Roch: Matusz Traded (along with draft pick)

[weams]

All of the back and forth in this thread raises an interesting point for consideration.

Is it possible that trading draft picks for multiple Minor League prospects who have already been vetted enough to prove they're not duds is a viable strategy for improvement?

Consider that there is considerable risk in any draft pick, and the deeper you go in the draft, the higher the risk. Doesn't the trading of lower draft picks for multiple mid-level prospects somewhat indemnify the club against the 40% or so of those picks that would be complete minor league flops?

Isn't it essentially a pre-screening method? If employed well, it might be a very sound strategy.

At this point, the only pick that can be traded are the competitive balance picks which may go away after this season.

[owknows]

At this point, the only pick that can be traded are the competitive balance picks which may go away after this season.

True enough.. but the same question applies to any negotiable.

Moreover, is there any prohibition to teams agreeing in principle to make a proxy selection for the party receiving the "draft pick", and subsequently consumating the trade for the MiL players in question?

[Can_of_corn]

Or just prey upon their hunger for an addition pick to try to be extra fancy with their draft strategy.

Seems a chancy thing to bet on.

[brianod]

It's conceivable.

The problem as I see it is that stratagem requires you to have a better grasp of the true potential of these players than the teams they play for.

Like Arietta?

[brianod]

No, they also lose the associated pool money. So this gives them less financial flexibility.

I think it is very clear that Dan doesn't care what state the organization is in when his contract is up.

I don't get how you are apoplectic about the pick while at the same time recommending non tendering Britton. Obviously you value this pick more then you value Britton going into the future which is mind boggling.

[hoosiers]

The draft is mostly a crap shoot. Sure, that 800K could be used for good or it could be used to draft and sign a Josh Hart, Conner Narron, Michael Olhman, or Cameron Coffey. DD has also brought guys into the system like Chris Lee, David Hale, Ariel Miranda, Joe Gunkel through trades, international signings and DFA claims to add to the depth. The draft is only one way to get players and it's a traditional crap shoot. DD is looking for other ways to offset that risk and has done a great job or bringing in depth guys and guys that will help this organization at some point.

The Gallardo signing was a panic move and that one I didn't agree with. He wasn't a guy you give up the 15th overall pick for. But the 76th pick? I'll trade that to help my ballclub everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

The draft is a crapshoot, but it has also been documented to be the very best investment platform in MLB to acquire talent. One can point to wasted $ spent on Ohlman and Coffey and criticize, but those were considered worthy investment targets by our scouts and I applaud the investment and I applaud teams gathering draft picks. You know why? Because when they pay off, they pay off SPECTACULARLY!

Zach Britton will be near 8.5 WAR at a career cost of about $10M - approx. excess production of $50M.

Manny Machado will be paid somewhere around $5M to produce over 24 WAR by the end of this season - about $150M in production above his cost. THAT is why you pay up $1M for Coffey and Ohlman if your scouts advocate the investment and why you keep every 76th overall pick you get.

Maybe one can say that DD's entire success at the Orioles is due to the production of these two players versus their cost.

BTW, I see you wrote that "the draft is only one way to get players". Maybe you can list the ways you believe major league talent is acquired and then rank them in order of importance. I am interested in seeing this exercise because the draft is considered the most cost-effective way to acquire major league talent - even with $Ms wasted on the majority who flame out.

[hoosiers]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">"We're a better organization today than we were yesterday." -Buck Showalter</p>— Brittany Ghiroli (@Britt_Ghiroli) <a href="

">May 24, 2016</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I wonder if we are a better organization today than the day Dan signed Matusz for the 2016 season - other player decisions/signings notwithstanding.

Dan has twice now used a high draft pick to undo a poor contract to a non-closer, non-set-up reliever that he was responsible for signing. He can spin it any way he wants, but it's poor use of resources to remove poor decision making.

