Matusz vs Smoak - Jim Callis perspective

[Lucky Jim]

Agree all around. Genuine points of dispute in preference, but no point of real dispute in the final pick.

There's simply no ground for claiming any great error either way.

[allstar1579]

The debate on whether we should have drafted a quality 1B vs a TOR SP was answered pretty well by Mr. Callis, who is an authority on the subject. The question I asked wasn't rhetorical.

Neither are bad picks, but the philsopophy is you draft for upside not to fill holes. In this case Matusz wins out IMO.

The problem is he's just one guy with one opinion. You can ask 9 other guys and get different answers on who we should have taken.

In the end the only real decision you can come to is that you could not have both of them, so you had to take one and need to get over the one you did not since it's done and over.

I wanted Smoak. I am completely fine with Matusz though, and now I have no interest in what Smoak is doing and want to focus on what we are going to add this year.

[Sports Guy]

It's funny how a simple question posed by me is more important than the actual content of Callis' comments. Go figure

Because your "simple" question basically says that since Callis says so, people can't have a different opinion and that is total bs.

[LookinUp]

It's philosophical for me...pitching wins the tie breaker every time.

[NewMarketSean]

Here's my final take on this.

Look at this draft. It is very weak in position players and swimming in pitching.

The 2008 draft was weaker in pitching and strong in position players.

We took a pitcher in a strong hitting class and now that we need a position player to balance our minor league talent, we have a weak draft for that. We had a chance to take Posey, Smoak or Beckham. Only Dustin Ackley might be better than those three out of all the position players available in this draft.

Now that Wieters and Reimold have been promoted, besides Snyder, our position player talent is very weak.

Smoak could have been our starting first baseman as soon as next season IMO. And his production would be very cheap compared to a FA that would produce the same. Nor would we have to trade any assets to get him. The fact that he was teammates with Wieters would just be an added bonus. The stars were perfectly aligned for us to take him, and we passed.

People can say we don't need Smoak because we have Snyder, but Snyder's power is still in question as is his patience. He just simply is not as good of a hitter or a defender at 1B. We could have and should have had Smoak and Snyder. Imagine that lineup...

I know we are going to take another pitcher in this draft as only Ackley makes sense at #5 and he'll be gone, I only hope that taking that pitcher allows us to deal some pitching and get a young corner IF impact bat that we so desperately need. It's just a shame to miss out on that bat and have to skip a year in the draft to find that talent or trade talent to get a player we could have had just for the cost of a signing bonus.

It just goes to show bats like Justin Smoak are not that easy to find.

Do the O's have the ability to look a year ahead to know if the draft is going to be pitching heavy? Especially enough to wait?

Look, the draft may have been hitter heavy, but the Orioles #1 need has always been pitching. They made the right move in taking Matusz. They had to address the needs they had.

And it looks more and more like Snyder may be an option for 1B in the future.

[Shopay]

Picking either player last year was a fabulous pick. Solid arguments can be made for both. Personally, I believe strongly in AM's theory that you buy bats and develop arms. Accordingly, if it's a close call, like last year, you go with the pitching.

[Frobby]

Just wanted to remind folks that, if Smoak turns out to be a great hitter, the teams that picked other hitters ahead of him will probably regret it more than we will.

[LookinUp]

Not if those teams got stud SS's or C's (Beckham, Posey). Some positions are more valuable than others. If the pitchers, SS's and C's work out as the drafting teams planned, they won't question for one second why they didn't go after a stud 1b.

[Mashed Potatoes]

People can say we don't need Smoak because we have Snyder, but Snyder's power is still in question as is his patience. He just simply is not as good of a hitter or a defender at 1B. We could have and should have had Smoak and Snyder. Imagine that lineup...

Snyder's power and patience were definitely an issue before, they're not much of a concern for me anymore. Remember his numbers have improved as he's moved up levels, that's impressive.

K/BB

2006 (A-) .12

2006 (A) .16

2007 (A) .41

2008 (A+) .35

2009 (AA) .56

His BB% is 11.2% this year with a .418 OBP.

His ISO was .175 last year and .253 this year. He's leading the Eastern league in OPS and is second in SLG.

This isn't to discredit the Smoak/Snyder comparison, just responding to the idea that his patience and power are questionable.

[RShack]

I just learned that Smoak was a HS teammate of Wieters. Maybe everybody else knew that, but I didn't.

Not sure why Callis includes it as a reason why Smoak made sense to the O's. Seems like a trivia question, not a reason.

As for the rest of it, this is debating which of 2 good decisions was best. You'd need a crystal ball to know that.

[Lucky Jim]

I just learned that Smoak was a HS teammate of Wieters. Maybe everybody else knew that, but I didn't.

Not sure why Callis includes it as a reason why Smoak made sense to the O's. Seems like a trivia question, not a reason.

As for the rest of it, this is debating which of 2 good decisions was best. You'd need a crystal ball to know that.

Callis doesn't. The reader does.

[tywright]

Because your "simple" question basically says that since Callis says so, people can't have a different opinion and that is total bs.

Oh really, it did?

Jump to conclusions much?

[Ruzious]

People can say we don't need Smoak because we have Snyder

Okay. We don't need Smoak because we have Snyder.

Look, they're the same age (I don't think that'll change...) at the same level. Wake me up when Smoak starts hitting better than Snyder.

[McLovin]

Can this debate be put to rest?

Because your "simple" question basically says that since Callis says so, people can't have a different opinion and that is total bs.

Depending on Ty's tone, his statement could mean a number of things. For example, it could be taken as "geez, I'm tired of hearing about this".

Anyway, I'd be happy with either guy. If both reach their peak, I'd rather have the pitcher. We'll need 10 years to grade this decision.

If I'm the Rangers though, I'd rather have Matusz, as he fills more of a need.

[LookinUp]

Not to toot my own horn, but I really think this is the salient point in this debate.

Not if those teams got stud SS's or C's (Beckham, Posey). Some positions are more valuable than others. If the pitchers, SS's and C's work out as the drafting teams planned, they won't question for one second why they didn't go after a stud 1b.

Several teams passed on Smoak despite his clearly very high level of play. Why? Because stud first basemen are much easier to find than stud pitchers and some other position prospects. Many prospects can hit but can't field their position. They end up playing fine at first.

I know Smoak's a plus defender, but I don't know how plus defense at first rates in a first baseman's value. My assumption is that the 10 teams that passed on Smoak would rather have a plus pitcher, catcher, short stop or third baseman than a plus first baseman.

That's why he fell...not because he's not good.