Signablity vs. BPA

[JCK]

I think you have to look at value. If you have several guys rated very close to each other and there is a tremendous $ disparity, then going with the cheaper guy who is not BPA might be okay.

As long as the team keeps spending total draft $ in line with the past few years, meaning that we are spending among the top 5 teams, meaning we sign several above slot guys, I am okay with focusing on some signability with the first rounder if the talent discrepancy is minimal (not a reach).

I somewhat disagree with this. I agree that if someone like Strass (for arguments sake) slips to us, then not taking him due to money is incredibly stupid. But what they have Wheeler and Matzek rated near even? I could agree with taking the easier sign even if Matzek is rated slightly better.

It would be one thing if there was a huge difference. If we draft someone like Minor or Leake I will be severely disappointed. But when the comparison is close enough, it may be better to go with the signability pick and use the extra money in the draft. There are reports of Matzek wanted $7m. If we could get Wheeler for $4m and use the other $3m for some above slot picks I would be very happy with that.

Again, I only agree with this if Jordan has the players rated near even. Otherwise, I do agree you should always go BPA.

To me, this idea of being "rated even" or having a bunch of players being equal is ridiculous. They may be rated closely right now, but we all know that the chances are one or two of them will go on to disgustingly successful ML careers, and one or two of them will probably either never make it or become average big leaguers at best.

So you take the guy that is just a little better than the other guys because that's the guy most likely to pull ahead of the pack.

It's like buying cars. If you test drive 4 cars and learn everything there is to know about them, they won't be "equal." At the end of the day, you will have a favorite. There may be a little about each car that you like or dislike, but, money being no object, you will go with the car that sticks out as better than the rest.

[JCK]

I hear what you are saying, but doesn't the fact that the O's have spent the 5th highest amount in MLB on signing bonuses the last three years support that we are not "penny pinching."

That has something to do with where we've drafted over those 3 years.

[Shopay]

That has something to do with where we've drafted over those 3 years.

True, but try explaining that to Pirate fans.

[JCK]

True, but try explaining that to Pirate fans.

Haha, true. But forgive me if I set the bar higher than the Pirates.

[JTrea81]

Would you stop with this stuff already?

Do you know how many teams passed on Porcello? We do not operate in a vacuum.

The Os do spend $ on the draft - plenty of it, and it has been increasing in recent years. The Os are doing exactly what you advocate, generally, so stop the incessant whining.

The Orioles ramped up to $7.7 million for 2007 in bonuses, but dropped to $7.3 million for 2008.

I would hope with a #5 pick in the $4-6 million dollar range, that we'd ramp up to $8-9 million this year overall.

[mdterpsrule]

It's like buying cars. If you test drive 4 cars and learn everything there is to know about them, they won't be "equal." At the end of the day, you will have a favorite. There may be a little about each car that you like or dislike, but you go with the one that racks up the most pluses in your mind.

Buying cars is a terrible example. If I think a Camry is a slightly better car than a Corrola, but the Corrola is 1/3 less, I'm more than likely to go with the Corrola.

And obviously, some of these pitchers will not reach their potential. But who's to say that Matzek is going to be the one to reach his and Wheeler isn't? I consider singability a factor when looking at people this close because they both could reach their potential, but if one doesn't, saving $3m will hurt less. But again, this is only based on how closely Jordan has them rated.

[LookinUp]

Yeah, cost-benefit has to come in to the equation. Hopefully it only comes in for very evenly rated prospects though.

[JCK]

Buying cars is a terrible example. If I think a Camry is a slightly better car than a Corrola, but the Corrola is 1/3 less, I'm more than likely to go with the Corrola.

Then you end up with a middle reliever for 3million, as opposed to a #2-3 starter for 5million.

[Shopay]

Haha, true. But forgive me if I set the bar higher than the Pirates.

You can say that again.

[mdterpsrule]

The Orioles ramped up to $7.7 million for 2007 in bonuses, but dropped to $7.3 million for 2008.

I would hope with a #5 pick in the $4-6 million dollar range, that we'd ramp up to $8-9 million this year overall.

Sure we spent less on the draft in 08. But this was almost all due to Wieters. We signed Matusz to a 3.55m deal and Wieters to a $6m. Take out the first round pick factor and we spent $1.7m in bonuses in 2007 and $3.75 in bonuses in 08.

[mdterpsrule]

Then you end up with a middle reliever for 3million, as opposed to a #2-3 starter for 5million.

Or you end up with a #2-3 starter for $3m and a middle reliever for $5m.

[JTrea81]

Sure we spent less on the draft in 08. But this was almost all due to Wieters. We signed Matusz to a 3.55m deal and Wieters to a $6m. Take out the first round pick factor and we spent $1.7m in bonuses in 2007 and $3.75 in bonuses in 08.

And this could be the spreading out factor that some have been talking about, but if there is premium talent in the first round, you've got to go after that talent rather than spreading it out over lesser talent that dropped.

[QBsILLEST1]

I usualy don't agree with you, but here I do. Of course if and when we draft Wheeler (or worse-Minor or Leake or Hobgood) we will claim that he was the highest person on our board. But seemingly everyone else agrees that Turner and Matzek are better than any of those players, so a knowledgable fan will know that we went for the signability.

It boggles the mind. Do you think the Tigers regret paying big for Porcello? The Mets for paying big for Kazmir (okay they probably regret trading him, but not drafting him). Do WE regret paying big for Wieters?

You take the BPA because if you don't, inevitably one of the guys you passed on will go on and make you regret it.

I do not consider Turner to be the better pitcher between WHeeler and himself. The fluff about Turner hitting 98 MPH to me sounds like the usual hype that Boras sends out to scouts before the draft to justify his askin price for the player.....I like Wheeler more due to his advanced command, 3 projected plus pitches and the fact that his body is projected to fill out and he should gain even more MPH on his fastball. Between Wheeler and Matzek its a tough choice, one is safer with still a very high ceiling, but not as high as Wheeler's IMO who garners more risk, but not as much as Turner or Miller.....

[LAOSfan]

And Wieters wasn't drafted by AM. Signed yes, drafted no.

That's irrelevant. We still knew Wieters was going to be a tough sign and we drafted him and signed him regardless of who was actually in charge of either process.

Are you saying that MacPhail would not have drafted Wieters?

[mdterpsrule]

And this could be the spreading out factor that some have been talking about, but if there is premium talent in the first round, you've got to go after that talent rather than spreading it out over lesser talent that dropped.

Yeah I agree with that. If Strass or Ackley drops to us, then I think we should definitely scoop them up and pay a higher bonus, even if it means we may not be able to go over slot for a later round pick. But I believe the prep/HS pitchers are too closely ranked to consider them being a premium talent any more so than the others. This is where signability becomes a factor.