2022 early look top prospects

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

You keep saying Termarr Johnson has questionable athleticism.  What does that mean to you?  I have not seen one draft writeup ANYWHERE that questions his athleticism.  

Well, it’s basically thought that he has to stay at second base.  Meaning he can’t handle SS, CF or third.  If that’s the case, I think that’s a direct shot at his athleticism.

Let me put it another way.  He has a positional ceiling and that players don’t Normally have when chosen first. Not always the case but usually speaking it is.  A guy like Tork, who did draft as a third baseman, is another exception.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Jordan Lawlar was rated by Baseball America as the #1 player last year yet 4 other teams besides the Orioles passed on him.  Makes you wonder just how highly he was rated by the actual teams.  

No, I think it goes back to the idea of money and that teams place a big emphasis on money (well money saved for later) over talent..I think that’s true.

 

[geschinger]

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

No, I think it goes back to the idea of money and that teams place a big emphasis on money (well money saved for later) over talent..I think that’s true.

 

What I think you get wrong is framing it as money over talent.  I look at what Pittsburgh did last year and they added more talent to their org by drafting Davis and using the savings to get Bubba Chandler (consensus top 20 talent)  It's a tough argument to make that the combo of Davis/Chandler did not infuse a lot more talent into their organization than if they paid slot for Mayer or Leiter.

MLB doesn't have draft day trades.  The underslot / overslot is somewhat analagous to a team trading down in the MLB draft.  You mention the Ravens as BPA but they don't always do that - they trade down a lot.  Why is that seen as a shrewd way to add more talent to the org but an MLB team doing similar framed as money over talent? 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, geschinger said:

What I think you get wrong is framing it as money over talent.  I look at what Pittsburgh did last year and they added more talent to their org by drafting Davis and using the savings to get Bubba Chandler (consensus top 20 talent)  It's a tough argument to make that the combo of Davis/Chandler did not infuse a lot more talent into their organization than if they paid slot for Mayer or Leiter.

MLB doesn't have draft day trades.  The underslot / overslot is somewhat analagous to a team trading down in the MLB draft.  You mention the Ravens as BPA but they don't always do that - they trade down a lot.  Why is that seen as a shrewd way to add more talent to the org but an MLB team doing similar framed as money over talent? 

I think that there is a large difference between getting a consensus top 20 talent at 72 and paying second round money for someone in the fourth, fifth, or eighth rounds.

No one had a problem with the O's paying Gunnar after picking him 2-1.

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, geschinger said:

What I think you get wrong is framing it as money over talent.  I look at what Pittsburgh did last year and they added more talent to their org by drafting Davis and using the savings to get Bubba Chandler (consensus top 20 talent)  It's a tough argument to make that the combo of Davis/Chandler did not infuse a lot more talent into their organization than if they paid slot for Mayer or Leiter.

MLB doesn't have draft day trades.  The underslot / overslot is somewhat analagous to a team trading down in the MLB draft.  You mention the Ravens as BPA but they don't always do that - they trade down a lot.  Why is that seen as a shrewd way to add more talent to the org but an MLB team doing similar framed as money over talent? 

Because I don’t believe the Orioles, in the case of Cowser and maybe Kjerstad, took BPA.  The Ravens take BPA.

Thats the difference..and to me, it’s a significant one.

And it’s absolutely money over talent.  It means they are more interested in spending money later than taking the best talent on the board with that first high pick. That is absolutely valuing money over talent.

No where am I saying they aren’t taking talented guys.  I’m saying they aren’t taking the most talented guy.  

[geschinger]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Because I don’t believe the Orioles, in the case of Cowser and maybe Kjerstad, took BPA.  The Ravens take BPA.

Thats the difference..and to me, it’s a significant one.

And it’s absolutely money over talent.  It means they are more interested in spending money later than taking the best talent on the board with that first high pick. That is absolutely valuing money over talent.

No where am I saying they aren’t taking talented guys.  I’m saying they aren’t taking the most talented guy.  

That isn't true, the Ravens often do not take the BPA.  They often trade down which is defacto not taking the BPA.

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, geschinger said:

That isn't true, the Ravens often do not take the BPA.  They often trade down which is defacto not taking the BPA.

No that’s not really true.  
 

The Ravens do trade down but that’s because of how the board is falling.  If they have a guy they love there, as they did with Hamilton, they don’t move.

And btw, when they do trade down, they go bpa.  Do you really think the Orioles valued Norby or some of the other guys as the best player available when they took them?  Or Servideo or Haskin? I don’t.  
 

[LookinUp]

53 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Jordan Lawlar was rated by Baseball America as the #1 player last year yet 4 other teams besides the Orioles passed on him.  Makes you wonder just how highly he was rated by the actual teams.  

 

51 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

No, I think it goes back to the idea of money and that teams place a big emphasis on money (well money saved for later) over talent..I think that’s true.

 

To me, there are just too many unknowns to draw conclusions.

