Connolly: Trade Deadline thoughts

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea but you may prefer 30 and 38 over 5 and 55 because you likely would have a lot more money to spend on other guys.  So yes, the depth matters.

It also matters how strong they are.  The differences between #5 and #30 could be very little or it could be a ton.

Its just wrong to look at things like this in any one way.  Lots of variables.  The regular draft is the same thing.

This years draft isn’t considered deep, so the Os should blow their wad early imo.

I'm going to say that isn't actually the case.  Sure it's theoretically possible but I don't think it ever plays out that way.  (I'm not saying the #30 guy can't end up being the better player)

[Sports Guy]

9 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm going to say that isn't actually the case.  Sure it's theoretically possible but I don't think it ever plays out that way.  (I'm not saying the #30 guy can't end up being the better player)

I think it’s the case a lot more than you think.. especially when talking about 16 and 17 year old kids with so little development time.

Going off of these rankings as any sort of 100% authority is foolish.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

I think it’s the case a lot more than you think.. especially when talking about 16 and 17 year old kids with so little development time.

Going off of these rankings as any sort of 100% authority is foolish.

Why even say this?

I made it abundantly clear that I wasn't doing this.

So why bring it up....yet again?

 

 

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Why even say this?

I made it abundantly clear that I wasn't doing this.

So why bring it up....yet again?

 

 

Because you are doing it.  

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Because you are doing it.  

Can you read?

Did you not see me, repeatedly, carefully, couch my statements?

[Sports Guy]

32 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Not really.  You aren't going to see a situation in which the #5 guy isn't considered a significantly more valuable prospect than the #30 guy.  You might have a class in which #5 and others are a better deal than #1 but the O's aren't in either situation right now.

Seems to me that you are putting a lot of weight in the rankings.   

[Sports Guy]

9 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Because you are doing it.  

You down voted this?  Lol..what a baby.  

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Can you read?

Did you not see me, repeatedly, carefully, couch my statements?

Yes and they were as poor as usual and seemed to put a lot of weight in the rankings.  

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes and they were as poor as usual and seemed to put a lot of weight in the rankings.  

So is it "a lot" or "100% authority"  ?

Those aren't even close to the same thing.  Much like the #5 prospect and the #30 prospect aren't close to the same thing.

I downvoted voted your post because I exerted effort to make darn well sure I put conditioning statements in each and every one of my posts because I knew you would throw that same tired crap at me you always do.  Then you did it anyway.

It's not intellectually honest.  You blatantly misrepresented my position.

[Sports Guy]

16 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

So is it "a lot" or "100% authority"  ?

Those aren't even close to the same thing.  Much like the #5 prospect and the #30 prospect aren't close to the same thing.

I downvoted voted your post because I exerted effort to make darn well sure I put conditioning statements (where did you exert that btw??) in each and every one of my posts because I knew you would throw that same tired crap at me you always do.  Then you did it anyway.

It's not intellectually honest.  You blatantly misrepresented my position.

 

I stated that you are putting too much into the rankings.  I feel you are no matter what bs conditioning statements you think you put in.

You are making very specific and general claims and all I’m saying is that there are a lot of other variables in play.  You denied that and essentially used the rankings to justify you denial.  That’s laughable to me. 

[Sports Guy]

And where did you make it abundantly clear you weren’t using the rankings?  You are the one who introduced the topic by talking about a #5 rated guy vs #30, etc….

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

And where did you make it abundantly clear you weren’t using the rankings?  You are the one who introduced the topic by talking about a #5 rated guy vs #30, etc….

Once again can you read?  Can you even remember what you yourself said?

How does mentioning rankings lead to "Going off of these rankings as any sort of 100% authority is foolish."?

You do agree that the rankings aren't just random right?  That there has to be some value in them? 

If there is some value in them they warrant being mentioned. 

 

 

[Sports Guy]

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Once again can you read?  Can you even remember what you yourself said?

How does mentioning rankings lead to "Going off of these rankings as any sort of 100% authority is foolish."?

You do agree that the rankings aren't just random right?  That there has to be some value in them? 

If there is some value in them they warrant being mentioned. 

 

 

I think you are putting a lot (too much)of value into them.  It is your whole argument.
 

