Kjerstad comes in at #99 on BA Top 100

[MCO'sFan]

13 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

For starters because they are probably going to pay him like he was picked 6th.

Also why should they have such little faith in their own work that they make changes based solely over what one team thought?

He was passed over by three teams (not one) after the Torkelson pick. My big issue is that they ranked him 16th. That is just way too high for me. I think it shows a lack of reflection and self evaluation. It also shows that they probably had the rankings done prior to the draft and just fine tuned afterwards. 

[Roll Tide]

56 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

I guess I am suggesting a few things. First, BA is extremely slow to admit that the had a prospect/draftee rated too high or too low. Second, I am suggesting that it is a farce to have Martin ranked 16th when three teams passed on him after Torkelson was taken (not just the O's). Signability has not been an issue with Martin so, it is safe to say that there seems to be at least somewhat of a consensus that he was not the second best prospect in the draft. But mostly, I really dislike BA's self-bias' it rivals only ESPN. BA shoves prospects down our throats until they are complete busts. They are slow (if ever) to recognize they were wrong. ESPN hypes whatever they are broadcasting to the point where I stopped watching it several years ago. 

This is simply flawed logic! The Orioles and Marlins both went cheaper with Kjerstad and Meyer. The Orioles strategy has been discussed here At great length....To further prove it they gave 1 to 1.5 million Over slot to the 4 & 5 th round high schoolers to get them to pass on college scholarships. So based on there allotment the easiest way to have that much extra money is to underpay your 1st rounder or not sign a draftee. KC went with the best pitcher on the draft who also could’ve went first had the Tigers decided to go pitching.

[Roll Tide]

Further....Their draft strategy had to change drastically if they select Martin as he is going to want full value.

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

This is simply flawed logic! The Orioles and Marlins both went cheaper with Kjerstad and Meyer. The Orioles strategy has been discussed here At great length....To further prove it they gave 1 to 1.5 million Over slot to the 4 & 5 th round high schoolers to get them to pass on college scholarships. So based on there allotment the easiest way to have that much extra money is to underpay your 1st rounder or not sign a draftee. KC went with the best pitcher on the draft who also could’ve went first had the Tigers decided to go pitching.

Not signing a draftee doesn't help at all.  The slot allocation for the pick is lost if the draftee is unsigned.  It cannot be used to sign another draftee over-slot.

[Roll Tide]

52 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

He was passed over by three teams (not one) after the Torkelson pick. My big issue is that they ranked him 16th. That is just way too high for me. I think it shows a lack of reflection and self evaluation. It also shows that they probably had the rankings done prior to the draft and just fine tuned afterwards. 

Again .. your wrong about this based on the baseball slotting game. The Marlins and Orioles went with players where they could get signing bonus discounts to use later in the draft 

[Roll Tide]

1 minute ago, Number5 said:

Not signing a draftee doesn't help at all.  The slot allocation for the pick is lost if the draftee is unsigned.  It cannot be used to sign another draftee over-slot.

Thanks ....I was unclear about the money vanishing. 
 

So saving in their 1 and perhaps their A comp pick are the only ways to come up with 2~3 million needed to overpay the 4th and 5th rounders.

[Number5]

1 minute ago, Roll Tide said:

Thanks ....I was unclear about the money vanishing. 
 

So saving in their 1 and perhaps their A comp pick are the only ways to come up with 2~3 million needed to overpay the 4th and 5th rounders.

Or you could draft a senior with no leverage in another round and sign him for a small amount like $20K.

[Roll Tide]

3 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Or you could draft a senior with no leverage in another round and sign him for a small amount like $20K.

That’s true but I don’t think we did that.

 

Plus if it’s a high value pick and the senior refuses to sign they lose the money. So they have some leverage 

[Roll Tide]

4 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Or you could draft a senior with no leverage in another round and sign him for a small amount like $20K.

My point is the Orioles and Marlins didn’t pass on Martin thinking they were getting a better player. They did it as a draft strategy to get better players in the later rounds.

[Number5]

Just now, Roll Tide said:

That’s true but I don’t think we did that.

No, we didn't but that is the only way we could have drafted both Martin and an over-slot guy.  We almost surely wouldn't have been able to draft two over-slot guys.

