What is your draft philosophy?

[JTrea81]

I believe in the BPA method, but if there is ever a tie between a pitcher and a position player in the early rounds, the position player should win.

Now don't get me wrong, I too believe we need to stockpile pitching, but history has shown that top pitching can be found in later rounds as pitchers are more likely to slip due to injury.

It's very rare that a top position player is found in the later rounds.

Pujols and Piazza are the exceptions, not the rule.

And the Orioles should also forecast future draft classes when looking at picks as well. The 2009 and 2010 draft classes simply don't have the polished hitters that could have been chosen in 2008. So there's two classes where the Orioles will not put a polished top bat into the system because they chose to take Matusz instead of the top college hitters. As a result they will have to spend tons of $, or trade away valuable prospects to acquire the bat they could have developed.

[Jammer7]

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.

Yeah, I agree with you very much so. The point I was making about depth is that there is only so much room for the players we draft or sign from the INTL market (maybe someday...). These kids need to get signed and play for two or three seasons before we know what we have in them, at least the HS'ers anyway. There are several in this class who will need to play everyday, or pitch every fifth day. Only so many can do that in the O's organization at one time.

The definition of "best collection of talent" may differ from year to year. They may feel a Wieters or Matzek or Porcello kid is worthy of their inflated asking price. That would obviously eat up the budget and the number of over-slot guys would go down. But that doesn't mean the collection of talent is less that say that of this year's draft. I take it that we agree?

JJ has had what, five or six years to get his scouts in place? He should pretty well have his guys where he wants them by now. He showed a lot of faith in his guys this year. I guess we'll see what we have in our scouts by 2012 or so.

[hoosiers]

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.

The Os do not operate in a vacuum ..... and after years and years of teams analyzing the returns of draft picks have not led any team to spend $15M on the draft.

Greg, what if every team did what you advocate and everyone spends $15M on the draft? Did the pool of players drafted and, more importantly, SIGNED just improve a whole lot? Probably not, but the cost of the draft just increased by over $150M for MLB! Not smart - why even start such a draft spending war when there are probably seven to 10 franchises that could easily match and outspend us.

The Os need to continue to be in the upper echelon of spenders with several $M in overslot signings and I will be grateful.

[Greg Pappas]

The Os do not operate in a vacuum ..... and after years and years of teams analyzing the returns of draft picks have not led any team to spend $15M on the draft.

Greg, what if every team did what you advocate and everyone spends $15M on the draft? Did the pool of players drafted and, more importantly, SIGNED just improve a whole lot? Probably not, but the cost of the draft just increased by over $150M for MLB! Not smart - why even start such a draft spending war when there are probably seven to 10 franchises that could easily match and outspend us.

The Os need to continue to be in the upper echelon of spenders with several $M in overslot signings and I will be grateful.

It wouldn't happen this way, as there is not nearly enough talent for everyone to do this. As far as starting a spending war, these other teams are not currently out-spending us in the draft, so I doubt they'd outspend us in a war over draft picks. All I'm advocating is pushing the envelope to spend as much as it takes to secure the best talent throughout the draft. It is a good thing to see the Orioles taking players such as Coffey and Ohlman, no doubt, and that is exactly the sort of choices I believe we should be making when our picks are made...

I guess one of my concerns comes down to the selection of Matt Hobgood in the first round... number five overall, for below slot money. People say that choosing Hobgood allowed us the opportunity to save money for these other over-slots later.... WHY? IF, and I underline IF, Jordan took Hobgood because he honestly believed he was the best available talent at that pick, then great... but if he took him because he thought he could spread out his "budget" and grab other high end players later, then that is simply short-sighted. Passing over better players because we wouldn't pay for their talent boggles my mind. Again, I am not saying this is what DID happen... but many draft sites believe we reached for a late first-round talent for the expressed purpose to save money for later in the draft. Therein lies the problem for me. And for the record, I don't advocate overpaying draft picks. In other words I would not have taken Tyler Matzek and paid him 7m... so I understand that one must be prudent in determining a players value. He wound up getting less than 4m...

I appreciate all the chatter about this... I truly do like seeing things from another's point of view.

[Stotle]

It wouldn't happen this way, as there is not nearly enough talent for everyone to do this. As far as starting a spending war, these other teams are not currently out-spending us in the draft, so I doubt they'd outspend us in a war over draft picks. All I'm advocating is pushing the envelope to spend as much as it takes to secure the best talent throughout the draft. It is a good thing to see the Orioles taking players such as Coffey and Ohlman, no doubt, and that is exactly the sort of choices I believe we should be making when our picks are made...

I guess one of my concerns comes down to the selection of Matt Hobgood in the first round... number five overall, for below slot money. People say that choosing Hobgood allowed us the opportunity to save money for these other over-slots later.... WHY? IF, and I underline IF, Jordan took Hobgood because he honestly believed he was the best available talent at that pick, then great... but if he took him because he thought he could spread out his "budget" and grab other high end players later, then that is simply short-sighted. Passing over better players because we wouldn't pay for their talent boggles my mind. Again, I am not saying this is what DID happen... but many draft sites believe we reached for a late first-round talent for the expressed purpose to save money for later in the draft. Therein lies the problem for me. And for the record, I don't advocate overpaying draft picks. In other words I would not have taken Tyler Matzek and paid him 7m... so I understand that one must be prudent in determining a players value. He wound up getting less than 4m...