Your argument is that the #5 guy has more value.  That’s what you said.  You were also saying that within the context of this post:

Both guys were ranked from 30-40 (for whatever that is worth).

Getting a guy at 30 and a guy at 38 is still at the bottom of the pack. 

Would you rather have a guy at #5 and a guy at #55 or a guy at #30 and a guy at #38?  Would you rather go the Jasson route and drop practically your whole allotment on the #1 guy?

I accept that progress is being made but right now they are still at the back of the pack with the better teams still pulling ahead.
 

My point was that there are other variables involved.  You then said that   You aren't going to see a situation in which the #5 guy isn't considered a significantly more valuable prospect than the #30 guy.

 

The conversation is about overall value, progress in signings, etc…all I’m seeing you from you is discussing rankings of the players. I’m not seeing an overall discussion.

So yes, I stand by my comments.  If you don’t like it, learn to say what you mean because if you don’t feel you are putting a big emphasis on the rankings, I don’t know what to tell you.  I don’t think anyone would read what you are saying and disagree with me.

[spiritof66]

2 hours ago, LTO's said:

This was true of the first class but I’m pretty sure they spent nearly all of their pool for the second class. It’s been explained a million times that kids have deals in place years ahead of their class so the Orioles were going to be behind initially. Hernandez and Basallo are 7 figure signings and both top 40 international  prospects. 

We tend to assess an MLB's team ability and willingness to spend by looking at its current MLB payroll. As I've said so many times that I hesitate to repeat it, that's only part of the story. What you'd like to do is compare what each team spends over a three- or five-year period in ways that it believes will make the team better: MLB payroll, minor-league payroll, managers, coaches, instructors, scouts, analytics staff, training equipment (excluding trash cans), etc. etc. etc. The taxes on high MLB payrolls provide an incentive for the highest-revenue teams to look for non-payroll investments that will improve their teams. We don't know those numbers. (While the profits published by Forbes and others enable estimates to be made of a team's total expenses, those estimates are pretty soft and don't differentiate between types on non-MLB payroll expenses.)

It's the same thing with international players -- more so since teams' bonuses have been capped at amounts that are roughly equal (other than for Atlanta). If the Orioles, NYYs and Dodgers all spend about the same on international signings in 2022, that doesn't mean that their international spending is comparable. You would want to know what they spend on scouting in the Dominican and Venezuela and Cuba and the Dutch ABC islands and Mexico and Australia and I-don't know-where-else, on courting younger, not-yet-signable players, on building, innovating on and maintaining facilities, on instructional staff, on applying analytics to international players, and on a bunch of things I know nothing about. Nobody knows those numbers; the only visible costs are for signings and, occasionally, constructing or upgrading a facility. In addition, if you want to compare what teams are willing and able to spend on their international talent pipelines, you should look at a few years together; young players will develop at different rates, and the impact on the ML team in any season will reflect the fruits of signings over a few years. 

Other than the fact that the Orioles' international talent flow until a couple of years ago was virtually non-existent, I don't know how the Orioles stack up against other teams in those respects. What I do know is that if you're trying to catch up with competitors that have a significant head start on you, and especially if you're trying to speed up a process that by its nature is slow in improving your end-product, you ought to be spending more, not less or even as much as, those competitors -- or be spending it a lot smarter.

I don't have any facts, but I'm skeptical that the Orioles are outspending the NYYs, Red Sox or Jays, or outsmarting these teams or the Rays, all of which have more experience and, I'm guessing, more wisdom in signing and developing international talent. I see no reason to believe the Orioles are now, or are about to begin, outperforming those teams while all of them work and spend to improve their international operations. (I don't understand how the Rays do what they do, but this year they signed Baseball America's #4 and #17 international prospects.) It's possible that the new CBA will give the Orioles some advantage by adding a draft-like element that favors teams with crappy records, but that's not something to count on.

Doing better than when Peter Angelos stupidly clamped a lid on this spending sounds good, and it is good. Very good. At the same time, it's hard for me to see how closing the very large competitive gap, but likely continuing to bring in the division's third or fourth most value from international signings, will help produce a contending team in the next few years.

[Sports Guy]

I’m still waiting for the “abundantly clear” posts that you aren’t using the rankings as an authority here.