Joe Jordan on the Rob Long Show at 9:45am today

[SrMeowMeow]

We need another bat, and we don't exactly want to pay market price for one. Had we drafted one of those bats, they would be ready to help us in 2011 at the latest and would be another bat we could have added to our core and had under control for 6 years.

And we could have signed a FA pitcher to replace Matusz while the prospect we picked in 2009 was only a year behind and ready to help us in 2010 or 2011.

Any advanced bat we draft in 2011 (if there are any available) won't be able to help us until 2012 or 2013 at the earliest and any HS bat we draft in 2010 is probably at least 4 years away at least so we are talking 2013-2014.

There are mountains of evidence that signing pitchers to big contracts in free agency is stupid. But you need good pitchers. Therefore, you need to get your good pitchers somewhere besides free agency. Any ideas? (Hint: the answer is "the draft")

Also, just to be clear: we should draft bats even if they're not the best player available because we don't want to pay market value for them, but we should also pay above market value to bring elite free agents to Baltimore where they wouldn't otherwise come. Correct?

[nadecir]

By the way in a chat last week on ESPN, Baseball America's Jim Callis gave his ranking of pitchers drafted in the first round of 2009 draft. Here's the question and answer.

Stephen (Charlotte)

Thanks for sneaking in my question! Please rank the 2009 1st round AL draft class pitchers: Hobgood, Turner, Crow, White, Gibson.

Jim Callis (3:09 PM) Turner, Gibson, Crow, White, Hobgood.

Callis is really high on Matzek, see this question.

brian (ohio)

Strasburg, Ackley, Matzek, Turner your top four from 09' draft?

Jim Callis (3:03 PM) Yes, with Kyle Gibson at No. 5.

[Lucky Jim]

It may be easy for some to look at this as simply being about Matzek's ability vs. the ability of Hobgood. But when you are the amateur scouting director and you are about to spend maybe upwards of 4-5 million dollars on one pick, you had better make sure he is worth it in every sense. There was more than a loud whisper that Matzek had big attitude concerns. I don't know anything about why, but they were definitely there.

I think JJ's comments were very telling in CR Stoner's blog. He talked about not what they were right now, but what they believed the end product would be (paraphrasing). The whole Rowell saga, I am sure, stings right now because of his attitude issues. So, I think when he says he liked Hobgood better, I am quite confident he means exactly that. It isn't just a question of on-the-field performance. Intangibles have a lot to do with it and they have a lot to do with which kids will likely be successful in the future.

Matzek maybe had the eyeball higher value, but Hobgood wasn't far behind if at all. But if the intangible questions turned off JJ and staff, then his value was lowered in their eyes. Hobgood's intangibles appear to be off the charts by all accounts. I don't think it had as much to do with signability as who JJ believed was the better value long-term. Really, I think this is pretty simple. And for anyone to question JJ's integrity over this, well, it's weak to say the least.

Well, here's hoping we don't overvalue intangibles. Because, well, they're intangible. I.e., we can't reliably measure them.

[RShack]

My only issue is with people who are unwilling to even think that maybe Jordan was a little disingenuous with his comments.

Look, if they picked Hobgood to spend money later in the draft, that means they picked Hobgood to save money on the first pick. It's that simple. It's not a bad thing, but I'm just confused by this defensive deification of Joe Jordan. It also could turn out to be the wrong decision - and I don't mean that Hobgood could bust, I mean that it's possible to make a decision with lots of unknown variables (i.e. the value of Hobgood and a couple other over-slots vs. that of Matzek alone) and make the wrong decision even if you're smart.

Man, I don't know what you meant to say, but it looks like you just said is that anybody who doesn't agree with you that he's BS'ing us must think he's a god.

[JTrea81]

Also, just to be clear: we should draft bats even if they're not the best player available because we don't want to pay market value for them, but we should also pay above market value to bring elite free agents to Baltimore where they wouldn't otherwise come. Correct?

No the point is since we missed the boat in 2008, we've fallen behind two drafts and will fall behind in 2010 on obtaning an advanced bat through the draft because there was no bat to take unlike 2008 when we had our pick from several.

[hoosiers]

Oh my god! We haven't seen that kind of advanced positional depth since...since a year and a half ago! It will therefore never happen again!

The positional talent in 2005 included Justin Upton, Alex Gordon, Jeff Clement, Ryan Zimmerman, Ryan Braun in the first five picks and then Cameron Maybin, Andrew McCutcheon and Jay Bruce in picks 10-12.

Hoping JTrea's criticisms are grounded in reality is too much. He's just throwing garbage against a wall and looks to see what sticks afterward.

An insinuation that we should have drafted a position player in 2008 in anticipation of being able to land Matzek in 2009 is downright bizarre. Do Scouting Directors really based their draft on availability of a particular player the following year? What if that player were injured? Or became unproductive? Or was already taken - as if anticipating the Os draft position for 2009 in June 08 was a meaningful exercise?