I appreciate all the chatter about this... I truly do like seeing things from another's point of view.

Have to admit that reports on Matzek and Wheeler in instructionals are a bit disappointing -- I can't argue with you there. I will say that this is more of a question for BAL management, unless Jordan is telling them he doesn't want any more money. I'm with you, the FO should say "Blank check, but any signings putting us over $10M will be reviewed and require a strong case."

That's, of course, without knowing how BAL actually runs things -- just an uninformed shot in the dark as to how I'd like to see things handled. Encourage aggressive selections, provided you can back up those selections.

[Stotle]

Yeah, I agree with you very much so. The point I was making about depth is that there is only so much room for the players we draft or sign from the INTL market (maybe someday...). These kids need to get signed and play for two or three seasons before we know what we have in them, at least the HS'ers anyway. There are several in this class who will need to play everyday, or pitch every fifth day. Only so many can do that in the O's organization at one time.

The definition of "best collection of talent" may differ from year to year. They may feel a Wieters or Matzek or Porcello kid is worthy of their inflated asking price. That would obviously eat up the budget and the number of over-slot guys would go down. But that doesn't mean the collection of talent is less that say that of this year's draft. I take it that we agree?

JJ has had what, five or six years to get his scouts in place? He should pretty well have his guys where he wants them by now. He showed a lot of faith in his guys this year. I guess we'll see what we have in our scouts by 2012 or so.

Yes. I agree you need to be cognizant of where you can put these players. I assume (and believe I have heard this from JJ in interviews) he goes in with a general idea of what he wants (e.g. I'd like to walk out with five arms, a catcher, 3 up-the-middle players and a potential power corner bat). Then, you look at the board, how it unfolds, and do your best to position yourself to check off your wants as you move through the draft.

[jerios55]

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.

The more I think about it, I think this might be the one year you do it. It appears that MLB will put more regulated restrictions on the draft the following year, so this might be the last year to get the over slots (the 1.3 might be around 7 million too). If Coffey could be had in the 22nd round it seems that there could be a few more highly talented guys for overslot signings. They also should be more willing to take a little less knowing that the following year will most likely be controled (meaning they could very well get less money the next year).

edit: To answer the original question, I would always go BPA in baseball (football not as much). There are more questions with guys that can take years to develop, so need isn't really the way to go. Get good players and sort out the talent later. Trades can always be made later.

[hoosiers]

but if he took him because he thought he could spread out his "budget" and grab other high end players later, then that is simply short-sighted. Passing over better players because we wouldn't pay for their talent boggles my mind.

Though JJ has said he took Hobgood on merit, even if that were not the case, I really only care that JJ believes he walked away from the draft with $10M well spent on quality prospects.

My personal preference is to spread the $ around to as many prospects as possible so I'd be okay even if JJ said he wanted Hobgood to spend more on others. That is, unless there is a Wieters/Tex/Upton talent available, then we should not pass.

Not sure why all of this boggles your mind. If the incremental cost between Matzek and Hobgood is approx Coffey, Berry and Martin, I'm perfectly fine with how JJ did things. If someone preferred Matzek, I'd understand. If someone prefers Matzek, Coffey, Berry and Martin, then they would be the George Allen of drafting - showing an ability to outspend an unlimited budget.

[Stotle]

It wouldn't happen this way, as there is not nearly enough talent for everyone to do this. As far as starting a spending war, these other teams are not currently out-spending us in the draft, so I doubt they'd outspend us in a war over draft picks. All I'm advocating is pushing the envelope to spend as much as it takes to secure the best talent throughout the draft. It is a good thing to see the Orioles taking players such as Coffey and Ohlman, no doubt, and that is exactly the sort of choices I believe we should be making when our picks are made...

I guess one of my concerns comes down to the selection of Matt Hobgood in the first round... number five overall, for below slot money. People say that choosing Hobgood allowed us the opportunity to save money for these other over-slots later.... WHY? IF, and I underline IF, Jordan took Hobgood because he honestly believed he was the best available talent at that pick, then great... but if he took him because he thought he could spread out his "budget" and grab other high end players later, then that is simply short-sighted. Passing over better players because we wouldn't pay for their talent boggles my mind. Again, I am not saying this is what DID happen... but many draft sites believe we reached for a late first-round talent for the expressed purpose to save money for later in the draft. Therein lies the problem for me. And for the record, I don't advocate overpaying draft picks. In other words I would not have taken Tyler Matzek and paid him 7m... so I understand that one must be prudent in determining a players value. He wound up getting less than 4m...

I appreciate all the chatter about this... I truly do like seeing things from another's point of view.

