Should the Orioles take the BPA or the Best Fit?

[Beltwayman]

"Best Player Available". Thats What I would say. I dont care if its a pitcher or any (maaaaybe catcher would be the exception, maybe) position player.

What do you think? Best Fit or Best Available?

[Beltwayman]

Sorry WebLink21....

learned how to operate that poll. Heres your post from the other thread....

WebLink21 said,

"I think in the baseball draft, you should always take best player available and not reach for need. The only thing that I would say is we may want to value a hitter a little more than a pitcher based on our system, but even that may get the team reaching and take a player with less talent."

[Stotle]

I think early you have to take the player that you feel has the best combination of talent and likelihood to provide ML value. As th draft progresses, the talent bunches a lot and you can look at specific needs.

[Scrat1]

I think you have to take the best available talent, but that doesn't mean you don't pay any attention at all to what you already have. For example, if in this upcoming draft there are two players that we're deciding between at 1:5, and we think they are equally likely to become major league contributors and they both project to become equally valuable players, but one is a catcher and one is a pitcher, then I think, in that case, we'd take the pitcher, because we already have Wieters. But, if the catcher was more likely to become a better player than the pitcher, you have to take him even though we have Wieters.

So my philosophy is: draft the best talent available, but tie goes to the best fit.

[Stotle]

I think you have to take the best available talent, but that doesn't mean you don't pay any attention at all to what you already have. For example, if in this upcoming draft there are two players that we're deciding between at 1:5, and we think they are equally likely to become major league contributors and they are both project to become equally valuable players, but one is a catcher and one is a pitcher, then I think, in that case, we'd take the pitcher, because we already have Wieters. But, if the catcher was more likely to become a better player than the pitcher, you have to take him even though we have Wieters.

So my philosophy is: draft the best talent available, but tie goes to the best fit.

I really think Matzek makes the most sense -- provided he continues to pitch well. He was at the top of my board for "likely" O's picks at the end of the summer, and I think I'd still put him there. A good college arm would be great, but I'd much rather add to the low-minors provided I'm not sacrificing talent. Were there a game-changing college bat, that would be ideal. There just doesn't seem to be that true impact bat out there (aside from Ackley as an on-base guy).

[Scrat1]

I really think Matzek makes the most sense -- provided he continues to pitch well. He was at the top of my board for "likely" O's picks at the end of the summer, and I think I'd still put him there. A good college arm would be great, but I'd much rather add to the low-minors provided I'm not sacrificing talent. Were there a game-changing college bat, that would be ideal. There just doesn't seem to be that true impact bat out there (aside from Ackley as an on-base guy).

I was just using my "upcoming draft" as a thought experiment, I wasn't making any calls about the actual players in the real upcoming draft. (Obviously there aren't any catchers in the running to be taken at 1:5).

[Stotle]

I was just using my "upcoming draft" as a thought experiment, I wasn't making any calls about the actual players in the real upcoming draft. (Obviously there aren't any catchers in the running to be taken at 1:5).

Oh, I understand and I agree. I think your point applies regardless as there are several HS catchers that should be considered at 2:5 (in my opinion). I think an interesting case is Smoak, who as been discussed a great deal around here. He dropped so far that his value was such taht TEX couldn't pass him up at 1:12, dispite having a ton of 1B talent already. Is that bad or okay? Shrug. It depends on what you do once that logjam occurs.

[QBsILLEST1]

I agree with you all that you should take the best player available. For the sake of the argument, if Buster Posey were in this years draft and he fell to us at 5 (which is where he was picked if Im not mistaken in 08) and was the BPA I would take him even though we already have Wieters. Whether you transform him to another position, or you trade him for equal value, in the long run you still will get more value drafting with this philosophy, no matter what.

[QBsILLEST1]

Oh, I understand and I agree. I think your point applies regardless as there are several HS catchers that should be considered at 2:5 (in my opinion). I think an interesting case is Smoak, who as been discussed a great deal around here. He dropped so far that his value was such taht TEX couldn't pass him up at 1:12, dispite having a ton of 1B talent already. Is that bad or okay? Shrug. It depends on what you do once that logjam occurs.

You are right, there are a few HS catchers with HUGE power/hitting potential.... Stassi is one I hear about a lot

[Stotle]

I agree with you all that you should take the best player available. For the sake of the argument, if Buster Posey were in this years draft and he fell to us at 5 (which is where he was picked if Im not mistaken in 08) and was the BPA I would take him even though we already have Wieters. Whether you transform him to another position, or you trade him for equal value, in the long run you still will get more value drafting with this philosophy, no matter what.

I would have taken Posey last year. The only reason I dropped him on my board was that he came out with a $12mios asking price the night before the draft, which put him right below Matusz for me. He was in contention for the #1 overall slot along with Alvarez and T. Beckham. To be honest, I think Tampa Bay had the same thought. He was a perfect fit for them, but I don't think they wanted the hastle when Beckham would sign right away and get started (not saying they didn't want Beckham, just that I think they would have strongly considered Posey up to the jump in asking price).

[Stotle]

You are right, there are a few HS catchers with HUGE power/hitting potential.... Stassi is one I hear about a lot

He was my top catcher coming into the season. Saw him in person at the Under Armour All-American game at Wrigley and saw some film from other showcases -- the kid is legit. Loved his bat (which believe it or not some were down on for a stretch last summer) and he moves really well behind the plate.

If you like power, Austin Maddox may be your guy. Walsh has some pop, too.

[Old#5fan]

He was my top catcher coming into the season. Saw him in person at the Under Armour All-American game at Wrigley and saw some film from other showcases -- the kid is legit. Loved his bat (which believe it or not some were down on for a stretch last summer) and he moves really well behind the plate.

If you like power, Austin Maddox may be your guy. Walsh has some pop, too.

They need to take pitching, pitching and more PITCHING.

[ChaosLex]

Definitely BPA.

[JTrea81]

The Orioles need ML ready talent, and that is the best fit. We need to use the draft as a pipeline to get talent onto the club ASAP at the positions where we do not have long term solutions.

We have long term solutions at C, 2B, RF, LF, CF and P.

We need 1B, SS and 3B.

[Stotle]

The Orioles need ML ready talent, and that is the best fit. We need to use the draft as a pipeline to get talent onto the club ASAP at the positions where we do not have long term solutions.

We have long term solutions at C, 2B, RF, LF, CF and P.

We need 1B, SS and 3B.

SOL -- there really isn't any ML-ready SS/3B/1B talent at the 1:5 level. You could try and grab someone like Ryan Wheeler if he falls to 2:5, but there isn't anyone at those three positions worth taking at 1:5, with the exception of Grant Green.

Definitely options in the 2/3/4 rounds, but you're not getting the quick-fix type player you seem to be seeking.