[JTrea81]

The positional talent in 2005 included Justin Upton, Alex Gordon, Jeff Clement, Ryan Zimmerman, Ryan Braun in the first five picks and then Cameron Maybin, Andrew McCutcheon and Jay Bruce in picks 10-12.

Hoping JTrea's criticisms are grounded in reality is too much. He's just throwing garbage against a wall and looks to see what sticks afterward.

An insinuation that we should have drafted a position player in 2008 in anticipation of being able to land Matzek in 2009 is downright bizarre. Do Scouting Directors really based their draft on availability of a particular player the following year? What if that player were injured? Or became unproductive? Or was already taken - as if anticipating the Os draft position for 2009 in June 08 was a meaningful exercise?

You just proved my point. That's two drafts in between, and you factor in the development, and those that missed out on the 2005 draft will have had to wait 4-5 years instead of 1-2 for that bat to hit the majors and help their club.

So flash forward to the Orioles 2008 draft. Instead of drafting a bat that could help them as soon as 2010 or 2011, they will have had to wait 4-5 extra years if they can draft a bat in 2011. That's 4-5 years in which the last 2-3 we expect to compete.

Now this wouldn't be a major deal if we were to find that bat via FA or trade, but MacPhail has not pursued those routes either. While Bell is a good prospect, he's no Justin Smoak or Buster Posey.

[hoosiers]

You just proved my point. That's two drafts in between, and you factor in the development, and those that missed out on the 2005 draft will have had to wait 4-5 years instead of 1-2 for that bat to hit the majors and help their club.

So flash forward to the Orioles 2008 draft. Instead of drafting a bat that could help them as soon as 2010 or 2011, they will have had to wait 4-5 extra years if they can draft a bat in 2011. That's 4-5 years in which the last 2-3 we expect to compete.

What did I miss in the math between 2005 and 2008 that causes you to post that 4 or 5 extra years between drafts top-heavy in bats?

And this after we picked up an ultra-elite college bat in 2007 in Matt Wieters?

[JTrea81]

What did I miss in the math between 2005 and 2008 that causes you to post that 4 or 5 extra years between drafts top-heavy in bats?

And this after we picked up an ultra-elite college bat in 2007 in Matt Wieters?

How many years were there between 2005 and 2009 when Wieters had his debut?

You've got to factor in the development years into the equation. For every year you don't draft an advanced bat, that sets you back an extra year + development years.

And the majority of those bats you posted from 2005 were high school bats, not polished college bats like the class of 2008.

Beckham, Alonso, Smoak and Posey should all be offensive forces in the majors by 2011.

[wildcard]

I wanted the O's to take the best college player available because I think they need all the help they can get in 2011-2012 to compete in the AL East. I don't see Hobgood nor Matzek arriving that early.

I liked Aaron Crow and Grant Green. Tony says that the O's didn't think Green would stay at SS and would not hit enough at 3B. I can accept that reasoning. However, I think Crow had to sign after sitting for a year and did sign with KC for $3M which is about 600K more then Hobgood. I think it would have been money well spend to get him to the majors sooner and help the O's in a more timely fashion.

[Ruzious]

A large percentage of #4-5 picks bust.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?query_type=overall_pick&overall_pick=5&draft_type=junreg

http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?query_type=overall_pick&overall_pick=4&draft_type=junreg

We've had 3 under Jordan, and it looks like he's done very well for at least 2/3 of those. 2/3 is a much higher success rate than the entire league has.

I don't care about other drafts - I care about passing on a great talent like Matzek who's like Hobgood - a HS pitcher - except apparently a much better prospect.

[Stotle]

Nobody has any ability to make a judgement one way or the other on him yet. You all just sound silly. He was just drafted!

For now, I trust Jordan that one day Hobgood could be a good player. However, its unfair to start judging the selection until the kid gets at least a full season under his belt.

Good luck to your son this year, Delino. He could be an early round pick!

[hoosiers]

You've got to factor in the development years into the equation. For every year you don't draft an advanced bat, that sets you back an extra year + development years.

It's ironic that someone who claims we should have passed on Matusz to get Matzek a year later is saying I need to factor development years into the equation.

[Satyr3206]

Please don't let Trea ruin another thread with his [edited so I don't get booted]. I've seen him wade in and start this Smoak vs Matusz crap more than 25 times in the last two years. Nothing anybody says and nothing the players do is going to change his stance. There are 8 year olds and mentally challenged folks who could readily see that his Smoak vs Matusz thesis is wrong, but it doesn't matter to him so long as he can get people to engage him.

This was a good thread until he once again came in and crapped all over it with his ridiculous agenda.

We've all got to learn to just ignore him. It doesn't matter how bad any of us make him look or how bad he makes himself look, he won't stop if we continue to respond to him. Please, please, please, just don't engage him. I'm begging everyone.

Engage him? I didn't even know we was dating.:laughlol:

[JTrea81]

It's ironic that someone who claims we should have passed on Matusz to get Matzek a year later is saying I need to factor development years into the equation.

I was talking about hitters not pitchers.

We had the pitching depth to take a Matzek, and there were plenty of FA arms that could put up what Matusz would have until Matzek was ready.