[Tony-OH]

Barker instantly has the best numbers (not really that big a deal at AA I know) of any of their starters at AA. That's a group that includes Chris Lee(7)' date=' David Hess(13), Parker Bridwell(16) and Jason Garcia(9). MLB.com prospect rankings are in ()

Barker may not be highly rated but he's been successful thus far. I like guys who climb every year, play above their age, and succeed at each level

And his peripherals have improved every year while he's advanced at each level.

It may not have been the main point, but I don't think Barker is a box of rocks as some are suggesting.[/quote']

Good points all around. I watched a few video's of the guy now and there are some things to work with. He could become intriguing.

[Tony-OH]

The draft is a crapshoot, but it has also been documented to be the very best investment platform in MLB to acquire talent. One can point to wasted $ spent on Ohlman and Coffey and criticize, but those were considered worthy investment targets by our scouts and I applaud the investment and I applaud teams gathering draft picks. You know why? Because when they pay off, they pay off SPECTACULARLY!

Zach Britton will be near 8.5 WAR at a career cost of about $10M - approx. excess production of $50M.

Manny Machado will be paid somewhere around $5M to produce over 24 WAR by the end of this season - about $150M in production above his cost. THAT is why you pay up $1M for Coffey and Ohlman if your scouts advocate the investment and why you keep every 76th overall pick you get.

Maybe one can say that DD's entire success at the Orioles is due to the production of these two players versus their cost.

BTW, I see you wrote that "the draft is only one way to get players". Maybe you can list the ways you believe major league talent is acquired and then rank them in order of importance. I am interested in seeing this exercise because the draft is considered the most cost-effective way to acquire major league talent - even with $Ms wasted on the majority who flame out.

What Dan Duquette is doing is looking at other ways to acquire talent for his organization besides just using the draft. Trading for minor leaguers with a professional track record has been one way where Duquette has augmented the amateur draft. No one is saying that the Amateur draft is not important, it is, but it's also an expensive crapshoot. DJ Stewart is a great example of a guy who put up tremendous numbers in college but it did not translate to the pros. Baseball scouting is not an exact science and yes some teams are better than others, but every team has high round draft misses that cost them millions and every team has found gems in the later rounds.

What it seems that Duquette is doing is trying to get value for those picks. For the 3rd round pick, he got back over $3 million in salary relief, a potential back end, low salary controllable starter, and some bullpen depth. Considering what has been found with the 76th overall pick thoughout the history of the draft, I'd say you can build a case that Duquette has hedged his bets a bit, gotten some extra money back to work with to acquire players that could help this year, and added a potential back end starter to his organization.

Duquette has also used the international market, Rule 5, and waiver claims to build his depth. I don't think he undervalues the amateur draft, I just think he uses it as an additional asset to help his organization. If that means selling or trading off picks, he seems to be willing to do that.

Personally I just wish he wouldn't give up the 15th overall pick for anything other than a sure thing, and Gallardo was not a sure thing.

[Cavspider]

From reading several Braves fan forums, who are all experts of the first order in assessing their farm system as we know, the general consensus seems to be that they gave up two potentially useful pieces with limited ceilings in order to obtain a draft pick to allow them flexibility to get a prospect with much higher upside.

They generally think this is great and really a win/win for them and us. They do not view these two prospects as nothing. Some even thought they gave up too much.

They view them as a potentially useful major league 4th or 5th starter and a cost controlled bull pen piece. But, their system is overflowing with pitchers that are equal to or better either by performance or projection. They also point out they need to move the lower end of their stockpile of arms to make room for those advancing. They are currency that needs to be used or is wasted. They do not diminish the quality they gave up but realize for them it makes sense. For us, we are barren compared to them in pitching prospect depth and they think these guys have a chance to move quicker through our system and see major league action sooner than they could have in Atlanta. So, again win/win.

I understand what Can of Corn is saying and I do not like giving up draft picks either. But I do think he needs to do a little more work to assess the value received rather than just rant over the process.

It seems to me that while these guys have limited ceilings, they also have significantly higher floors as a result of their actual professional experience. This limits risk and we actually could use another Wilson type.

