Jump to content

Even if Hobgood was a "signability pick"....


DocJJ

Recommended Posts

...and I honestly don't think that he was, but even if he was,

that freed up some money to sign some top shelf talent chosen later in the draft- Givens, Ohlman, Coffey, Berry to name a few. All of those guys have big time talent and potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and I honestly don't think that he was, but even if he was,

that freed up some money to sign some top shelf talent chosen later in the draft- Givens, Ohlman, Coffey, Berry to name a few. All of those guys have big time talent and potential.

So you are saying this was a smart draft by the Orioles? I guess time will tell. I have no idea.:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and I honestly don't think that he was, but even if he was,

that freed up some money to sign some top shelf talent chosen later in the draft- Givens, Ohlman, Coffey, Berry to name a few. All of those guys have big time talent and potential.

Right, which is why I think calling it a signability pick is a misnomer. A team like the Mets or Cubs are more in line with signability or slot. The Orioles spent 9 or so MM . . . so the negativity surrounding "signability" really should not apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and I honestly don't think that he was, but even if he was,

that freed up some money to sign some top shelf talent chosen later in the draft- Givens, Ohlman, Coffey, Berry to name a few. All of those guys have big time talent and potential.

This is correct, and everyone will be on board unless Matzek turns into the next Beckett while Hobgood turns into a blah pick. The theory only works if you're talking about players of relatively similar talent, which I *think* we are.

If the O's passed on Strasburg for Hobgood, Coffey, etc., I wouldn't be buying in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and I honestly don't think that he was, but even if he was,

that freed up some money to sign some top shelf talent chosen later in the draft- Givens, Ohlman, Coffey, Berry to name a few. All of those guys have big time talent and potential.

I agree, always assuming those players are worth their bonuses. I also would like to believe that if Jordan wanted a Wheeler or a Matzek then he could have drafted him without limiting his ability to draft those other players you mention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it was definitely worth it IMO. We have strength in numbers and by this time next year, we could have a few kids who are better prospects than our 1st pick Hobgood, and not because Hobgood had a bad season, but because some of these kids are bound to take off.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, which is why I think calling it a signability pick is a misnomer. A team like the Mets or Cubs are more in line with signability or slot. The Orioles spent 9 or so MM . . . so the negativity surrounding "signability" really should not apply.

I think the would "signability" isn't really a bad word. You really need to look at the entire draft. In a vacuum, most people (please provide links or quotes other than AM or JJ if you want to argue) would agree Hobgood was towards the bottom of the group of Matzek and Turner. But when you incorporate signing quickly and for slot and freeing up money to sign over slot guys later on he might look like the best guy out of the group by "total package". Total package being talent/makeup/signability, all having a significant weight.

Signability isn't necessarily a 4 letter word. It would have been a 4 letter word if the O's didn't sign that many overslot guys, but that wasn't the case.

It seems like the O's and Pirates did the exact same thing. They went with a signability guy in the first round and spent that "saved" money later on with overslot guys. Do you want a projected B+ prospect and a bunch of B- prospects with high ceilings or one A- guy and a bunch of C prosects? Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the would "signability" isn't really a bad word. You really need to look at the entire draft. In a vacuum, most people (please provide links or quotes other than AM or JJ if you want to argue) would agree Hobgood was towards the bottom of the group of Matzek and Turner. But when you incorporate signing quickly and for slot and freeing up money to sign over slot guys later on he might look like the best guy out of the group by "total package". Total package being talent/makeup/signability, all having a significant weight.

Signability isn't necessarily a 4 letter word. It would have been a 4 letter word if the O's didn't sign that many overslot guys, but that wasn't the case.

It seems like the O's and Pirates did the exact same thing. They went with a signability guy in the first round and spent that "saved" money later on with overslot guys. Do you want a projected B+ prospect and a bunch of B- prospects with high ceilings or one A- guy and a bunch of C prosects? Time will tell.

The only thing you're missing in your analysis:

Grabbing a bunch of overslot guys doesn't matter if you don't grab the right guys.

Not commenting one way or another on Jordan's picks, but many people on this board are simply declaring victory based on the prices paid to these kids, rather than looking at the players themselves and asking whether they were worth the deals they got. Spending money is great -- and it's awesome to see BAL willing to spend. But there were a lot of kids mixed into this draft that didn't get tons of ink and weren't on TV all spring -- I'm just curious about how certain so many people seem to be that these picks were the right investments.

