There Are Rumblings That the O's Will Not Take Rutschman

[weams]

1/1 for a non pitcher with no real option to re enter draft should not cost slot. It just should not. 

[hoosiers]

4 minutes ago, weams said:

Again, I have not explained myself well.  Many teams have spent overslot on a pick. And sacrificed elsewhere to fund it. 

Of course they do.  So the teams that get ahead are the ones that out-plan, out-scout and out-draft - which is what I posted and what you disagreed with.

[weams]

1 minute ago, hoosiers said:

Of course they do.  So the teams that get ahead are the ones that out-plan, out-scout and out-draft - which is what I posted and what you disagreed with.

I still disagree. Sometimes the ones that end up on top out lucky the rest.  I don't know what you mean by out draft BTW. 

[mdbdotcom]

53 minutes ago, weams said:

 

Should we trade for a competitive balance pick that gives us a pick before #42? If we're going to spend less on 1:1, why not increase the number of early picks we have to optimize our chances of landing an impact player?

[weams]

1 minute ago, mdbdotcom said:

Should we trade for a competitive balance pick that gives us a pick before #42? If we're going to spend less on 1:1, why not increase the number of early picks we have to optimize our chances of landing an impact player?

What would the cost of that be?

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

Should we trade for a competitive balance pick that gives us a pick before #42? If we're going to spend less on 1:1, why not increase the number of early picks we have to optimize our chances of landing an impact player?

They generally are not for trade.

[hoosiers]

Honestly, you are all over the place.  First, it's about funding and now it's about "out lucky the rest"?

To out-draft is to end of with better prospects based on either scouting or planning.  Out-planning or out-gaming another team is coming up with the best combination of prospects based on your draft pool.

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

Should we trade for a competitive balance pick that gives us a pick before #42? If we're going to spend less on 1:1, why not increase the number of early picks we have to optimize our chances of landing an impact player?

Does our spending cap change if we acquire another competitive balance pick?

[mdbdotcom]

1 minute ago, weams said:

What would the cost of that be?

No idea. How about Mancini to the Rays for their first compensation pick (#36) and a good prospect.

[mdbdotcom]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

They generally are not for trade.

38, 40 and 41 have already been traded.

[mdbdotcom]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Does our spending cap change if we acquire another competitive balance pick?

Good question. I don't know if the allowed slot transfers in the trade.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Does our spending cap change if we acquire another competitive balance pick?

Yes.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

38, 40 and 41 have already been traded.

Oohh, links please.  Somehow I missed that.

[mdbdotcom]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Oohh, links please.  Somehow I missed that.

https://www.mlb.com/draft/order/2019

[weams]

10 minutes ago, hoosiers said:

Honestly, you are all over the place.  First, it's about funding and now it's about "out lucky the rest"?

To out-draft is to end of with better prospects based on either scouting or planning.  Out-planning or out-gaming another team is coming up with the best combination of prospects based on your draft pool.

And the timeline for analyzing this is a few years? Or is it the self congratulatory back slap the day after? I disagreed with two comments you made about the hard work and out drafting. I am not in disagreement with you about some teams appearing to be consistently better at this than the Orioles have been.  I believe having a bigger pool to spend can help a team maybe more so than having more boots on the ground.  So I think that brings it all in for a landing. Mo Money. Less Problems.