Jump to content

What are the Chances?


Peace21

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply
That this past draft class with Coffey, Webb, Henry, Hobgood, and Givens of going down in history as one of the best drafts in Oriole history?

This draft has more high ceiling players than any other due to the Orioles going over slot in so many rounds, but obviously, we won't know for five or six years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony, do you get the impression that we are going to spend $9M annually no the draft going forward or that the 2009 draft spend was an aberration?

Regarding the question in the OP, this class has a chance to be a very good one - reflecting the $ spent by the FO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony, do you get the impression that we are going to spend $9M annually no the draft going forward or that the 2009 draft spend was an aberration?

I'd think it would depend on what else we are spending money on. There's a pretty good chance the O's will have a lower payroll in 2010 than 2009 due to termination of the Huff, Mora, Baez and Gibbons contracts. Therefore, I'd expect draft spending to be high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony, do you get the impression that we are going to spend $9M annually no the draft going forward or that the 2009 draft spend was an aberration?

Regarding the question in the OP, this class has a chance to be a very good one - reflecting the $ spent by the FO.

I hope the money spent in 2009 is a floor level in the future. It may have to be, because as advanced prospects and young players become more valuable, the increased competition at the draft level will push prices up. Right now, only a few teams are playing the overslot game with much regularity. As the benefits become more obvious, inevitably more teams will jump into the game, which will spread overslot opportunities more thinly across the board, which in turn will put pressure on teams to sign the few overslot picks that they do get.

At present, it's hard to spend money more efficiently in MLB. The payoff is usually a few years down the road, but if you do it every year for a while, and scout and draft reasonably well, you end up with a talent pipeline that just keeps flowing up to the big club, the value of which should well exceed the annual outlay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very slim -- sure the ceilings are great but the chances of them individually offering ML value are slim. The odds that they would succeed to the point that they are the best draft class in organizational history? I'd say Wieters/Arrieta alone are far more lilkely to provide superior value.

Worth noting that BAL seems to have spent past value in order to sign a couple of kids away from college -- meaning players received more than their talent would suggest. I'm happy lots of people are excited -- hope I'm very wrong about the likelihood of success.

Finally, again worth noting that a huge chunk of analysis is missing by simply saying "Money spent = good potential talent." The draft offers almost infinite opportunity to mispend money. Simply writing a check doesn't guarantee high ceiling talent, let alone quality talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made this thread on the bases of two reasons. A) Sickels Os list has half of this draft class on it. B) Everybody I talk to with ties with MLB say that our draft has a lot of steals and sleepers. Plus we got these kids like Givens to sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This draft has more high ceiling players than any other due to the Orioles going over slot in so many rounds, but obviously, we won't know for five or six years.

Small quibble that going over slot does not necessary translate to "high ceiling talent". A player's cost can be affected by the wants and will of a player almost as much as it can by the talent of a player.

An interesting exercise (that would likely never happen) would be to poll other scouting directors to see if they would have offered some of these contracts to 2010 O's draftees. That would be the best way to determine how well BAL actually did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small quibble that going over slot does not necessary translate to "high ceiling talent". A player's cost can be affected by the wants and will of a player almost as much as it can by the talent of a player.

An interesting exercise (that would likely never happen) would be to poll other scouting directors to see if they would have offered some of these contracts to 2010 O's draftees. That would be the best way to determine how well BAL actually did.

Only if industry consensus is your metric, no?

Other scouting directors may not agree that Coffey was worth $900K, but that doesn't mean he's not. Only that at this point in time, they don't see what the O's believe they see.

I have no problem with the O's deviating from that consensus if they do it for the right reasons.

Finally, I don't think Tony was saying that simply paying overslot alchemically turns a prospect into a high-ceiling guy. He's saying the bulk of guys we got include a population of guys w/ high ceilings that's larger than normal because we were willing to go overslot so often. I'm not sure that's as quibble worthy.

Clearly, signing high-ceiling guys in bulk will require going overslot more often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if industry consensus is your metric, no?

Other scouting directors may not agree that Coffey was worth $900K, but that doesn't mean he's not. Only that at this point in time, they don't see what the O's believe they see.

I have no problem with the O's deviating from that consensus if they do it for the right reasons.

Finally, I don't think Tony was saying that simply paying overslot alchemically turns a prospect into a high-ceiling guy. He's saying the bulk of guys we got include a population of guys w/ high ceilings that's larger than normal because we were willing to go overslot so often. I'm not sure that's as quibble worthy.

Clearly, signing high-ceiling guys in bulk will require going overslot more often.

I guess it depends on if you think BAL is decidedly a better judge of talent than the industry on the whole. It's certainly possible that BAL sees something that other teams don't with regards to a particular player. For that to be the case across a swath of a draft class -- would be highly impressive.

Generally speaking, I'll take an industry of talent appraisors over my trust in Jordan (though I think Jordan does a very good job, generally, when compared to the average SD). Would it mean something if 13 liked the Coffey deal and 16 didn't? Probably not. Would it mean something if 5 liked the Coffey deal and 24 didn't? Maybe not, but I'd be hoping those 5 were from some pretty impressive scouting organizations...