As I said, I'm not commenting one way or the other regarding the picks, as I'm no pro at this. Just pointing out the $$ doesn't always mean you got a player equal to the slot you'd generally see that money spent on. In fact, usually you're paying a premium on overslot players, with a chunk of the money spent on talent and another chunk spent on whatever it is you're buying them out of (perceived value by player, desire to go to college, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, always assuming those players are worth their bonuses. I also would like to believe that if Jordan wanted a Wheeler or a Matzek then he could have drafted him without limiting his ability to draft those other players you mention.

We don't know, but he does have a bonus budget. Just thinking business sense, the budget for the draft was done before and JJ has to make a case to increase that budget. Think he had the debate is Matzek > Hobgood, Ohlman, Coffey, and Berry? Coming to the conclusion, he is better but not that much better.

I hope in the future if there is that Wieters, Porcello type prospects we do pony up that money even if we don't get overdrafts even though that would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing you're missing in your analysis:

Grabbing a bunch of overslot guys doesn't matter if you don't grab the right guys.

Not commenting one way or another on Jordan's picks, but many people on this board are simply declaring victory based on the prices paid to these kids, rather than looking at the players themselves and asking whether they were worth the deals they got. Spending money is great -- and it's awesome to see BAL willing to spend. But there were a lot of kids mixed into this draft that didn't get tons of ink and weren't on TV all spring -- I'm just curious about how certain so many people seem to be that these picks were the right investments.

As I said, I'm not commenting one way or the other regarding the picks, as I'm no pro at this. Just pointing out the $$ doesn't always mean you got a player equal to the slot you'd generally see that money spent on. In fact, usually you're paying a premium on overslot players, with a chunk of the money spent on talent and another chunk spent on whatever it is you're buying them out of (perceived value by player, desire to go to college, etc.).

Agreed. I am "thinking" if you are paying 2nd round money for someone drafted in the 20th round, he is really 3rd or 4th round talent, not scientific.

But you are definitely paying a premium whatever that premium is.

I am hoping any scouting director is giving a range of value for that player is worth and making an offer within that range with some "fluff maybe added" if you really want him. You give players what they are worth in your scouts minds. You definitely don't want to throw money around just for throwing it around. You would be just shooting yourself in the foot for future draft negotiations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and I honestly don't think that he was, but even if he was,

that freed up some money to sign some top shelf talent chosen later in the draft- Givens, Ohlman, Coffey, Berry to name a few. All of those guys have big time talent and potential.

But this way of thinking basically accepts the proposition that the Orioles must avoid a big payout to their No. 1 pick if they want to play the overslot game later in the draft.

I disagree that this is necessary. I think that AM could--and should--set a budget that allows them to pick whomever they want in the first round and still pursue Coffey-like opportunities later on. The draft is one place where they aren't necessarily at the disadvantage to the Yankees and RSox, and they ought to be taking full advantage.

This isn't a comment on Hobgood, who may very well have been the one player they wanted most after Ackley. If they were able to get him at slot or below, great.

BTW this would be a good argument for allowing clubs to trade draft picks: it would reward teams that are able to identify undervalued gems. The O's might well have been able to trade down a few spots and still get Hobgood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are 100% on the money that the big thing is drafting the right players. I think you are incorrect on characterizing posters "as declaring victory" on these signings. I think the great majority of posters are just happy that the O's seemed to go the extra mile this year in the draft and draft MORE upside players than ever before. Did Jordan make the right choices? Only time will tell. Most just applaud the strategy of drafting 2nd and 3rd round talents later in the draft, while still signing the regular 2nd and 3rd round picks. I believe you've stated before that you think Jordan is at least average or solid as an evaluator. So, the more talent he is able to pick, the greater his chances of hitting big on one or more of them. The same could be said about any talent evaluator.

I generally don't disagree with this, though I think more people claim victory than you're giving credit to. It just isn't as simple as looking at a 900K bonus and being justified in getting excited about that player. That's really all I was getting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally don't disagree with this, though I think more people claim victory than you're giving credit to. It just isn't as simple as looking at a 900K bonus and being justified in getting excited about that player. That's really all I was getting at.

