We are up. Who do you want for pick 81, and who do you think they will take?

[Sports Guy]

10 hours ago, waroriole said:

They’re intriguing as helium guys, but they shouldn’t be the top pitchers in your class. Especially when the opportunity presented itself to draft guys who had fallen further than expected and had much bigger upside. I liked the Wagner pick, but we gave up a chance to get two SP so we could draft two more college OFs. 

I don’t necessarily disagree.  I think it’s a flawed strategy.  Not so much the idea of taking hitting (because I agree with it overall) but for some reason, the team doesn’t seem interested in spending over the pool money and they don’t seem interested in paying our big dollars to an overslot guy.

They had Porter for them on every pick through the 4th round and didn’t take him.  Why?  His mechanics?  His signing demands?  He’s clearly talented.  He’s well liked within the industry.  So why not go get him when you had the chance and didn’t go overslot on any of your picks.

If you aren’t going to do that, the chances of you getting impact pitching are low and with that being the case, you wind up with guys like this that you hope you can develop into something.

[LookinUp]

58 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

They had Porter for them on every pick through the 4th round and didn’t take him.  Why?  His mechanics?  His signing demands?  He’s clearly talented.  He’s well liked within the industry.  So why not go get him when you had the chance and didn’t go overslot on any of your picks.

I think because they refuse to deviate significantly from their valuations to target a position.

They clearly could have targeted pitching earlier, but they're not trying to pay $2 million for a $1 million guy (or whatever). 

I do also think that teams mostly respect pre-draft deals. Porter probably makes that deal with Texas, his reps tell everyone he's off the table unless he gets some number that nobody else was willing to pay for him. 

[baltfan]

13 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I think because they refuse to deviate significantly from their valuations to target a position.

They clearly could have targeted pitching earlier, but they're not trying to pay $2 million for a $1 million guy (or whatever). 

I do also think that teams mostly respect pre-draft deals. Porter probably makes that deal with Texas, his reps tell everyone he's off the table unless he gets some number that nobody else was willing to pay for him. 

The rumor is that Porter is getting $3.7mm from the Rangers (they saved a ton of money with Rocker).  If the Orioles took him in the fourth like the Rangers the slot on that pick is $571k.  That means the Orioles would need to find about $3.1mm in other picks in the draft.   Obviously, they looked at the guys available to them in the picks before and didn't think it was worth it to go that far underslot with each of them to accumulate that kind of money.  Perhaps they could have punted the rest of the draft after the fourth to accumulate the money, but that is a lot to risk on a high school pitcher especially if you think that you can develop pitchers on the cheap.  

[Sports Guy]

22 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I think because they refuse to deviate significantly from their valuations to target a position.

They clearly could have targeted pitching earlier, but they're not trying to pay $2 million for a $1 million guy (or whatever). 

I do also think that teams mostly respect pre-draft deals. Porter probably makes that deal with Texas, his reps tell everyone he's off the table unless he gets some number that nobody else was willing to pay for him. 

I’m not asking for them to reach for someone they don’t like.  Just using Porter as an example.  
 

The main point is that they don’t go much overslot and it’s fair to ask why.  Yes, they did it with Mayo and Baumler but when else?

In 2020, the Os had just under 14M to spend.  This year, through the same number of rounds, they had just under 16M.  This year saw them get one more player, who’s value was about 1.1M

In 2020, Haskin and Westburg signed for slot.  Kjerstad underslot and Servideo, Mayo and Baumler got overslot.  Mayo and Baumler got  a lot more than slot.  
 

I know people will point to Willems last year but I don’t believe that was a plan.  I think they realized they had money left over and just took a shot at that kid.  Why didn’t they do it earlier?

You had the money.  
 

End of the day, I’m glad they took their guy 1..that makes this a moot point in a lot of ways for me.  However, they had the money to go bigger later and they chose not to.  Is that simply a product of their model believing in the “cheaper guys” more? And if so, why go underslot early when you don’t need to later?

Im very interested in the process and how they come about these decisions.  Clearly ownership isn’t allowing them to go over the draft pool budget, which is unfortunate but even without it, they still had plenty of money to do something and get better talent.  
 

My biggest issue with this draft is the Fabian pick but again, at least there is upside with it.

[sportsfan8703]

Again we had all night to re run numbers by players, this time HS kids. Hopefully, we have enough pool money left to be able to go up around $1mm and talk one of these kids out of going to school. 

[Can_of_corn]

I've said before I'm not a huge fan of overslots.  Mostly you end up overpaying for the projected talent.

Should teams make use of the 4.9% allowable overage?  Sure.   But that's probably going to go to one player and doesn't necessitate you taking lesser players earlier to free up money.

I will say it's a extreme risk, extreme reward move for the Rangers.  This is the type of draft that can get a GM fired if they don't pan out.