[hoosiers]

What Dan Duquette is doing is looking at other ways to acquire talent for his organization besides just using the draft. Trading for minor leaguers with a professional track record has been one way where Duquette has augmented the amateur draft. No one is saying that the Amateur draft is not important, it is, but it's also an expensive crapshoot. DJ Stewart is a great example of a guy who put up tremendous numbers in college but it did not translate to the pros. Baseball scouting is not an exact science and yes some teams are better than others, but every team has high round draft misses that cost them millions and every team has found gems in the later rounds.

What it seems that Duquette is doing is trying to get value for those picks. For the 3rd round pick, he got back over $3 million in salary relief, a potential back end, low salary controllable starter, and some bullpen depth. Considering what has been found with the 76th overall pick thoughout the history of the draft, I'd say you can build a case that Duquette has hedged his bets a bit, gotten some extra money back to work with to acquire players that could help this year, and added a potential back end starter to his organization.

Two points I would like to make:

DJ Stewart is on his way to being an epic fail, but the draft is not "an expensive crapshoot". It is, simply, a very cheap way to acquire major league talent. Pointing at individual picks that are busts truly fails to see the forest through the trees. Even Nolan Reimold and his 3.3 WAR to date in his career against his salary provides production to offset the cost of his entire class.

Second, I understand that the pic has value and that DD is grabbing that value now instead of letting that egg hatch and develop. Folks point repeatedly to the end product, however, of which 76th picks end up producing WAR at the major league level. That misses the very real possibility that the prospect taken with that pick had MORE value at any other point in time. Let's take Josh Hader for example - taken in the 19th round. At that time, that pick was not sellable, but if it were, it certainly would return a nominal amount - probably less than $5,000. Josh Hader developed nicely originally and made up a portion (along with a draft pick and LJ Hoes) of a trade for Bud Norris. Bud Norris provided about .6 WAR for the Os over 2+ years at a cost of about $15M. This year, Josh Hader is a top 60 prospect on mlb.com entering the season. Today's Hader by himself could probably have netted the 2013 Bud Norris. My point - even if Josh Hader NEVER makes to the bigs and joins a long line of 19th round picks who did not produce any WAR - is that Hader today has significantly more value than the original pick and more value than what he had in 2013. Reviewing simply the WAR created by those taken at a particular draft pick does not provide a full glimpse of the value of that pick. DD is selling the 76th pick at a point in time. Like Josh Hader, it is possible the pick has significantly more value in two years than today even if the player taken with that pick does not make it to the major leagues.

[Can_of_corn]

I don't get how you are apoplectic about the pick while at the same time recommending non tendering Britton. Obviously you value this pick more then you value Britton going into the future which is mind boggling.

First off, if you actually read what I wrote earlier you would understand that:

It would be contingent upon the strikezone changing.

Trading him would be the first option and I do not think Non-tendering would be needed.

That being said, once the changes are codified I would have the video guys go back and track every sinker Britton has thrown as an Oriole, judging movement at various heights and how many of his pitches would be called strikes with the new zone.

I think it is very possible that his main weapon, what makes him special, will be severely compromised by this rule change.

If that is the case it would be foolish to pay him 10M when his performance will be diminished.

[sportsfan8703]

From reading several Braves fan forums, who are all experts of the first order in assessing their farm system as we know, the general consensus seems to be that they gave up two potentially useful pieces with limited ceilings in order to obtain a draft pick to allow them flexibility to get a prospect with much higher upside.

They generally think this is great and really a win/win for them and us. They do not view these two prospects as nothing. Some even thought they gave up too much.

They view them as a potentially useful major league 4th or 5th starter and a cost controlled bull pen piece. But, their system is overflowing with pitchers that are equal to or better either by performance or projection. They also point out they need to move the lower end of their stockpile of arms to make room for those advancing. They are currency that needs to be used or is wasted. They do not diminish the quality they gave up but realize for them it makes sense. For us, we are barren compared to them in pitching prospect depth and they think these guys have a chance to move quicker through our system and see major league action sooner than they could have in Atlanta. So, again win/win.