Also, I wasn't putting words in Tony's mouth -- just clarifying a point that is too often misconstrued around these parts (in my opinion). Ultimately, results will determine what happens. And, I think it's fine for someone like Coffey or Ohlman to operate under the assumption that they are expected to perform as a 2nd rounder -- since that is what they negotiated and what BAL has invested. But it's faulty (almost laughably so) to think Ohlman is a better bet, or has a higher ceiling, than someone like Tommy Joseph (2:6, $715K). I agree Tony wouldn't make that argument, but there are PLENTY of people on these boards that would...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small quibble that going over slot does not necessary translate to "high ceiling talent". A player's cost can be affected by the wants and will of a player almost as much as it can by the talent of a player.

An interesting exercise (that would likely never happen) would be to poll other scouting directors to see if they would have offered some of these contracts to 2010 O's draftees. That would be the best way to determine how well BAL actually did.

I really don't understand your "quibble" at all. The Orioles signed Hobgood, Givens, Coffey, Olhman, Henry, Wirsch, Berry, Cowan, and Jarrett Martin. All of these guys have fairly high ceilings if they maximize their talents. While I certainly agree that historically speaking most of these guys won't make it, it still does not take away from the fact that the Orioles signed a lot of guys with higher ceilings this year, most of which they had to spend over slot for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it depends on if you think BAL is decidedly a better judge of talent than the industry on the whole. It's certainly possible that BAL sees something that other teams don't with regards to a particular player. For that to be the case across a swath of a draft class -- would be highly impressive.

Generally speaking, I'll take an industry of talent appraisors over my trust in Jordan (though I think Jordan does a very good job, generally, when compared to the average GM). Would it mean something if 13 liked the Coffey deal and 16 didn't? Probably not. Would it mean something if 5 liked the Coffey deal and 24 didn't? Maybe not, but I'd be hoping those 5 were from some pretty impressive scouting organizations...

Also, I wasn't putting words in Tony's mouth -- just clarifying a point that is too often misconstrued around these parts (in my opinion). Ultimately, results will determine what happens. And, I think it's fine for someone like Coffey or Ohlman to operate under the assumption that they are expected to perform as a 2nd rounder -- since that is what they negotiated and what BAL has invested. But it's faulty (almost laughably so) to think Ohlman is a better bet, or has a higher ceiling, than someone like Tommy Joseph (2:6, $715K). I agree Tony wouldn't make that argument, but there are PLENTY of people on these boards that would...

The Orioles took a lot of guys who dropped due to injury concerns, not talent concerns. Sure, there are always going to be teams who differ on players, but overall, after reading outside sources on the players the Orioles choose, I see a lot of high-ceiling guys and not just because of their bonuses.

It seems you are little too wrapped up over Coffey and making general statements regarding the Orioles draft because of it. You are right, a lot of teams would not have given Coffey that kind of money, and honestly, I have no idea how that will turn out, but I certainly give kudos for the Orioles on taking a chance. I rather spend 900K on a chance Coffey becomes special than use it to sign a crappy bullpen arm that is replacement level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't understand your "quibble" at all. The Orioles signed Hobgood, Givens, Coffey, Olhman, Henry, Wirsch, Berry, Cowan, and Jarrett Martin. All of these guys have fairly high ceilings if they maximize their talents. While I certainly agree that historically speaking most of these guys won't make it, it still does not take away from the fact that the Orioles signed a lot of guys with higher ceilings this year, most of which they had to spend over slot for.

I guess it's relative. Does Coffey have a higher ceiling than the slot pick at 15th round or higher? Sure. But I lose any useful feel for the term "higher ceiling" when it isn't put into context.

I guess I'll just leave it at BAL could spend above-slot in every round and still end up with the worst draft class in the AL East. I think the constant pointing to draft spend is a bit limited in its usefulness, and potentially misleading to the casual fan. But I understand that is a minority view, so I'm happy to butt out of the convo. I'm honestly tired of being the wet blanket in the 2010 draft convos, particularly since I liked a fair number of the picks.

It's likely the distinctions I'm trying to make simply aren't particularly interesting to those who want to discuss the positives of BAL's draft approach. I'm content to leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Orioles took a lot of guys who dropped due to injury concerns, not talent concerns. Sure, there are always going to be teams who differ on players, but overall, after reading outside sources on the players the Orioles choose, I see a lot of high-ceiling guys and not just because of their bonuses.

It seems you are little too wrapped up over Coffey and making general statements regarding the Orioles draft because of it. You are right, a lot of teams would not have given Coffey that kind of money, and honestly, I have no idea how that will turn out, but I certainly give kudos for the Orioles on taking a chance. I rather spend 900K on a chance Coffey becomes special than use it to sign a crappy bullpen arm that is replacement level.

This is a mischaracterization of my stance and my thoughts on the draft class. Coffey is used as an example because of the frequency with which he is discussed -- I find it a bit insulting, given the discussions we've had, that you think I would let my feelings on a single late-round pick cloud all thoughts relating to BAL's draft strategy. I haven't even stated my opinion on BAL's draft strategy in this thread. I've just tried to point out a general fallacy I've seen in some of the analysis of their draft class.

Maybe if you told me what you think my statements about BAL's draft are, I could confirm whether or not those are accurate. I'd be surprised if you or anyone on here knew what I truly thought of the various picks. Outside of a handful of regularly discussed players (Townsend, Givens, Hobgood, Berry).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...