Re-hashing: Matzek vs. Hobgood

[Tony-OH]

When we have a horrible season, what helps make it bearable is the hope that we'll be "rewarded" with a building block draft pick. And when we picked a guy who was generally regarded as a mid to low 1st rounder, that was extremely disappointing and made it an issue that's going to be relevant until we see how these guys develop.

Personally, I still don't see the justification for taking him ahead of Green or Matzek - if money wasn't an issue - as Jordan insisted, and the only way of getting closure on it is by getting more information and seeing how they do.

Green wasn't even in the discussion from what I remember so I think that's a moot point. Most felt he will not stick at shortstop and his bat doesn't project very well elsewhere.

[Tony-OH]

I think something that would be interesting to kick around is whether Jordan's strengths are best tapped into in the mid- to late-picks in a round. BAL has been so bad that Jordan has selected at the top -- this past draft seems like it could have been achieved by drafting at 15th as easily as it was drafting (which makes me hopeful that BAL will be able to bring in good talent regardless of where they draft). I'm just not certain that picking in the first handful of picks is ever fully utilized unless you are committed to spending on the talent that's there.

Again, who knows. But I'm definitely going to think on it. As I said, I think Wheeler was a pretty excellent compromise between Matzek's demands and Hobgoods lesser projection. Shrug.

I know you and few others like to really downgrade Hobgood, but Joe knew of two other teams that said they would have taken Hobgood before the 15th pick. Joe was not the only one who though Hobgood came on very strong late in the year. Other teams were noticing.

Maybe they will proved to be wrong as well, but what it comes down to that the Orioles were not the only organization very high on Hobgood.

[Stotle]

I know you and few others like to really downgrade Hobgood, but Joe knew of two other teams that said they would have taken Hobgood before the 15th pick. Joe was not the only one who though Hobgood came on very strong late in the year. Other teams were noticing.

Maybe they will proved to be wrong as well, but what it comes down to that the Orioles were not the only organization very high on Hobgood.

I don't enjoy downgrading Hobgood. As I've said, I just don't understand how his current stuff without much projection left would place him ahead of some of the other arms. If anything, that's a knock on me for not seeing what Jordan and other organizations see.

I am aware of a couple of other organizations who were in on Hobgood pre-15, and he was a scouting favorite the second half of the area for most of the so-cal community (scouts and crosscheckers). I think lots of people like him and lots of scouts from lots of organizations really hope he goes on to have a great career. He's a great kid, by all accounts, and I don't know why anyone would root against him or talk him down. He's one of the most talented pitchers his age in the country.

All that said, I think you (global you, not Tony you) need to be able to distinguish when someone is "down" on a player, and when someone likes a player a little less than some others. I wouldn't consider you "down" on Tillman just because you've written that you like Matusz a little better right now. Same thing. I think Hobgood can be a fine pro. I think some of the other options available were probably better if you're trying to make use of your draft slot. That's really the entirety of my opinion. Nothing more complex than that.

[mikezpen]

We can debate the Hobgood pick till the cows return. But you shouldn't consider him in isolation. There's Givens, Hoes and Avery along with Hobgood, and that shows me a distinct bias toward the Keiron Pope end of the spectrum and away from the more polished and projectable college players-and maybe the more costly ones.I don't mind taking a flyer here and there, but this was a mass movement.

They're picking THIRD this year for crapsakes. I hope they do it differently.

[Stotle]

You have every right to question whether Joe made the right decision in selecting Hobgood over Matzek/Wheeler and even whether his "no one was special" evaluation was on the mark.

Again, I can only pass on what he's told me in our conversations and what I've heard from other scouts in the organization. I don't even have a problem with people ranking Matzek/Wheeler over Hobgood right now or even during the draft. I have no knife in this fight at all because I don't follow these guys close enough until the O's draft them.

Perhaps Joe would have selected Matzek or Wheeler had they been willing to sign for slot? I really don't have an answer for this. What I do know is that he did not think they were worth the money they floated before the draft. So even if he thinks Hobgood is the weaker of the three (He didn't by the way) and if he thinks there's not a ton of difference, then why not sign the one guy he can get signed quickly and has great intangibles to boot?

I'm sure these three will be linked for awhile due to their draft history, but as I know you know, it's not how they are ranked today that matters but how they are ranked six years from now that's more important.

Just to be clear, I said IF Matzek and Wheeler turn out to be highly successful over the next two seasons (to the point where Kershaw/Bumgarner comps are being tossed around) it would be fair to question Jordan's comment on "special" talents. I certainly don't think anyone has shown enough so far to warrant evidence against Joe and his appraisals. Time will tell.

[wickedwitch]

How "special" would Matzek have to be to warrant a $7 million bonus?

[Tony-OH]

I don't enjoy downgrading Hobgood. As I've said, I just don't understand how his current stuff without much projection left would place him ahead of some of the other arms. If anything, that's a knock on me for not seeing what Jordan and other organizations see.