I understand what Can of Corn is saying and I do not like giving up draft picks either. But I do think he needs to do a little more work to assess the value received rather than just rant over the process.

It seems to me that while these guys have limited ceilings, they also have significantly higher floors as a result of their actual professional experience. This limits risk and we actually could use another Wilson type.

This is exactly how DD got Lee and Rodriguez last year. The Astros had a ton of pitching prospects and were facing a 40 man roster crunch. Remember Michael Feliz last night out of the pen, he was unprotected right until the last minute I beileve.

The braves are in a different spot than us. They need high end talent, we already have high end talent. They're trying to get theirs, and we're trying to supplement ours. We're definitely putting a positive outlook on a trade that DD wouldn't have made if he didn't need to dump Matusz. But he made the best of a situation and freed up some money to make a deal for a starter.

[Tony-OH]

All of the back and forth in this thread raises an interesting point for consideration.

Is it possible that trading draft picks for multiple Minor League prospects who have already been vetted enough to prove they're not duds is a viable strategy for improvement?

Consider that there is considerable risk in any draft pick, and the deeper you go in the draft, the higher the risk. Doesn't the trading of lower draft picks for multiple mid-level prospects somewhat indemnify the club against the 40% or so of those picks that would be complete minor league flops?

Isn't it essentially a pre-screening method? If employed well, it might be a very sound strategy.

I really think DD has learned something from analytics and is try this kind of strategy. What if he thinks Barker would be worth a 3rd round pick? If you evaluate a guy and think he's got a chance to be a big league starter and he's having success in AA already, then he's definitely worth a 3rd round pick.

[Tony-OH]

Two points I would like to make:

DJ Stewart is on his way to being an epic fail, but the draft is not "an expensive crapshoot". It is, simply, a very cheap way to acquire major league talent. Pointing at individual picks that are busts truly fails to see the forest through the trees. Even Nolan Reimold and his 3.3 WAR to date in his career against his salary provides production to offset the cost of his entire class.

Second, I understand that the pic has value and that DD is grabbing that value now instead of letting that egg hatch and develop. Folks point repeatedly to the end product, however, of which 76th picks end up producing WAR at the major league level. That misses the very real possibility that the prospect taken with that pick had MORE value at any other point in time. Let's take Josh Hader for example - taken in the 19th round. At that time, that pick was not sellable, but if it were, it certainly would return a nominal amount - probably less than $5,000. Josh Hader developed nicely originally and made up a portion (along with a draft pick and LJ Hoes) of a trade for Bud Norris. Bud Norris provided about .6 WAR for the Os over 2+ years at a cost of about $15M. This year, Josh Hader is a top 60 prospect on mlb.com entering the season. Today's Hader by himself could probably have netted the 2013 Bud Norris. My point - even if Josh Hader NEVER makes to the bigs and joins a long line of 19th round picks who did not produce any WAR - is that Hader today has significantly more value than the original pick and more value than what he had in 2013. Reviewing simply the WAR created by those taken at a particular draft pick does not provide a full glimpse of the value of that pick. DD is selling the 76th pick at a point in time. Like Josh Hader, it is possible the pick has significantly more value in two years than today even if the player taken with that pick does not make it to the major leagues.

I think you are missing the point. It's not that DD or I don't think there is value in the amateur draft, there is and the Orioles need to be good at finding it, but it's just that it's such a crap shoot that it's worth moving pieces of it for known or better known value.

Every pick you make COULD have value, whether it's in the 1st round or the 40th round. Obviously as you go down the board those chances become more and more remote. Historically if you look back around the 76th pick, you are going to find that you have less than a 5% chance of finding a regular big leaguers with that pick. I believe there was a study done and it showed how quickly it falls off after the first round (I believe it was after the first 15 picks but I'm not sure). If I have the 76th pick and I can get a guy who I would take with that pick if he was available, then I'm making a good choice. It's not like DD is just giving these picks away for nothing. He's improving his organization and the chance that the Orioles were going to pick and miss out on a valuable piece with the pick is historically remote.