2022 early look top prospects

[Can_of_corn]

17 minutes ago, oriolesacox said:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/34160528/2022-mlb-mock-draft-20-kiley-mcdaniel-projects-first-41-picks-odds-no-1-overall

Kiley leans going Jones. May not be enough million dollar signs down the board to be worth saving at the top. Interesting take.

That's a huge part of it.

You need to have players worth spending the savings on.  If other teams pick them before you can what do you do?  Do you end up overpaying a guy that you don't think is really worth it because you've got the pool money sitting there and it's better to overpay than to not spend it at all?

Like I said earlier, it looks like a bad year to do this.  You already have the largest pool and the Mets have a huge pool and multiple first round picks.

A lack of solid targets is another complication that leads me to think that you take the BPA even if the difference isn't huge.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

You liked Martin leading up to the draft and last minute went Asa Lacy and then finally Zac Veen.  It really doesn't matter.  You're all over the place. This year you argue for the consensus #1 guy.  When the Orioles drafted #2, Austin Martin was the consensus top player on the board.

Was saving money on the #2 pick in 2020 a bad strategy?

I didn't want Lacy. I did like the upside in his arm (and still do) but he wasn't really my target. I didn't want pitching at all and if we took a pitcher, I wanted Meyer the most.

As for Martin, I was ok with him during the process because of what was being said about him but as the process went on and I read more, I didn't want him.  I felt he was being overvalued because of the lack of power and the likelihood he couldn't stick at SS.

No, I think going Kjerstad or (preferably) Veen was fine.  Either would have taken significantly less money and I liked them more than anyone else.  However, if the Orioles had the #1 pick that year, I wouldn't have wanted them to take Veen or Kjerstad over Torkelson just to save the money and that is really the discussion we are having.

[LookinUp]

A couple of things are true.

1. The O's are not "saving money" by taking a cheaper guy at the top. They're allocating dollars differently.

2. The idea that internet posters looking at historical WAR distributions know more than a data driven organization with deep insight into the players and their demands, is ludicrous.

Opinions are fine, but there's zero chance I'd trust anyone on this board more than Elias.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

So were the Pirates dumb or not?  

I recently read that the Pirates had Davis #1 on their board.  If that's true than no, they weren't dumb but I don't believe its true.  If they had Lawlar 1 and passed on him than yes, I think that was dumb.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

A couple of things are true.

1. The O's are not "saving money" by taking a cheaper guy at the top. They're allocating dollars differently.

2. The idea that internet posters looking at historical WAR distributions know more than a data driven organization with deep insight into the players and their demands, is ludicrous.

Opinions are fine, but there's zero chance I'd trust anyone on this board more than Elias.

I don't get why people say this.  Is this supposed to matter to anyone?  This is one of the dumbest things people say on here.  Why do you discuss anything if basically all you are going to do is bow down to what the Os do?

I remember being on this board and complaining about moves from Syd Thrift, Beattie, Flanny, et al and people saying those guys have the jobs, so obviously they know more.  

So are people not supposed to give their thoughts on a message board because Elias knows more?  

Oh and poo pooing historical data is comical.

[RZNJ]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

I must have missed it but where did he say he had Johnson 2 on his board? 

Did you read the article?  It's right there.  ALMOST impossible to miss.

[Sports Guy]

BTW, McDaniel is saying exactly what I have been talking about.

How deep you feel this draft is helps determine where you go with the first pick and you just don't have the talent there to spend on as you go on.  These guys just don't usually make any kind of an impact.

Take the #1 guy on your board (who will assuredly take under slot), spend the 800K over your budget that you are allowed to and get the best talent you can.  

[Sports Guy]

Just now, RZNJ said:

Did you read the article?  It's right there.  ALMOST impossible to miss.

Yea, I just saw it, which is why I took my post down.  

[RVAOsFan]

https://www.oddschecker.com/us/insight/baseball/mlb/20220625-2022-mlb-mock-draft-predicting-each-of-the-first-two-rounds

I was looking at some random mock drafts, not sure how tied in this one might be but they have the Orioles taking college pitchers at 33, 42 and 67.  I would LOVE to see this happen.

[RZNJ]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

BTW, McDaniel is saying exactly what I have been talking about.

How deep you feel this draft is helps determine where you go with the first pick and you just don't have the talent there to spend on as you go on.  These guys just don't usually make any kind of an impact.

Take the #1 guy on your board (who will assuredly take under slot), spend the 800K over your budget that you are allowed to and get the best talent you can.  

I agree with McDaniel so we are in agreement.   But that's based on the belief that Jones is #1 on the Orioles board as well.  

 

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

I agree with McDaniel so we are in agreement.   But that's based on the belief that Jones is #1 on the Orioles board as well.  

 

But it doesn't matter who is #1...just that you took whoever is #1.

For example, if Holliday is 1 on your board and he cost 8M, you don't take Johnson who costs 6.5M just for the savings.  

We have read many different articles recently, some talking about how the draft is more about the money you spend and not as much as when you pick...that your rankings don't mean as much.  I think thats an absurd thought because so few players ever make it beyond round 1.  I mean, R1 is only like a 50% hit rate and remember, the first pick is, by far, the most valuable pick in career WAR in the draft.  

I don't love the strategy but I like it even less when you pick first.  That pick is just so valuable.

 

[Sports Guy]

Some of you guys are acting like if the Orioles spent slot or close to it with the first pick that the Orioles can't sign good players later.

They will still have another 9-10MM to spend (if they go over by 800ishK)). They can still get very good talent.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Some of you guys are acting like if the Orioles spent slot or close to it with the first pick that the Orioles can't sign good players later.

They will still have another 9.5-10MM to spend (if they go over by 800ishK)). They can still get very good talent.

Look at Adley and Gunnar.

[Sports Guy]

12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Look at Adley and Gunnar.

…and Stowers.  

[RZNJ]

We don't disagree on theory. I'm just more willing to see which way they go and not assume they were:

1. Stupid

2. Cheap

3. Incompetent 

If they don't follow a "fan popular/consensus driven" approach. 

2019 Rutschman/Henderson/Stowers

2020 Kjerstad/Westburg/Mayo

2021 Cowser?

IMO, they hit home runs with the first two drafts.  2021 looks meh to this point.

2022 ?