[Sports Guy]

13 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

My point is the Orioles and Marlins didn’t pass on Martin thinking they were getting a better player. They did it as a draft strategy to get better players in the later rounds.

You don’t know that.

Kjerstad and Meyer could have been higher on the board for those teams.

[Philip]

The debate about these two players is best left behind for the next couple of years. After a while restating the same argument serves no purpose, and all we can debate is whether the logic in the selection was valid or not.

 I do not know enough about the process, but I am entirely comfortable trusting Mike, and I was never comfortable trusting His predecessor.

It is entirely possible that a logical approach can fail and I am quite content that this approach, whether it fails or not, is logical. Regardless, we won’t know the results for a few years, so let’s put this argument to rest, shall we?

[Jammer7]

The current organization chose Kjerstad and found more value in that selection for a variety of reasons. They are a talented well-respected group that appear to be working in the same direction to build organizational talent depth. It’s a huge shift from the past, certainly.

The previous organization had talented people, but it seemed they were often working at cross purposes and about as dysfunctional as it gets. There was Buck’s guys, and there was Duquette’s guys, and even some Angelos butt-kissing guys. They did not have the resources to do the things that Duquette really wanted to do. Duquette wanted to get into the international market extensively, but was told not to pursue it. They diverted most resources to a failed last-ditch effort to compete with mediocre talent. As we know, it was a train wreck. We all clamored for the kind of organization we now have.  

Whatever people think of this draft, so be it. We’ll see, in time, if it was the right call to pursue six guys that will be in your top 30-35 players (two in the top 10-15 now, and upside for all of them to be top 10-15 guys down the road). Or should they have gone for 3 in their top 10-15, and go well under slot on the rest and be organization depth? I would just add that they seem to not want to risk significant investment into pitchers, in general. (Insert @weams quote here.) And we don’t know where they actually value the first four players they drafted. When they sign, we’ll see who is under slot significantly. I expect Westburg (Boras client) to be at around slot. I expect Kjerstad and Haskins to be under slot a good bit, probably Servideo too. But that does not mean they did not have them ranked high on their board. 

And they did not draft players for who they are now, but who they project they will be in the years to come. This organization knows what they develop well, and they draft those types of players. Perhaps down the road, they will be drafting deeper in the draft and take a chance occasionally on higher-risk arms like Fulton, Kelley and Wilcox. But only after establishing a deeper talent pool overall.

[hoosiers]

3 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

My point is the Orioles and Marlins didn’t pass on Martin thinking they were getting a better player. They did it as a draft strategy to get better players in the later rounds.

I disagree with your logic.  Our GM did something similar at Houston and, by your logic, Carlos Correa would have been rated much farther below those who "might" have gone ahead of him.  Yet Correa was a highly regarded prospect immediately.

I think if the Os had Martin rated comfortably better than Kjerstad that we would have drafted Martin.  My guess is the Os had Kjerstad rated neglibibly below to higher than Martin; and we decided to go with Kjerstad and have significant $ for the rest of the draft.  As I have posted, it would not have surprised me if we had called Boras and asked if Martin would sign for around $7M (to free up $750k to spend later) and Boras likely responded that he wanted $8M for Martin.  

Anyway, I really don't care about the current rankings too much.  If Kjerstad produces in the minors for the next two seasons, he will be  a top 50 or better prospect soon enough.  If there is a day when Kjerstad passes Martin in the rankings and BA would do that as soon as it is obvious, we can brag about it then.  There is no reason for BA to do all of its research into the draft and then abandon the rankings so soon without any play.  If anything, the spot at 99 suggests that BA has given a nod to the Kjerstad and the Os.  It seems very possible that Kjerstad would not have been ranked if he had been drafted 10th to 12th.

[Greg Pappas]

On 6/26/2020 at 10:55 AM, Sports Guy said:

It’s pretty easy to justify it.  There really is very little that separates #40 and #100.

Fabgraphs had him ranked higher than most..I bet you they have him way higher in their top 100...other sites may as well.

These guys are all viewed differently in the eyes of different people.

Dude, been awhile. Glad to see you back here.