What is your draft philosophy?

[Greg Pappas]

What is your preferred draft philosophy?

Are you inclined to take the best available player regardless of position, or are you a 'grab a player for need' sort?

Are you a fan of the efforts employed last year by the Orioles, where they spread out their monies, or would you prefr another method? Elaborate?

[wayne25]

At least in the first round, Do not take a pitcher ''IF" a quatlity Bat is available. MUCH more likely to get a decent or better return. This is especially true in the top 10 picks. (for me). As long as we do absoulutly nothing in Latin America, it is also imperative to keep drafting the best talent, in every round, and buy them away from their scholarships. Expensive , yes. Necessary to compete in the al east, yes..

[Jammer7]

I generally side with taking the best talent available. If a pitcher and a player are comparable, then I side with the bat. If we need a SS, and it is close between a pitcher and a top flight SS, then I'd go with the SS assuming the intangibles are there. Other than that, I'd have to give the definitive answer of "it depends..."

As far as the philosophy of this past year, I think it again depends on where your system is depthwise. If we were deeper in the lower levels, I'd say put the larger chunk of the money into a Matzek-type. You only get so many shots at that kind of talent. (Although, I think many are selling Hobgood short. I believe he will bust out this year and justify the pick.) We needed the depth badly this year.

Every draft is different. I don't think it wise to say that you should "always" do any one thing or espouse any one philosophy.

[Stotle]

I generally side with taking the best talent available. If a pitcher and a player are comparable, then I side with the bat. If we need a SS, and it is close between a pitcher and a top flight SS, then I'd go with the SS assuming the intangibles are there. Other than that, I'd have to give the definitive answer of "it depends..."

As far as the philosophy of this past year, I think it again depends on where your system is depthwise. If we were deeper in the lower levels, I'd say put the larger chunk of the money into a Matzek-type. You only get so many shots at that kind of talent. (Although, I think many are selling Hobgood short. I believe he will bust out this year and justify the pick.) We needed the depth badly this year.

Every draft is different. I don't think it wise to say that you should "always" do any one thing or espouse any one philosophy.

Very good read -- thanks for the post, Jammer. I generally agree with this, though I think the make-up of the draft class is as important, if not more important, than the organizational needs. The ultimate goal should be to bring in the best collection of talent possible. The best approach will vary from year-to-year, which is why it's so important to have a good collection of evaluators in place, as well as people that can forge good relationships with the draft eligible players.

[Greg Pappas]

Yeah, I think every player, whether a high schooler or collegian, an arm or a bat, should be evaluated on their own merits AND I would never lock into a specific pre-determined philosophy.

When it comes to the draft and how I'd approach the budget given me, again, every year would be different, but in general I would take the best player available. However, I fail to understand the idea that a team goes into a draft with a monetary budget of -say 10 million- when it could take 15-20 million to grab the very best talent. Perhaps those more educated than I can explain how it makes more sense to have a restricted budget and have to pick and choose around such restraints? Spreading out the bonuses is understandable in some regards, but higher-end talent getting passed over because of it is beyond me.

What is the purpose of the draft, if not to procure the best possible talent?

Perhaps I am a bit biased being a draft-geek, but I truly believe that as long as we are unable to fairly compete financially with the Red Sox and Yankees at the major league level, then we can lessen that gap through a prudent and dynamic change in the organization's approach to the draft. Expand the monies available and dominate the draft like no team has before.

"Good things come to those who wait, but only the things left over by those who hustle." --Abraham Lincoln

[Moose Milligan]

Pitching. Pitching, pitching, pitching.

If you look at what has plagued this organization over the years, it's the pitching. If you look at what made this organization great from the 60's into the 80's, it's the pitching. I hope we take more arms this year.

However if there's a phenom college bat to be had, I'd take them. Talking about an A-Rod/Chipper Jones talent.

[Greg Pappas]

Pitching. Pitching, pitching, pitching.

If you look at what has plagued this organization over the years, it's the pitching. If you look at what made this organization great from the 60's into the 80's, it's the pitching. I hope we take more arms this year.

However if there's a phenom college bat to be had, I'd take them. Talking about an A-Rod/Chipper Jones talent.

I'm not being sarcastic, but rather looking for some clarity...

You said you would consider a phenom college bat, but used A-ROD and Chipper Jones as examples, and they were both HS'ers. I assume you mean comparable collegians like Longoria and Wieters?

[Moose Milligan]

I'm not being sarcastic, but rather looking for some clarity...

You said you would consider a phenom college bat, but used A-ROD and Chipper Jones as examples, and they were both HS'ers. I assume you mean comparable collegians like Longoria and Wieters?

Ah, you're absolutely right. I meant to edit out "college" and got distracted with something and never got around to it.

It's just gotta be a phenom bat in general. I initially said college because you can put them in the minors and start them closer to the bigs. IMO, you'll know if you've got something good or not faster than you will with a HS bat. Then I thought about HS talents like A-Rod and Chipper and decided they shouldn't be overlooked, too.

But I'm still all about the pitching. It's the most valuable commodity in the game, always has and always will be. If you've got a hefty surplus of it you can trade it for a bat.

I haven't really read up on the draft yet this year but that Tailion kid sounds interesting.

[Greg Pappas]

Ah, you're absolutely right. I meant to edit out "college" and got distracted with something and never got around to it.

It's just gotta be a phenom bat in general. I initially said college because you can put them in the minors and start them closer to the bigs. IMO, you'll know if you've got something good or not faster than you will with a HS bat. Then I thought about HS talents like A-Rod and Chipper and decided they shouldn't be overlooked, too.

But I'm still all about the pitching. It's the most valuable commodity in the game, always has and always will be. If you've got a hefty surplus of it you can trade it for a bat.