I am aware of a couple of other organizations who were in on Hobgood pre-15, and he was a scouting favorite the second half of the area for most of the so-cal community (scouts and crosscheckers). I think lots of people like him and lots of scouts from lots of organizations really hope he goes on to have a great career. He's a great kid, by all accounts, and I don't know why anyone would root against him or talk him down. He's one of the most talented pitchers his age in the country.

All that said, I think you (global you, not Tony you) need to be able to distinguish when someone is "down" on a player, and when someone likes a player a little less than some others. I wouldn't consider you "down" on Tillman just because you've written that you like Matusz a little better right now. Same thing. I think Hobgood can be a fine pro. I think some of the other options available were probably better if you're trying to make use of your draft slot. That's really the entirety of my opinion. Nothing more complex than that.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Like I've said, I have no knife in this fight other than being an Orioles fan who hopes Hobgood becomes the best of all of them. Until I see Hobgood for myself, I don't have a strong opinion about him one way or the other. I respect the hell out of Joe, but he's not infallible (Rowell pick) and I don't always agree with him on guys he likes and even some of his picks (I'm on record as not liking a lot of the 2008 picks). But that's the way this business is.

I just try to make sure people don't throw around things like signability pick to make it look like Joe was forced into taking a perceived lesser talent because of some perceived budget constraints.

[Stotle]

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Like I've said, I have no knife in this fight other than being an Orioles fan who hopes Hobgood becomes the best of all of them. Until I see Hobgood for myself, I don't have a strong opinion about him one way or the other. I respect the hell out of Joe, but he's not infallible (Rowell pick) and I don't always agree with him on guys he likes and even some of his picks (I'm on record as not liking a lot of the 2008 picks). But that's the way this business is.

I just try to make sure people don't throw around things like signability pick to make it look like Joe was forced into taking a perceived lesser talent because of some perceived budget constraints.

Fair enough, and certainly noble to keep people honest regarding their characterization of Jordan's selections. No argument here.

[Stotle]

How "special" would Matzek have to be to warrant a $7 million bonus?

I think $7million was unlikely, as it would have been a record (someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it would have been the highest a HS arm was ever paid). I think $5million + would be Porcello, Beckett, Kershaw, etc. class, though that is still higher than any of them were paid.

I think it's unfair to claim Matzek actually would have commanded a record deal -- he signed for under $4million, and there is no reason to think he would have gone to Oregon rather than accept something a little higher than Turner's $4.7million.

[Tony-OH]

We can debate the Hobgood pick till the cows return. But you shouldn't consider him in isolation. There's Givens, Hoes and Avery along with Hobgood, and that shows me a distinct bias toward the Keiron Pope end of the spectrum and away from the more polished and projectable college players-and maybe the more costly ones.I don't mind taking a flyer here and there, but this was a mass movement.

They're picking THIRD this year for crapsakes. I hope they do it differently.

I tend to agree that Joe goes for the high-risk, high reward guys a little too often in the early rounds. However, that's more because by nature I'm more of risk-adverse person. Joe did a very good job in his early drafts mixing in the Pope's and Adams with the Reimold's. I think Joe had gotten a bit away from that until this draft where he went with a high-ceiling, injury risk type of draft.

Outside of Reimold, Joe does not have a good track record with his 2nd round picks, but you can probably say that about a lot of scouting directors.

Either way, this past draft is his most exciting because of so many high ceiling pitching selections. What was missing though outside of the Ohlman selection are the high ceiling over slot hitters with high ceilings.

[wickedwitch]

Does Jordan do the signings as well as the scouting?

[Stotle]

Does Jordan do the signings as well as the scouting?

Tony would know best -- I'm not sure how BAL specifically breaks down the responsibilities between AM/JJ. Generally, I believe, the scouting director would have a good idea of what it will take to sign most of the kids he drafts and the GM would head-up the more complex negotiations. Lots of players sign fairly quickly to an agreement close to what was generally discussed pre-draft, in which case the GM would not need to be involved in any serious "negotiations".

[Tony-OH]

Does Jordan do the signings as well as the scouting?

Yes, Joe is the primary point for negotiations 9if there are any). In instances where the money gets to Wieters-type of money the GM and then part of the situation.

[mikezpen]

Either way, this past draft is his most exciting because of so many high ceiling pitching selections.

Seemed like he went after 2-3 pitchers who had been hurt or had off years but have great upside.I guess I can see that risk-taking since we already have a number of great mound prospects either starting up here or on the minors/Majors cusp. For that reason, we can wait a couple of extra years as these new ones develop.And if one hits-super great. If none hit... well...we still have a lot of pitching without them.

But I cannot see using three high picks for high school position players when the team is really hurting in that department throughout their minor league system and needs new blood now.

[Stotle]

Please clarify, because Givens is the only high school position player we took with a high pick.

I assumed he was referenced Hoes and Avery from last year, as well, based on comments he's made previously.