Who were our significantly overslot guys this year again?

Coffey, Ohlman, who else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who were our significantly overslot guys this year again?

Coffey, Ohlman, who else?

Berry and Webb, I think, were the only two that went for a good deal more than slot. (400K and around 250K, I think). Cowan and Wirsch, technically, were overslot as well, but not by a crazy amount (like 175L and 200K, respectively, I think).

So it's really two big ticket items.

Not to start anything crazy, just as a comparison, Boston signed:

Renfroe (3rd, 1.4mios)

Volz (10th?, 550K)

Younginer (8th?, 975K-ish)

Jacobs (11th?, 750K-ish)

Thompson (12th?, 300K)

with Parthemore and Head getting like 150K and 320K around the 18th and 25th round. I think that was most of their "significant overslots".

So, BAL did a good job of spreading the money around and bringing in a class, but BOS was a little more aggressive financially. We'll see which class bears the better fruit -- who knows right now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally don't disagree with this, though I think more people claim victory than you're giving credit to. It just isn't as simple as looking at a 900K bonus and being justified in getting excited about that player. That's really all I was getting at.
I think it has more to do with people's confidence in Jordan's talent evaluation skills than in the picks themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Posts

    • I can’t emphasize enough how stupid that rain delay was.  No rain at all for 45 minutes, then two hours of light mist, the kind that teams play through all the time.  I was standing near the kids play area during most of the delay and believe me, that rain didn’t deter any kids from using the playground equipment for two hours. Then, 15 minutes before the game is going to start, the grounds crew is watering the infield.  What? The game itself was not worth the wait, needless to say.   But what annoys me most is the complete lack of communication during these delays.  How about letting the fans who are there know what the thinking is about how long the delay will be?  How about an update every 30 minutes or so.   Nope, nothing.   Just a generic message on the scoreboard saying that the start of the game will be delayed to to the “threat” of inclement weather.   My phone was showing .05” of rain expected in the next six hours.  Some threat! On the bright side, the team did announce that ticket holders would be given vouchers that could be used for a Monday - Thursday game.  That was the least they could do.       
    • 19,286 for that rain-delayed mess of a game.  I’d say about 2/3 of those stuck through the 3 hour delay and were in their seats at game time.  
    • And paid Scherzer, and Zimmerman, and Corbin, and Werth.   They didn’t all work out, but nobody could say the Nats didn’t spend to put a winning team on the field during their run.  The run basically ended because Stras II and Corbin blew up in their face.   But there’s always 2019.   
    • I can’t believe that 8 hours after Grayson stepped off the mound, I’m the first person to update his thread.   After a 19-day IL stint and without a rehab stint, Grayson threw 6 innings of one-hit shutout ball last night.  The one hit was an infield squibber hit 59.5 mph off the bat.  His command was a tad shaky at times, as he walked three and hit a batter, but he still breezed through 6 innings on 82 pitches, 50 for strikes.  If it hadn’t been his first outing in three weeks, he certainly could have pitched the 7th inning.  Unfortunately, the bullpen blew it for him. Fastball topped out at 98.4 and he was still hitting 97 in his final inning.  
    • I think half of Fangraphs’ staff over the years came from Lookout Landing.   I rarely read other teams’ sites, but I agree Pinstripe Alley is one of the best Yankee sites.     
    • For one thing, they don’t have Bautista shutting things down in the 9th inning or extra innings.   Second, 30-16 just doesn’t happen every year.  I’m actually pretty encouraged that the O’s have played .650 baseball without winning a disproportionate number of close games.    
    • Four more shutout innings for Chace last night, 2 hits, 3 walks, 6 strikeouts.   His ERA is 0.91, WHiP 1.21, K/9 12.7.   The only blemish is his 5.2 BB/9.   He’s pitched 8 games and has only allowed runs in two of them.   Yesterday he threw 45 of 68 pitches for strikes.  For some reason the O’s kind of have him under wraps, as he’s only been allowed to exceed 70 pitches twice, back in April.  He’s also been kept to four inning outings.  They’re clearly being very careful with the 20-year old (turns 21 in three weeks).  In fairness, they did need to shut him down for a month late last summer, so I’m guessing it’s more season load management than game-by-game decisions.   In any event, it’s been a promising campaign for Chace.    
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...