Some stuff I've heard

[JTrea81]

Not trying to start anything JTrea, but who are you talking about specifically? I do agree that avoiding Boras' clients is not a smart move.

I'm going on BB's info, and given our track record under Andy MacPhail, it seems to fit.

As I said, we won't know really until it happens. If Ackley is there and we pass, as I said whoever makes that decision to pass on him should lose their job.

Ackley = Wieters in this draft.

[JCK]

How much more money will Matzek and Green get over the 3.5 million number being talked about for Wheeler?

I doubt either of them gets more than 2 million more and even 2 million is probably going to be too much.

So, the question is this....Is that extra 1-1.5 million really going to stop them from signing players that have dropped due to signability?

I suspect it's not necessarily the money. I get the feeling AM just doesn't like going through contentious negotiations. So if there's a guy who he feels "just wants to play ball" then he'll take that guy, even if the better guy would have signed for only a little more at the deadline.

This would be a huge liability in a GM if that were the case.

[napbow]

I'm going on BB's info, and given our track record under Andy MacPhail, it seems to fit.

As I said, we won't know really until it happens. If Ackley is there and we pass, as I said whoever makes that decision to pass on him should lose their job.

Ackley = Wieters in this draft.

If we pass on Ackley for a slot player I will be very upset. Let's just hope that doesn't happen.

[Sports Guy]

I suspect it's not necessarily the money. I get the feeling AM just doesn't like going through contentious negotiations. So if there's a guy who he feels "just wants to play ball" then he'll take that guy, even if the better guy would have signed for only a little more at the deadline.

This would be a huge liability in a GM if that were the case.

No doubt....Matusz's negotations drug out for a while last year.

When you have that attitude, you end up with Chris Smith.

[Mashed Potatoes]

How much more money will Matzek and Green get over the 3.5 million number being talked about for Wheeler?

I doubt either of them gets more than 2 million more and even 2 million is probably going to be too much.

So, the question is this....Is that extra 1-1.5 million really going to stop them from signing players that have dropped due to signability?

I think there is an essential question that has not been answered yet. Do the O's come into the draft with a set budget limit, and work from there, or, do they see how the draft goes and are willing to spend a bit more if certain players fall to them?

If they have a set budget than that extra 1.5 million means a lot more, especially if they have Wheeler/Matzek/White basically rated the same. If they're going with the flow than perhaps the real question is, do the O's think that Matzek is actually worth 5 million dollars. They may not and may be justified in that belief.

For all of my disagreements with JTrea I agree that they should not go into the draft with a limit and this is the place they should take some big chances and spend more than our competitors.

[WebLink21]

I'm going on BB's info, and given our track record under Andy MacPhail, it seems to fit.

As I said, we won't know really until it happens. If Ackley is there and we pass, as I said whoever makes that decision to pass on him should lose their job.

Ackley = Wieters in this draft.

I would be willing to bet that if Ackley is there at #5 we would take him, regardless of his agent. I am not trying to be confrontational, I just don't think that this is as big of a deal as people are making it. I can not remember really passing on any Boras clients last year that we should have taken either. Matusz was the right pick at #4 IMO.

[mapierce]

Ackley = Wieters in this draft.

That is quite a bold statement there.

[JCK]

I would be willing to bet that if Ackley is there at #5 we would take him, regardless of his agent. I am not trying to be confrontational, I just don't think that this is as big of a deal as people are making it. I can not remember really passing on any Boras clients last year that we should have taken either. Matusz was the right pick at #4 IMO.

Right. Matusz was certainly a fine pick at 4. But in a sense we got lucky that we were never put in a position where the consensus BPA was a Boras/high price guy. So in that sense MacPhail's tendencies are untested with the Orioles. Given who they are saying is going to be available to us at 5 this year, it seems this will be his test. And judging by what they are saying we'll do, he may not do very well.

[JTrea81]

That is quite a bold statement there.

Not really. Wieters was the best hitter if not the best player in the 2007 draft. Ackley is the best hitter in the 2009 draft.

The comparison draft standing wise is legit.

[Mackus]

That is quite a bold statement there.

