three first round, three second and a third in the top 100 kill the joy for you?

[weams]

We shouldn't need a gang of 1st rd picks every year to improve the farm. It looks like 2 of our last 3 drafts have been really good. I don't see why we can't have a winning product at the MLB level while also building the farm system. And I'd really like to have a winning year next year. It's just too much fun. Even the two years we didn't make the playoffs.

A number 13 pick is quite valuable.

[Hallas]

I've made this point before. It is easy to overvalue the draft pick. But on the other hand, there are very limited ways to get comparable young talent to replace a draft pick you've given up. And, average value doesn't tell the whole story. Once every five or 10 years that #13 pick will become a MLB regular or even a star that should be part of the foundation of a good team for six+ years. A high draft pick isn't a lottery ticket, not unless you know of a lottery where you regularly win pretty big. The Orioles have drafted/developed poorly but still got Mussina, Markakis, Machado, Britton, Roberts, and others.

Do teams regularly do better than 1 all-star every 3-4 years? It seems that our failure wasn't in developing top level talent, but in extracting value from fringe players.