What are the Chances?

[Stotle]

Well, we could also make the argument that each draft is different so I don't think we should even say that this is a strategy the Orioles would have used if they saw the 2010 draft differently. Again, we can't read Joe Jordan's mind. He says that Hobgood was drafted #5 on talent. Even if he's lying, the case could be made that the difference between Hobgood and the next best consensus talent is small enough that the strategy (saving money with the #5 pick and using it to overslot later on) was worth it in this case. Maybe next year the talent level between Hobgood (assuming Hobgood went back in time) and the best talent available at #5 is much greater and it makes less sense to use that strategy. If Matt Wieters had been available at #5, I don't think too many people would have been happy with the Orioles strategy. As it is, I think most people are just fine with it. But if Tyler Matzek makes it big I'm sure we'll be hearing from certain people.

I should have been more clear -- i am only talking about the 2009 draft, and how to analyze whether it was a good approach to the draft. I agree with everything you say above and have pointed out many times that draft classes vary greatly -- it's a big reason why I take issue with posters saying we should target X type of player in a certain round, or that Y type of player is easier to find in round Z.

Re: Matzek -- plenty of teams passed on him. I don't think you can fault BAL. What's done is done. I thought he was the 2nd best talent in the draft, but so many teams passed on him I have to assume either 1) I'm wrong, or 2) there were other issues that made selecting him undesirable. Either way, I'm not throwing rocks at Jordan for passing on him.

[Lucky Jim]

I think it's a defensible complaint. It's actually the crux of the issue -- is a team better off sacrificing some talent up top if it means bringing in a higher volume of high-risk/high-reward (still not comfortable that is the correct term) selections later on.

Let me clarify: I don't think it's a valid approach as a rule. I think it's debatable on a case-by-case basis. Wieters + 5 is greater than Devin Mesoraco + 7. But it really depends on the difference between the BPA at #5 and the player chosen.

That was my point. Claiming that the Orioles are doing the fans an injustice if they don't - as a rule - go after the BPA just makes no sense to me.

If I implied that the opposite was true, apologies. That's not what I meant. But the added overslots really do cut into the difference between the first-round picks, so that if there's not a great disparity to begin with...

[Stotle]

Let me clarify: I don't think it's a valid approach as a rule. I think it's debatable on a case-by-case basis. Wieters + 5 is greater than Devin Mesoraco + 7. But it really depends on the difference between the BPA at #5 and the player chosen.

That was my point. Claiming that the Orioles are doing the fans an injustice if they don't - as a rule - go after the BPA just makes no sense to me.

If I implied that the opposite was true, apologies. That's not what I meant. But the added overslots really do cut into the difference between the first-round picks, so that if there's not a great disparity to begin with...

Well, maybe. But how much they cut in is certainly debatable, no? Doesn't it matter who the overslots are and what their risk profile is? Further, it's still a valid argument that the difference in cost between BPA and player selected GENERALLY shouldn't be preventative in signing above-slot later. No team has an unlimited budget, but looking solely at 2010, fans could certainly scratch their heads as to how BAL could lower payroll and not have the extra $1 - 2million to sign BPA (if Hobgood was not the BPA).

Just kicking around concepts -- nothing directly related to BAL.

[LookinUp]

It is evident now that the choice is between Matzek+5 vs. Hobgood+7. But that was not so obvious on June 15, with Boras as Matzek's agent (I believe). Boras was floating some crazy numbers (as always) and there was no way to know where he would settle, which is probably part of the reason Matzek slipped as far as he did.

Yeah, it's a fair point, but Green, Wheeler and probably others were also available.

In any case, it goes to the vaccuum thing. I happen to think that Jordan drafted Hobgood because he liked him more than Green, Wheeler and others, not because he was an easy sign. Wheeler was also supposed to be an easy sign.

I admit that I'm not sure about Green, but it might be fair to think that he'd have signed relatively easily if approached shortly before the draft with a number. After all, it became relatively clear on draft day that he wasn't likely to go very high any more.

Either way, nice discussion fellas. I'd give rep to all but I'm apparently maxed out for the time being.

I must be too liberal with the rep lately. I actually gave MSK some rep in another thread. Wow!