Its quite a false statement. Ackley isn't near the prospect Wieters was at the time he was drafted.

Wieters was in the Pedro Alvarez group, guys that aren't just the best hitter in their draft, but are among the best hitters of the most recent several drafts (plus Wieters was a catcher which makes him much more valuable). Ackley is a tier below. I hope he falls, because I think he has a chance to be a very good hitter for 1B and better if he can play OF or 2B, but he's not in Wieters' class.

[napbow]

Right. Matusz was certainly a fine pick at 4. But in a sense we got lucky that we were never put in a position where the consensus BPA was a Boras/high price guy. So in that sense MacPhail's tendencies are untested with the Orioles. Given who they are saying is going to be available to us at 5 this year, it seems this will be his test. And judging by what they are saying we'll do, he may not do very well.

The problem with this statement is that we have no idea what their internal rankings are. They may have Wheeler and TM ranked the same.

This draft won't prove anything. If they pass on what is considered superior talent several years in a row than I think we can assume that he is avoiding paying the high price tag.

[JTrea81]

Its quite a false statement. Ackley isn't near the prospect Wieters was at the time he was drafted.

Wieters was in the Pedro Alvarez group, guys that aren't just the best hitter in their draft, but are among the best hitters of the most recent several drafts (plus Wieters was a catcher which makes him much more valuable). Ackley is a tier below. I hope he falls, because I think he has a chance to be a very good hitter for 1B and better if he can play OF or 2B, but he's not in Wieters' class.

My intention wasn't to say Ackley was as good of a prospect as Matt Wieters rather that Ackley like Wieters was the best hitting talent and safest bet in the whole draft.

Passing on Ackley in this draft, would be like passing on Wieters in 2007.

[csgordos]

IIRC AM has said numerous times that he doesn't like to spend a lot of money on pitchers but would prefer to build through the draft with pitching. Draft 10 pitchers and hope 2 make it and stick (that is my take). Andy appears to always be playing the numbers game (quantity over quality especially if the quantity has quality in it ie. our 2008 drafting of pitchers in later rounds). Pitching is a crapshoot with elbows and shoulders.

Losing a top pick that cost you 5 million is something I don't think Andy is willing to do. He would rather not pick them and that person hit it big than lose 5 million on a pitcher that never sees the majors. But if the difference in signing ends up being only .5 million you do it. With that being said I don't think we would ever think of spending 4-5 million on an unproven youngster when we will not spend it on a proven starting pitcher. When was the last time McPhail spent more than 5 million on a starting pitcher in the majors? Koji got 5M per year. My guess is we go with the lower risk / signability guy considering it seems all things are equal. I don't think we are getting a Wieters or Brian M. this year. But I do think we may draft some Dave Hernandez type of players later that we will use the saved extra money on. Just my uniformed take.

[JTrea81]

IIRC AM has said numerous times that he doesn't like to spend a lot of money on pitchers but would prefer to build through the draft with pitching. Draft 10 pitchers and hope 2 make it and stick (that is my take). Andy appears to always be playing the numbers game (quantity over quality especially if the quantity has quality in it ie. our 2008 drafting of pitchers in later rounds). Pitching is a crapshoot with elbows and shoulders.

Losing a top pick that cost you 5 million is something I don't think Andy is willing to do. He would rather not pick them and that person hit it big than lose 5 million on a pitcher that never sees the majors. But if the difference in signing ends up being only .5 million you do it. With that being said I don't think we would ever think of spending 4-5 million on an unproven youngster when we will not spend it on a proven starting pitcher. When was the last time McPhail spent more than 5 million on a starting pitcher in the majors? Koji got 5M per year. My guess is we go with the lower risk / signability guy considering it seems all things are equal. I don't think we are getting a Wieters or Brian M. this year. But I do think we may draft some Dave Hernandez type of players later that we will use the saved extra money on. Just my uniformed take.

I would agree with this assesment, but then I think of Mark Prior...

Perhaps this has made MacPhail gunshy...

[tywright]

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=mlb_draft

The Pirates are taking Boston College catcher Tony Sanchez. A predraft deal is done.

Well that should mean Wheeler, Matzek, and Green will be at #5