You have to consider hoosiers apparently doesn't believe the budget can be increased. So your hypothetical isn't going to cut mustard with him/her. I find the argument of Matzek = Hobgood + Coffey + Berry to be faulty. It assumes that the bonus given to players is proportionate to their talent and potential. That simply isn't true, particularly with high school players. It's the big problem I have with saying "Player X received $y, so he's close to a 2nd ROund talent." It just doesn't work that way...

[Greg Pappas]

Though JJ has said he took Hobgood on merit, even if that were not the case, I really only care that JJ believes he walked away from the draft with $10M well spent on quality prospects.

My personal preference is to spread the $ around to as many prospects as possible so I'd be okay even if JJ said he wanted Hobgood to spend more on others. That is, unless there is a Wieters/Tex/Upton talent available, then we should not pass.

Not sure why all of this boggles your mind. If the incremental cost between Matzek and Hobgood is approx Coffey, Berry and Martin, I'm perfectly fine with how JJ did things. If someone preferred Matzek, I'd understand. If someone prefers Matzek, Coffey, Berry and Martin, then they would be the George Allen of drafting - showing an ability to outspend an unlimited budget.

You have to consider hoosiers apparently doesn't believe the budget can be increased. So your hypothetical isn't going to cut mustard with him/her. I find the argument of Matzek = Hobgood + Coffey + Berry to be faulty. It assumes that the bonus given to players is proportionate to their talent and potential. That simply isn't true, particularly with high school players. It's the big problem I have with saying "Player X received $y, so he's close to a 2nd ROund talent." It just doesn't work that way...

Right... I'm not disputing that Jordan did a good job with the funds allotted. hoosiers seems fixated on that point. My issue is with seemingly having a cap on our available monies, when it could have taken just 2m or more to get all the players you really wanted. We should be able to draft the players we want rather than be limited in who we take based on a budget. I'd love to be able to discuss this with Jordan himself...

[Stotle]

Right... I'm not disputing that Jordan did a good job with the funds allotted. hoosiers seems fixated on that point. My issue is with seemingly having a cap on our available monies, when it could have taken just 2m or more to get all the players you really wanted. We should be able to draft the players we want rather than be limited in who we take based on a budget. I'd love to be able to discuss this with Jordan himself...

I believe hoosiers would agree with you once he/she separated himself/herself from the above. He/she has stated before (I believe) that he/she would prefer a budget around $11M or so.

[hoosiers]

Right... I'm not disputing that Jordan did a good job with the funds allotted. hoosiers seems fixated on that point. My issue is with seemingly having a cap on our available monies, when it could have taken just 2m or more to get all the players you really wanted. We should be able to draft the players we want rather than be limited in who we take based on a budget. I'd love to be able to discuss this with Jordan himself...

Greg, I am not fixated on or discussing whether or not JJ spent his draft $ wisely. My point has been that our FO has ALREADY increased our spend to be among the very top teams.

The easiest solution in the world to almost any situation is to advocate spending even more $.

Few things as an Os fan would please me more than to see our FO escalate our draft spend even more (and I've been thrilled with the increased spend in the 09 draft), but the Os, like every other team in baseball, do not operate on the basis of providing their Scouting Director with a budget that lasts as long as the quality prospects do.

Where does it end, Greg? As soon as the Os spend $2M on Stassi to escalate the draft spend toward $12M, who is next? The more teams that operate this way, the more $ is wasted in the draft.

[Greg Pappas]

Greg, I am not fixated on or discussing whether or not JJ spent his draft $ wisely. My point has been that our FO has ALREADY increased our spend to be among the very top teams.

The easiest solution in the world to almost any situation is to advocate spending even more $.

Few things as an Os fan would please me more than to see our FO escalate our draft spend even more (and I've been thrilled with the increased spend in the 09 draft), but the Os, like every other team in baseball, do not operate on the basis of providing their Scouting Director with a budget that lasts as long as the quality prospects do.

Where does it end, Greg? As soon as the Os spend $2M on Stassi to escalate the draft spend toward $12M, who is next? The more teams that operate this way, the more $ is wasted in the draft.

So signing quality prospects is wasting money? If Jordan feels that there are players who are worth the bonus's given, then he should have the ability to land them. We agree that no one wants to throw money at kids who aren't worth it.

[Jammer7]

You have to consider hoosiers apparently doesn't believe the budget can be increased. So your hypothetical isn't going to cut mustard with him/her. I find the argument of Matzek = Hobgood + Coffey + Berry to be faulty. It assumes that the bonus given to players is proportionate to their talent and potential. That simply isn't true, particularly with high school players. It's the big problem I have with saying "Player X received $y, so he's close to a 2nd ROund talent." It just doesn't work that way...

YES!

It is way too simplistic to judge a draftee's talent based on the bonus they received. You have to elevate the bonuses to buy them out of college commitments. It certainly is not an obvious indication of their value.

[Greg Pappas]

YES!

It is way too simplistic to judge a draftee's talent based on the bonus they received. You have to elevate the bonuses to buy them out of college commitments. It certainly is not an obvious indication of their value.

Agreeing with you both.