1. Was Lawler the #1 talent at any of those spots by a significant margin?

2. Was the difference in dollars enough to justify saving money to upgrade later?

3. Is the player falling because he's made a deal to a preferred destination that isn't the O's?

4. Has the player told the O's he doesn't want to go there?

5. Are there other factors that we're not privy to, such as attitude, work ethic, things picked up in scouting or data that McDaniel and Law don't have access to?

My assumption is that the O's have a mathematical model that spits out a range of outcomes and probabilities for those outcomes and they try to follow that model to maximize the output from a draft pool. That model is clearly not biased to spending x% more on a player that might be the best, but not by very much. So the question is whether you think their model is good enough or is it better to be really simple about it and take the scouts #1 player at the top even if it's close between #1 and #2/3.

With all of that said, I hope the O's take Jones or Holliday because plus graded SS and CF are hard to find and I believe they already have very good bats that can play 2B. 

[geschinger]

46 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The Ravens do trade down but that’s because of how the board is falling.  If they have a guy they love there, as they did with Hamilton, they don’t move.

Not seeing much of a difference.  When the Orioles loved the guy they had available at their pick (Adley) they don't go with the underslot (trade down) option.  When they don't see much of a distinction between a cluster of players at their draft position they take a trade of a Kjerstad + the additional draft capital for a Mayo/Baulmer over a BPA pick of a Martin or Lacy. 

The difference in how the systems are setup is that in MLB underslot/overslot you know up front who the BPA is that accepts an underslot deal whereas in the trade down scenario you hope that when your next pick comes that someone from the cluster of players you like remains on the board.

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Not seeing much of a difference.  When the Orioles loved the guy they had available at their pick (Adley) they don't go with the underslot (trade down) option.  When they don't see much of a distinction between a cluster of players at their draft position they take a trade of a Kjerstad + the additional draft capital for a Mayo/Baulmer over a BPA pick of a Martin or Lacy. 

The difference in how the systems are setup is that in MLB underslot/overslot you know up front who the BPA is that accepts an underslot deal whereas in the trade down scenario you hope that when your next pick comes that someone from the cluster of players you like remains on the board.

Well the real difference is that it’s harder to make it to the majors and be a contributor.  You get drafted by an NFL team and you are almost guaranteed a spot on the roster.  

[geschinger]

1 hour ago, LookinUp said:

To me, there are just too many unknowns to draw conclusions.

1. Was Lawler the #1 talent at any of those spots by a significant margin?

I don't think he was.  As draft day approached not even sure he was considered higher than Mayer was.

1 hour ago, LookinUp said:

My assumption is that the O's have a mathematical model that spits out a range of outcomes and probabilities for those outcomes and they try to follow that model to maximize the output from a draft pool. That model is clearly not biased to spending x% more on a player that might be the best, but not by very much. So the question is whether you think their model is good enough or is it better to be really simple about it and take the scouts #1 player at the top even if it's close between #1 and #2/3.

I think this is right.  Some of the other factors you had in your post probably play into things more than we know. For instance, I was kind of surprised learning how much time Elias personally scouted (more than 30 times) Gunnar Henderson when Elias was with the Astros. Seems like there is a lot to be learned about makeup / work ethic if the team has someone spending that much time on these top guys.

[geschinger]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well the real difference is that it’s harder to make it to the majors and be a contributor.  You get drafted by an NFL team and you are almost guaranteed a spot on the roster.  

Yep, much more difficult to grade.  It'll be interesting to see how things play out.  WIth the failure rate of first round picks I lean towards the volume of talent over putting all the eggs in one basket if there isn't a clear cut best player.  It will be interesting to see in 5 years which approach created more value for the respective teams.  

[Sports Guy]

32 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Yep, much more difficult to grade.  It'll be interesting to see how things play out.  WIth the failure rate of first round picks I lean towards the volume of talent over putting all the eggs in one basket if there isn't a clear cut best player.  It will be interesting to see in 5 years which approach created more value for the respective teams.  

You can pay slot at the first pick and it’s not even in the remote area of all eggs in one basket.  Plenty of money left to do a lot of other things.

[geschinger]

14 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

You can pay slot at the first pick and it’s not even in the remote area of all eggs in one basket.  Plenty of money left to do a lot of other things.

Not sure that's true but can't say I've looked at all the teams draft picks to know with any certainty.  I cannot think of any examples of the top of my head of teams that paid full slot in the first round and still managed to make significant over slot picks in later rounds.  

[Sports Guy]

32 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Not sure that's true but can't say I've looked at all the teams draft picks to know with any certainty.  I cannot think of any examples of the top of my head of teams that paid full slot in the first round and still managed to make significant over slot picks in later rounds.  

Well, first of all, there isn’t a player that they can pick at 1 where they have to pay full slot.

Secondly, in the Adley draft, they paid him close to slot and still ended up with Henderson and Stowers.  So obviously you can pay close to all the money with the first pick and still get very good talent later.  
 

The Os should care about those first 4-6 picks.  After that, whatever.