Jordan expects to spend more than 2009

[JTrea81]

Jordan said he expects to spend more than 2009 on the draft, but it will all come down to if quality players drop because of signing demands:

I asked Jordan if he expects to sign players to over-slot contracts as the O's did with a few picks in the 2009 draft?

"I expect to have the ability to do whatever we feel like we need to do. There is a budget, there always is. But we've done a good job of spreading the risk out and this year won't be any different. These guys have always given me everything I've asked for, basically."

The Orioles spent 8.7 million total on draft picks last year and I asked if they would spend more this year.

"I don't know. I expect to spend a lot more, but who knows if I will," Jordan said with a laugh. "We'll have a full budget like we always do.

"I didn't envision at this time last year (a few days before the draft), doing everything that we did (in 2009). Those answers come in the final days of your meetings. What guy will fall because of money and are we ready? We'll get to that and try to identify some of those guys and do it again."

http://masnsports.com/steve_melewski/2010/06/jordan-expects-some-over-slot-signings.html

[mcgraw238]

Jordan said he expects to spend more than 2009 on the draft, but it will all come down to if quality players drop because of signing demands:

http://masnsports.com/steve_melewski/2010/06/jordan-expects-some-over-slot-signings.html

He actually said "a lot more." :laughlol:

[Can_of_corn]

I would hope so considering that Machado is going to cost a lot more to sign then Hobgood did.

[LookinUp]

I'm going to go ahead and assume that the O's draft budget isn't a static number adjusted up for inflation every year. I'd hope the O's have some type of dynamic budget with projections for:

1. First round pick

2. First supplemental through second supplemental (reflecting potential for broad variability in # of picks here)

3. Third round and beyond.

#'s 1 and 2 have a wide variability of spending. I'd hope they budgeted more for the first round pick this year knowing that they'd have to pay more. Conversely, they don't have anything in category 2, so that could offset some of the costs attributable to #1.

My assumption out of all of this is that he'll still target several overslotters, but will probably sign a couple less than in previous years because of the inflated cost of #3 pick.

That's my best guess, and only a guess. Time will tell.

[RVAbird]

I suspected as much and said so before. I think they have a draft budget in excess of 10 MM this year.

How much they spend will depend on what overslots fall to them and whether they agree to sign.

I'd expect Machado to take up a good 50% of the total draft spending or more, though.

[JTrea81]

IMO if they can get the players the O's should be looking to spend $15-20 million on the draft per year at least.

[Frobby]

IMO if they can get the players the O's should be looking to spend $15-20 million on the draft per year at least.

Has any team ever done this? (Other than the Nats who spent $15 mm on one player last year.)

I'm not arguing that we shoudn't do this, I'm just curious how many teams ever have spent $15 mm on a draft even once. Is there a database that shows draft spending, by team and by year?

[mapierce]

IMO if they can get the players the O's should be looking to spend $15-20 million on the draft per year at least.

We sure don't spend it on our team so might as well spend the money in the draft. That money wasted on Atkins could have signed us a few overslot guys that fall.

[Can_of_corn]

IMO if they can get the players the O's should be looking to spend $15-20 million on the draft per year at least.

The problem with spending that much is two-fold.

1-I think MLB would try and stop a team from spending that much.

2-I think it would open the floodgates and you would see a half dozen teams spending in that realm next draft. I think there is a bit of a gentleman's agreement to not go to far with draftee spending.

[waroriole]

The problem with spending that much is two-fold.

1-I think MLB would try and stop a team from spending that much.

2-I think it would open the floodgates and you would see a half dozen teams spending in that realm next draft. I think there is a bit of a gentleman's agreement to not go to far with draftee spending.

Number 2 is called collusion.

[Can_of_corn]

Number 2 is called collusion.

Yea, and that has never happened before.

It also doesn't directly effect the MLB players association since the draftee's are not members yet.

Honestly if an agreement is not in place why don't the Yankee's drop 20 million on the draft every year?

[waroriole]

Yea, and that has never happened before.

It also doesn't directly effect the MLB players association since the draftee's are not members yet.

Honestly if an agreement is not in place why don't the Yankee's drop 20 million on the draft every year?

The last time it happened it cost MLB an enormous amount of money. I think they've learned their lesson.

[LookinUp]

The problem with spending that much is two-fold.

1-I think MLB would try and stop a team from spending that much.

2-I think it would open the floodgates and you would see a half dozen teams spending in that realm next draft. I think there is a bit of a gentleman's agreement to not go to far with draftee spending.

#3 - We'd be inflating the cost of over slotters to the point that they may not be worth it. There's a reason that teams like the Yankees don't already do this and it's not because they're poor or shy. It's because overslotters often come with a lot of risk (coming off of injury and/or very young and expensive while relying on projection).

Of course, they can get guys in other ways, so their incentives are different. Still, while I strongly agree with the idea that we should target overslotters early and often, I still think that some discretion is likely prudent.

[Can_of_corn]

The last time it happened it cost MLB an enormous amount of money. I think they've learned their lesson.

The "last time" was with the players union, a much different can of worms. There has also been rumblings that the PA was looking into pressing a formal complaint about collusion prior to the '10 season.

http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/04/07/baseball-players-union-threatens-collusion-suit/

[Frobby]

Number 2 is called collusion.

I don't know the ins and outs of the CBA and what is and is not collusion, but the fact that MLB is even allowed to publicize openly what they consider to be "slot" for a certain pick suggests that MLB has a certain amount of leeway here.