Givens to be decided within the next 48 hours

[hoosiers]

I think a major failing in our strategy is putting money down for marginal veterans that could be turned into 3-4 extra prospects a year. Young talent is worth a ton and other clubs are doing it. We are behind the ball on this one.

We don't operate in the vacuum. Teams like the As spent $5M on a terrible Giambi this year. Other teams spend $ inefficiently too.

I agree that it would be nice if AM ramped up his draft spend more than he has, but AM has kept this wasteful spending to a minimum, however, and that should be acknowledged.

[hoosiers]

So the Jays should be supportive of Riccardi because he made a calculated risk on signing Wells to his crazy contract? I don't really understand that perspective.

Maybe you could explain the analogy between a poor $100M contract and a scouting director who drafts a tough sign a bit better ... I believe I specifically used the phrase "calculated risk" and this appears to be the first time JJ has employed this draft strategy and seen it not work.

JJ and this particular pick are not above criticism and JJ has admitted a mistake. I just think people are getting a little carried away with the criticism - especially (and not calling anyone out in particular) the balance between those carping for our scouting director to pursue tougher signs as if that pursuit carries little risk.

[markpolis]

You're right here, but you're taking it a bit too far. You're completely ignoring the negotiation aspect of Givens' demands.

The O's had been in on him for a long time, and he had been telling them a number. That was a number they were fine with. Then on the day of the draft that number shoots up to high 1st round money. That screams "negotiation ploy". Jordan still liked the kid obviously, and was still willing to pay him what he had been asking for the entire time up until that day.

Running away with your tail between your legs from a pick anytime they try some negotiation tactics to get more money is much more costly long term than missing out on one guy who happened to not be bluffing. Jordan called Givens bluff, and he happened to be holding a good hand. Would you honestly not draft any kid who had been telling you a number you can live with for months and then literally on draft day tells you it will take a ton more as you say in your post? You're just being asked to be tricked out of getting good talent if that is the case.

Its very disappointing to not get him signed, and Jordan ultimately is at fault by making a bad read that Givens' last-minute draft day demands were a negotiation ploy rather than a legit number, but much of the criticism here is going overboard. He made a mistake, and has admitted as much, but it wasn't a mistake of laziness, or stupidity, bad scouting, or cheapness. He made a bad read on a kid's last minute changes to his contract demands. If that's the biggest mistake Jordan makes in a draft, I can live with that. Nobody is perfect.

Mackus,

I agree with most of what you say. It probably has as much to do with me not liking the pick in general and now finding out we wasted the pick. (I know we get a supplemental pick next season but I'm sure it will be a kid who signs for slot) The other problem I have is that out of our top 25 draft picks signed, only six are positional players. None of which are high ceiling potential guys like Avery and Hoes from last season.

Rationalizing and saying we can now sign other late round picks just doesn't cut it for me. Agree or not with the pick of Givens, we need premium talent potential positional players (say that five times fast) in our system sooner rather than later because these kids take a lot of time to develop. IMO, it's a wasted year and a wasted pick.

Next year I don't want to hear from Jordan "well, we had an extra pick in the second round so we took a chance. We realized it was a risk, but we thought he was worth it. Now we are able to do some things with some later round picks".

I'm a big Jordan fan and he's done a great job so far, but he blew it on this one. Hey, I guess everyone is human.

[crawdad]

We don't operate in the vacuum. Teams like the As spent $5M on a terrible Giambi this year. Other teams spend $ inefficiently too.

I agree that it would be nice if AM ramped up his draft spend more than he has, but AM has kept this wasteful spending to a minimum, however, and that should be acknowledged.

My example was just a simple hypothetical.

The issue is not a what do the A's do or what does another team do? It is looking over the landscape of perspectives and approaches toward acquiring talent as well as filling gaps in on the Major League level. I think the Giambi signing was a failure in hindsight, but not at the moment. Giambi had power last season. An example of a poor signing would more likely be something like the signing of Kyle Farnsworth. That did not make much sense.

Point being, inefficiencies on the outset (not in hindsight) should be limited and resources should be allocated in a manner to maximize cost effectiveness in terms of expenditures and the talent you acquire in return. The key is not to eliminate inefficiencies (that would be impossible), it would be to limit them.

Now, to compete in the AL East, we start off with poor footing. We do not have the immediate reserves of capital that teams in Boston and New York have. This put us at a disadvantage because they are able to spend more for players in free agency and amateur talent pools. They are enable to take monetary risks as they have greater room for error. As a mid-market team, the Orioles need to root through the system and find inefficiently utilized portions of the market. They need to do this better than anyone else in order to increase their ability to compete for a championship.