[sportsfan8703]

@Sports GuyI didn’t want to clog up the board by quoting your post, but agreed with it. However I’m thinking that Beavers and Wagner were overslots. There’s also the possibility that we had a pre draft deal worked out with Fabian again, and he told not teams not to take him. So people may hate that, but Fabian could be some overslot. 
 

It would impress me if we went up to the 104.9% level today, nabbed a HS kid or too, and avoid the Willems situation from last year. 

[LookinUp]

18 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I’m not asking for them to reach for someone they don’t like.  Just using Porter as an example.  
The main point is that they don’t go much overslot and it’s fair to ask why.  Yes, they did it with Mayo and Baumler but when else?

...
Why didn’t they do it earlier?

...
Is that simply a product of their model believing in the “cheaper guys” more?

Porter's a perfect example though.

If you go over slot to get him, you probably do need to do it much earlier where the slot is still large. Your savings on other picks is minimized that way.

One way to do that would be to pick him with one of the 1b or 2a/b picks and punt another. That would essentially be trading two players for one. 

The other way is to draft him high and then go under slot for several others. That would essentially be pushing your board down by a round or two. 

In the end, I think you asked the right question. Do they just believe more in cheaper guys and I think the answer's yes. They prefer to spread the risk, and as it relates to pitching, they really do view those expenditures as more risky.

[sportsfan8703]

Is Sam Horn worth the gamble?  He’s a guy that might take 500k - 1mm for extra cash in the summer while playing QB at Missouri. 

[baltfan]

6 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

@Sports GuyI didn’t want to clog up the board by quoting your post, but agreed with it. However I’m thinking that Beavers and Wagner were overslots. There’s also the possibility that we had a pre draft deal worked out with Fabian again, and he told not teams not to take him. So people may hate that, but Fabian could be some overslot. 
 

It would impress me if we went up to the 104.9% level today, nabbed a HS kid or too, and avoid the Willems situation from last year. 

It's pretty clear that the Orioles' model believes that draft eligible sophomores are where a lot of value is to be had.  These guys though will generally be overslot because they have two more years of eligibility.  

[sportsfan8703]

1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

Porter's a perfect example though.

If you go over slot to get him, you probably do need to do it much earlier where the slot is still large. Your savings on other picks is minimized that way.

One way to do that would be to pick him with one of the 1b or 2a/b picks and essentially punt the other. That would essentially be trading two players for one. 

The other way is to draft him high and then go under slot for several others. That would essentially be pushing your board down by a round or two. 

In the end, I think you asked the right question. Do they just believe more in cheaper guys and I think the answer's yes. They prefer to spread the risk, and as it relates to pitching, they really do view those expenditures as more risky.

Why are people ignoring the fact that Boras had a combo deal worked out with just the Rangers for Rocker and Porter?

With Boras, Porter wouldn’t have signed with any other team. 
 

That’s a moot point. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Why are people ignoring the fact that Boras had a combo deal worked out with just the Rangers for Rocker and Porter?

With Boras, Porter wouldn’t have signed with any other team. 
 

That’s a moot point. 

Because it's conjecture and probably a violation of the rules.

 

I think folks have an extremely inflated opinion of how much power Boras has over the people he works for.

Why should Porter give a hoot about Rocker?

[LookinUp]

3 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Why are people ignoring the fact that Boras had a combo deal worked out with just the Rangers for Rocker and Porter?

With Boras, Porter wouldn’t have signed with any other team. 
 

That’s a moot point. 

Nobody's ignoring that. I said as much in another thread within the last hour. I think teams mostly respect the players when they say they have a deal in place.

Porter's just an example of an over slot guy. He was the biggest example though. Smaller examples would require smaller trade offs, obviously.

[Sports Guy]

27 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Porter's a perfect example though.

If you go over slot to get him, you probably do need to do it much earlier where the slot is still large. Your savings on other picks is minimized that way.

One way to do that would be to pick him with one of the 1b or 2a/b picks and punt another. That would essentially be trading two players for one. 

The other way is to draft him high and then go under slot for several others. That would essentially be pushing your board down by a round or two. 

In the end, I think you asked the right question. Do they just believe more in cheaper guys and I think the answer's yes. They prefer to spread the risk, and as it relates to pitching, they really do view those expenditures as more risky.

If that’s the case, why go cheaper in the first round the last 2 years.  2020 makes sense to an extent.  Cowser (and I really like him) over Lawlar I just don’t buy. 
 

So if your model says cheaper is better in the later rounds, why go cheap early?

[LookinUp]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

If that’s the case, why go cheaper in the first round the last 2 years.  2020 makes sense to an extent.  Cowser (and I really like him) over Lawlar I just don’t buy. 
 

So if your model says cheaper is better in the later rounds, why go cheap early?

Probably similar projection for a lower cost.