I haven't really read up on the draft yet this year but that Tailion kid sounds interesting.

Yeah... most draft studies indicate that bats are safer bets in the first round, but I agree that acquiring more and more pitching talent is very important. Taillon could be another Roy Halladay, and I'm quite high on him. HS arms are a volatile group in general, but pitching is in general - regardless of where it comes from. All the more reason to get as much quality as possible.

[hoosiers]

What is the purpose of the draft, if not to procure the best possible talent?

I'd prefer a draft like the last one - gathering the "most" talent possible as opposed to the best.

I would lean pitching overall in philosophy and would scoop up all the $200k-$500k type kids of the Berry, Henry, Bergesen, Britton variety. I really like the pitching acquired in the 09 draft - lots of high ceiling arms.

[colorado_oriole]

Always draft pitchers first and as many as possible. My philosophy is that you NEVER can have enough pitching and if you have a surplus you can always trade them for the other players needed to fill out the roster. Just like the Seattle trade and to the latter extent the Houston trade. I like what the O's have done the past 3 years and I think you will see a huge turn around in the farm system in terms of wins and losses. This will be a very important draft since we have the 3rd pick we have to make them count and sign more than 29 out of 50.

[Greg Pappas]

I'd prefer a draft like the last one - gathering the "most" talent possible as opposed to the best.

I would lean pitching overall in philosophy and would scoop up all the $200k-$500k type kids of the Berry, Henry, Bergesen, Britton variety. I really like the pitching acquired in the 09 draft - lots of high ceiling arms.

Yeah, and I wonder why it cannot be both. It can be, but simply isn't that way.

[hoosiers]

Yeah, and I wonder why it cannot be both. It can be, but simply isn't that way.

How is it possible to be both? How are you going to sign all of your picks?

If you want to lift the draft spend to $11+M, then fine, I'm all for spending as much $ on the draft as possible.

It's easy to say - let's spend more $ on the draft though. It's another thing to deal with reality - which is we should be thankful that our FO is spending in the top quartile of teams - and to figure a way to maximize the talent received with the $ available.

[Greg Pappas]

How is it possible to be both? How are you going to sign all of your picks?

If you want to lift the draft spend to $11+M, then fine, I'm all for spending as much $ on the draft as possible.

It's easy to say - let's spend more $ on the draft though. It's another thing to deal with reality - which is we should be thankful that our FO is spending in the top quartile of teams - and to figure a way to maximize the talent received with the $ available.

Yes, that's what I mean... our draft "budget" needs to be higher in order to do what I recommend. If Jordan had 15-20 million to spend, and honestly felt that that money could fairly be used to procure a far greater number of quality prospects, then why are we not doing that?

Am I grateful that we've been among the higher spenders on the draft? No. A surprising answer perhaps, but an honest one. I can honestly say that I don't particularly care what other teams are doing/spending. I only care that the Baltimore Orioles are not taking full advantage of the draft as it is currently devised. Some may disagree with me, and that's to be expected, but I have yet to hear a fair argument on why we cannot increase our draft budget to reel in a better catch. The bigger the net...

Who determines that we are limited to roughly 10 million and that's it? If we had 15m available this past draft, doesn't it stand to reason that we would have brought in even more or better players? Perhaps an answer will be proposed that we don't have the money... a difficult sell, but still possible.

To be clear, I am not bad-mouthing Joe Jordan or Andy MacPhail, but rather asking a fair question. If we would be better off by bringing in a better haul of prospects -via increasing the monies available/spent- then why aren't we?

As always, my views are open to change...

[Stotle]

Yes, that's what I mean... our draft "budget" needs to be higher in order to do what I recommend. If Jordan had 15-20 million to spend, and honestly felt that that money could fairly be used to procure a far greater number of quality prospects, then why are we not doing that?

Am I grateful that we've been among the higher spenders on the draft? No. A surprising answer perhaps, but an honest one. I can honestly say that I don't particularly care what other teams are doing/spending. I only care that the Baltimore Orioles are not taking full advantage of the draft as it is currently devised. Some may disagree with me, and that's to be expected, but I have yet to hear a fair argument on why we cannot increase our draft budget to reel in a better catch. The bigger the net...

Who determines that we are limited to roughly 10 million and that's it? If we had 15m available this past draft, doesn't it stand to reason that we would have brought in even more or better players? Perhaps an answer will be proposed that we don't have the money... a difficult sell, but still possible.

To be clear, I am not bad-mouthing Joe Jordan or Andy MacPhail, but rather asking a fair question. If we would be better off by bringing in a better haul of prospects -via increasing the monies available/spent- then why aren't we?

As always, my views are open to change...

Diminishing returns. For example, BAL spent a record amount on Ohlman and Coffey. You'll find a fair number of people in the industry that consider these signings to be overpaying by a fair amount. Conceivably, you could throw a lot of money at players, but at a certain point you're spending more than the talent should require -- it's a necessary by-product (sp? when's the last time I typed that word??) of buying HSers out of college commitments, or college players out of the extra year to raise their stock.

Personally, I think I'd probably top out at around $12 million (loosely speaking). The only way I could see finding good value and spending much more would be if other teams were not also willing to go over slot. That would leave enough solid 1st-3rd round talents looking for 1st-2nd round money that I could see my signing fees shooting up to $15M+.

My 10-round mock this year was within a few hundred thousand of BAL's actual selections. If my budget were set at $12M, I probably would have added Matzek in the 1st and Stassi. Not sure the other picks would have drastically changed.

Just my thoughts, but I don't think your getting your money's worth anymore if your spending $15M-20M, assuming you don't have a huge ticket item in the first round (say, $7M or above). Obviously, draft order and comp picks can complicate this analysis.