Right now . . . we are still lagging in my opinion. MacPhail is certainly a step up from what we have had. So is Jordan. The problem we face though is that it appears to me that MacPhail < Theo or Cashman + their gigantic piles of cash. We need to be cutting edge and I don't know that we are.

That said, there is a lot that I am unaware of with regard to the plan of this team. Maybe their is a big splash soon to be had. Maybe the Roberts contract makes sense because we will try to compete in the near term of it as opposed to the far term. Time will inform us a lot on this. I am beginning to wonder though whether with have the ingenuity and/or resources to make this work. No towels are being thrown here, but the next two years will be somewhat decisive. I will be disappointed if Roberts extension was merely an ink move.

[crawdad]

Maybe you could explain the analogy between a poor $100M contract and a scouting director who drafts a tough sign a bit better ... I believe I specifically used the phrase "calculated risk" and this appears to be the first time JJ has employed this draft strategy and seen it not work.

JJ and this particular pick are not above criticism and JJ has admitted a mistake. I just think people are getting a little carried away with the criticism - especially (and not calling anyone out in particular) the balance between those carping for our scouting director to pursue tougher signs as if that pursuit carries little risk.

I think it is basically let to that. He made a mistake. He does not seem to make many. I think he is above average. Your comments about people taking things too far was not some nondescript person, but it was specifically in reply to my own comments . . . which I completely and fully stand by.

I'm fine with people criticizing the move because it was a bad one. There is no way around that. Next year is not a do over . . . it is a penalty for being unable to make this year's selection work. A year of development is lost, other potential draftees at that picks are lost, and one faces the possibility that next year's budget will not be increased to make room for a second second rounder being selected.

Now, he makes a lot of good ones. Far more than this one mistake. That should be acknowledged as well and I have, repeatedly.

[hoosiers]

I think it is basically let to that. He made a mistake. He does not seem to make many. I think he is above average. Your comments about people taking things too far was not some nondescript person, but it was specifically in reply to my own comments . . . which I completely and fully stand by.

I'm fine with people criticizing the move because it was a bad one. There is no way around that. Next year is not a do over . . . it is a penalty for being unable to make this year's selection work. A year of development is lost, other potential draftees at that picks are lost, and one faces the possibility that next year's budget will not be increased to make room for a second second rounder being selected.

Now, he makes a lot of good ones. Far more than this one mistake. That should be acknowledged as well and I have, repeatedly.

FWIW, I was not referring to you specifically and stated as much.

I guess we've both stated our positions and will have to disagree.

We have lost a year's development in a prospect, but it's not a big deal to me - especially if we draft earlier than last year.

[tywright]

BA says we offered Givens $750,000, which is right around slot value. We gave Xavier Avery $900,000 last year, which was slightly over slot.

[Jammer7]

Interesting discussion in this thread about the Givens situation and Jordan's draft philosophy this year. It was a calculated gamble and it just didn't work out this time. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. All of the rhetoric on both sides is, well, just that...rhetoric. Both sides are going to say what they have to say to minimize the criticism from media and fans to some extent.

We have a track record with Jordan and we've come to know essentially how he operates, but I find Givens comments to be suspect at best. Jordan says they've been on Givens for a long time, but Givens said he was surprised it was the Orioles that picked him as he hadn't really dealt with them. Givens says the Orioles never presented him a figure to negotiate? I find that very very hard to believe given Jordan's frustration with his assessment of how the negotiations have gone.

Jordan took full responsibility for missing on this one. It happens to every organization occasionally, even the very celebrated guys have had a high pick not sign. If Jordan had a significant track record of this, then I'd be more critical.

On a side note, I spoke with a well respected high school coach last night who is very familiar with Givens and the area in general. He stated to me that Givens is very talented, but a little raw. He said that Givens is not a headcase, but that he had some people around him that complicated things greatly. It isn't that he really wants to go to college.

There is a reason why every other team passed on Givens, and that is they didn't feel he is worth what he was demanding. Joe took a shot at it, and it didn't work out. Maybe some would prefer he not go after the more premium talent and play it more safely. Personally, I'm tired of mediocrity and I applaud him for taking a shot at a higher ceiling talent.

[crawdad]

Interesting discussion in this thread about the Givens situation and Jordan's draft philosophy this year. It was a calculated gamble and it just didn't work out this time. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. All of the rhetoric on both sides is, well, just that...rhetoric. Both sides are going to say what they have to say to minimize the criticism from media and fans to some extent.

We have a track record with Jordan and we've come to know essentially how he operates, but I find Givens comments to be suspect at best. Jordan says they've been on Givens for a long time, but Givens said he was surprised it was the Orioles that picked him as he hadn't really dealt with them. Givens says the Orioles never presented him a figure to negotiate? I find that very very hard to believe given Jordan's frustration with his assessment of how the negotiations have gone.

