Orioles Sign Heston Kjerstad

[Ruzious]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I took your comment as meaning that they might have taken the player they liked the most with every pick.

I don't believe you.  Every baseball fan in the world knows that the O's didn't take the player they thought was best with the 1st pick.  

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Ruzious said:

I don't believe you.  Every baseball fan in the world knows that the O's didn't take the player they thought was best with the 1st pick.  

I bet there is an Oriole fan out there that believes that Kjerstad was at the top of the board.  Now that I stop and think I'll admit I don't think you are that fan, but I'm sure they exist.

[weams]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I bet there is an Oriole fan out there that believes that Kjerstad was at the top of the board.  Now that I stop and think I'll admit I don't think you are that fan, but I'm sure they exist.

I liked Lacy and Torkelson. I got scared on Hancock. I was not a Martin guy. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, weams said:

I liked Lacy and Torkelson. I got scared on Hancock. I was not a Martin guy. 

I have a good feeling about Hancock but I only know what I read.

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

Spending every last dollar is silly.  And it's probably pretty hard to understand what these guys will want and to work within your budget to get it done.  I'd be inclined to agree with you if they did something stupid like spent 6 million with a pool of 12 million...but leaving a few hundred thousand dollars on the table isn't the worst thing in the world.  

At the end of the day, do you like our draft picks?  That's what matters.  By and large, I do.  

I question weighing such a small sample size of data as heavily as they seemed to.

[TheWall]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I question weighing such a small sample size of data as heavily as they seemed to.

Certainly interesting that they seem to really buy into their projections for '20. This year is obviously an anomaly and given how much tends to change regarding prospect rankings between one year and the next it's impossible to say what they "should" have valued more. 

I'm fairly confident that if the full season played out the top 10 rankings from BA and other sources would have differed a good bit from where they ended up. It's possible Kjerstad would have still be ranked around 8-10th, but he could also have made a Bleday-like jump. Not saying he's the most likely candidate to improve his stock -- the same could be said for many of the other top prospects.  

[Frobby]

7 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think they should, but the optics are better if they do.

I couldn’t care less.    Save the money and spend it on some more Rapsodo machines or whatever.   It’s the performance of these players that will determine if we spent our draft allotment well, not whether we spent every last dime allotted.   

Or, go find 20 more guys to sign for $20 k each.   
 

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I couldn’t care less.    Save the money and spend it on some more Rapsodo machines or whatever.   It’s the performance of these players that will determine if we spent our draft allotment well, not whether we spent every last dime allotted.   

Or, go find 20 more guys to sign for $20 k each.   
 

You know as well as I do that those signings don't count against the pool.

[Frobby]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

You know as well as I do that those signings don't count against the pool.

It’s still money.  

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

It’s still money.  

I was joking when I wrote that but yea, it wouldn't be the same thing.  You have one chance a year to acquire these guys and best use the money you are allowed to spend.  You can buy cameras anytime.  You can sign random free agents anytime.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I was joking when I wrote that but yea, it wouldn't be the same thing.  You have one chance a year to acquire these guys and best use the money you are allowed to spend.  You can buy cameras anytime.  You can sign random free agents anytime.

Here’s my point: you think you are going to need your whole allotment to sign the players you chose.    It turns out that you can sign the group for $400 k less than you thought.    Do you pay them the whole allotment to avoid the supposed embarrassment of underspending it, or do you take the savings and find something else to do with it?   I’d vote for the latter every time.    And in five years, I won’t remember what we paid these guys, but I will remember where we drafted them and take note of how well they’ve performed.   If Kjerstad turns into a good player, it won’t matter to me whether they paid him $5.2 mm or $5.6 mm.   

[Can_of_corn]

14 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Here’s my point: you think you are going to need your whole allotment to sign the players you chose.    It turns out that you can sign the group for $400 k less than you thought.    Do you pay them the whole allotment to avoid the supposed embarrassment of underspending it, or do you take the savings and find something else to do with it?   I’d vote for the latter every time.    And in five years, I won’t remember what we paid these guys, but I will remember where we drafted them and take note of how well they’ve performed.   If Kjerstad turns into a good player, it won’t matter to me whether they paid him $5.2 mm or $5.6 mm.   

I think you need to get better at figuring out costs.

Of course I'm not actually suggesting they give away money.

I think this franchise has a razor thin margin for error.

[Chavez Ravine]

Being off by a few hundred K in a strange, data poor, truncated year seems OK to me. Granted, those are very much high leverage dollars to leave on the table, but it’s a very amorphous  leverage (particularly in that amount). You can give the real dollars to an intern to day trade  with to see what they can do with by next month.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Chavez Ravine said:

Being off by a few hundred K in a strange, data poor, truncated year seems OK to me. Granted, those are very much high leverage dollars to leave on the table, but it’s a very amorphous  leverage (particularly in that amount). You can give the real dollars to an intern to day trade  with to see what they can do with by next month.

Also, they might not be over.  Everyone hasn't signed yet.  This is just speculation and chatter.

[PHRESH]

2 hours ago, TheWall said:

Certainly interesting that they seem to really buy into their projections for '20. This year is obviously an anomaly and given how much tends to change regarding prospect rankings between one year and the next it's impossible to say what they "should" have valued more. 

I'm fairly confident that if the full season played out the top 10 rankings from BA and other sources would have differed a good bit from where they ended up. It's possible Kjerstad would have still be ranked around 8-10th, but he could also have made a Bleday-like jump. Not saying he's the most likely candidate to improve his stock -- the same could be said for many of the other top prospects.  

Tork's stock could've dropped, too. Lots of things could've changed if this virus hadn't hit. It's certainly gotta be one of the more difficult years for scouts.