Jordan took full responsibility for missing on this one. It happens to every organization occasionally, even the very celebrated guys have had a high pick not sign. If Jordan had a significant track record of this, then I'd be more critical.

On a side note, I spoke with a well respected high school coach last night who is very familiar with Givens and the area in general. He stated to me that Givens is very talented, but a little raw. He said that Givens is not a headcase, but that he had some people around him that complicated things greatly. It isn't that he really wants to go to college.

There is a reason why every other team passed on Givens, and that is they didn't feel he is worth what he was demanding. Joe took a shot at it, and it didn't work out. Maybe some would prefer he not go after the more premium talent and play it more safely. Personally, I'm tired of mediocrity and I applaud him for taking a shot at a higher ceiling talent.

Well worded.

My only contention is in the bolded part. That really is not the argument. The argument is when do you go after these type of players. I would say that if you are not willing to meet the demands, then sit back and select this type at a lower point in the draft. Easily had talent is available at the pick, so my perspective is you pay up or you target someone you actually know you will sign.

The more it sounds to me from Jordan's perspective and Givens' demands, we should have treated him more like a Stassi and reserved selection to later rounds.

[hoosiers]

Good stuff, Jammer. I agree 100% about applauding Jordan for the risk.

It would be nice to know how far apart they are. If JJ is going to break it off as too large a bridge to cross in a few days, I imagine the difference is well in excess of $250k. I'm reading between the lines here, but it also seems like the Givens' side has not budged much at all and JJ, while it may be possible to go higher, is not going to negotiate against himself unless the other side is engaging more than it is. All my uninformed speculation. We'll see.

[allstar1579]

Good stuff, Jammer. I agree 100% about applauding Jordan for the risk.

It would be nice to know how far apart they are. If JJ is going to break it off as too large a bridge to cross in a few days, I imagine the difference is well in excess of $250k. I'm reading between the lines here, but it also seems like the Givens' side has not budged much at all and JJ, while it may be possible to go higher, is not going to negotiate against himself unless the other side is engaging more than it is. All my uninformed speculation. We'll see.

Nothing confirmed, but I heard rumors it was well above $500k difference. I've been saying the same thing though, if he didnt go in the first 10 picks he was going to college and going to get in the top 10, and when he fell out of the first altogether, his mind was made up. Unless you paid him well over $1m he wasn't signing. (jokes on him though, wait til he lines up against that rookie cap)

[allstar1579]

BA says we offered Givens $750,000, which is right around slot value. We gave Xavier Avery $900,000 last year, which was slightly over slot.

No way anyone leaks out the actual amount offered before the deadline, just guesswork on their part. That being said it's probably in that ballpark, but Givens was looking for upwards of $1.25 mil last I heard.

[wickedwitch]

BA says we offered Givens $750,000, which is right around slot value. We gave Xavier Avery $900,000 last year, which was slightly over slot.

I hope that's not true. Givens > Avery.

[zff4]

Although our offer for Givens is "off the table" I can't imagine that Jordan irrevocably shut the door on possible negotiations - I don't see that he can.

We can't draft someone and then shut the door without a good reason as there are probably rules regarding good faith draft negotiations. Since the draft precludes other clubs from talking to the kid, then we have an obligation to negotiate in good faith until the deadline if the other side wants to talk.

I would imagine then that if Givens "returned to slot" then we'd talk turkey.

Not that I want to - that was a not particularly wholesome negotiating ploy to jack up the demands on the very day of the draft. Had his figure been known all along it would be different, but this kind of stuff leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and likely in Jordan's.

[allstar1579]

Although our offer for Givens is "off the table" I can't imagine that Jordan irrevocably shut the door on possible negotiations - I don't see that he can.

We can't draft someone and then shut the door without a good reason as there are probably rules regarding good faith draft negotiations. Since the draft precludes other clubs from talking to the kid, then we have an obligation to negotiate in good faith until the deadline if the other side wants to talk.

I would imagine then that if Givens "returned to slot" then we'd talk turkey.

Not that I want to - that was a not particularly wholesome negotiating ploy to jack up the demands on the very day of the draft. Had his figure been known all along it would be different, but this kind of stuff leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and likely in Jordan's.

I think it's over. To come out in the public and announce you have pulled the offer this far from the deadline is going to leave a bad taste on both sides. He's already spent a good chunk of the money Givens wanted, and JJ has a set budget he can play with.

That being said, like you said, if Givens were to come back and say, I'll sign for free (slot is as close to free as you'll get from him) then yeah, of course. Givens sees himself as a top 10 player (I heard scouts say he thought he and Tim Beckham would be neck and neck) and none of the other teams agree.