Colon potentially ready by next year?

[RVAbird]

I thought you were a BPA guy?

The concensus amongst most is that Machado's ceiling is higher than Colon's.

Ceiling is not the only criterion that factors into being the BPA.

Ceiling, floor, likelihood of reaching each, and developmental time and resources all factor in IMO.

If, at the end of your analysis, the players are comparable, signability and organizational need are tie-breakers.

I could see arguments being made for either being the BPA. Signability/demands certainly favor Colon. It's a tossup to me. I'd have picked Colon based asking price/signability and less developmental risk.

[Sports Guy]

While few hitters have reached the majors, this organization has done a significantly better job of moving hitting prospects through the system the past few years. Very few guys (Rowell, jury is out on Pope) drafted in the first five or so rounds are sinking in DelMarva/Frederick.

In fact, a comfortable majority (Wieters, Reimold, Snyder, Henson, Joseph, Avery, Hoes) appear to be moving through our system just fine.

Consensus seems to be Machado is a better prospect than Colon and I'm comfortable with the difference in price. Our system and our major league team need difference makers with high ceilings.

They are moving along because we have nothing in front of them.

Wieters and Reimold were college guys with advanced plate discipline skills...The Orioles will struggle to screw them up....However, they haven't developed the way they should have at this point, so that's not exactly a feather in the Orioles cap.

[Ruzious]

I'm a Colon fan and expect he'll be in the majors at least a year earlier than Machado, but... it was a no-brainer to take Machado over Colon. The difference in upside appears to be too much - no matter what the team situation is.

[Avsfan]

If Machado is as good as touted...then you'd be insane not to take him.

You don't buy low, just for safety....

[mweb]

I totally understand your position on Colon versus Machado, but I think this line of reasoning is flawed.

We have limited opportunities to actually obtain top level talent. We need to take them and develop those guys or, IMO, we'll never compete. I like Colon, but not at #3 in the draft. I like having a team with 6 guys like him, but I don't like a team where he might have to be the big man on campus. At #3, I think we need to get the stud, not the safe guy. We won't compete with the Yankees if we take medium talent with these opportunities.

In that sense, while I think your skepticsm is warranted, I personally think your fallback is flawed. If we can't develop any top talent, we have no chance.

Machado should force the O's to focus on and improve their positional development. He should be the subject of hundreds of discussions going all of the way up to AM, starting now and continuing weekly once he starts to play. He should not just be the next positional guy in the organization. He should be the guy that we can't afford to fail, and that has to become the focus at all levels. IMO, that can't help but trickle down in the system.

Machado had to be the guy, even if Colon would have been a nice guy to have.

Great post.

The O's need to take more chances in order to get star level players, rather than going the safe route with hopes of producing a slightly above average player. So when there's a guy available with much more upside and is generally rated as easily being better, that should be the pick.

If the concern is on the player development angle, well then moves need to be made to improve that instead of moves being made to cope with poor player development. Like you say, the team has little to no shot if they can't develop any top talent.

[Stotle]

Great post.

The O's need to take more chances in order to get star level players, rather than going the safe route with hopes of producing a slightly above average player. So when there's a guy available with much more upside and is generally rated as easily being better, that should be the pick.

If the concern is on the player development angle, well then moves need to be made to improve that instead of moves being made to cope with poor player development. Like you say, the team has little to no shot if they can't develop any top talent.

Would you say the bolded was the case last year when BAL selected Hobgood? Just curious. I think it's an interesting discussion. One of the biggest arguments I read around here for grabbing Hobgood was that he'd sign early, was a solid talent and would allow for more money to be spent later on in the draft.

Now, folks are saying Machado should be the pick because he's clearly the better talent, even though he won't sign early and his cost limits what BAL can do in the rest of the draft.

I think there is merit to either strategy, personally, depending on need and the profile of the draft class.

[Sports Guy]

Would you say the bolded was the case last year when BAL selected Hobgood? Just curious. I think it's an interesting discussion. One of the biggest arguments I read around here for grabbing Hobgood was that he'd sign early, was a solid talent and would allow for more money to be spent later on in the draft.

Now, folks are saying Machado should be the pick because he's clearly the better talent, even though he won't sign early and his cost limits what BAL can do in the rest of the draft.

I think there is merit to either strategy, personally, depending on need and the profile of the draft class.

But you forgot about the other part of that strategy...What the Orioles do is good and if you have an opinion against it, its bad(and no Mweb, before you go all crazy, I am not refering to you here).

That is the board consensus though...Go with what the Orioles believe and that's good enough.

[mweb]

Would you say the bolded was the case last year when BAL selected Hobgood? Just curious. I think it's an interesting discussion. One of the biggest arguments I read around here for grabbing Hobgood was that he'd sign early, was a solid talent and would allow for more money to be spent later on in the draft.

Now, folks are saying Machado should be the pick because he's clearly the better talent, even though he won't sign early and his cost limits what BAL can do in the rest of the draft.

I think there is merit to either strategy, personally, depending on need and the profile of the draft class.

No, I would not say that was the case with Hobgood. The pick seemed odd imo, but apparently Jordan did like him much more than talent evaluators in the media.

[blid]

I sort of agree with SG's line of thinking, but if they think Machado is someone really special (like an A-Rod type) then you can't really argue with that pick

[Stotle]

But you forgot about the other part of that strategy...What the Orioles do is good and if you have an opinion against it, its bad(and no Mweb, before you go all crazy, I am not refering to you here).

That is the board consensus though...Go with what the Orioles believe and that's good enough.

Right. I don't think MWeb is one of those posters, but it appears that certain strategies only become valid once BAL uses them.

For what it's worth, I truly believe Boston nailed another draft. I'm writing it up next week, and it has much more to do with just grabbing high $$ kids. They adjusted very well to the breakdown/strengths/weaknesses of the class up top and went their usual route of going after top high school talent in the mid- to late-rounds.

[Stotle]

No, I would not say that was the case with Hobgood. The pick seemed odd imo, but apparently Jordan did like him much more than talent evaluators in the media.

Okay, but I think the question then is why was the media wrong last year but right this year?

[ThisIsOurHouse]

Being safe is not going to win us any championships, we need a difference maker in our line up, and lets face it Colon is not that guy. Machado may take more time to develop, and be a greater risk, but in the long run we are getting a much high ceiling player, and for a team that currently lacks star players we need some one to turn our franchise around. Colon would provide value for our franchise but he is not carrying us out of the basement of the AL East.

[Lucky Jim]

Okay, but I think the question then is why was the media wrong last year but right this year?

Is there a right and wrong here? Just seems to me like there were differing evaluations last year and this year they aligned.

[Sports Guy]

Being safe is not going to win us any championships, we need a difference maker in our line up, and lets face it Colon is not that guy. Machado may take more time to develop, and be a greater risk, but in the long run we are getting a much high ceiling player, and for a team that currently lacks star players we need some one to turn our franchise around. Colon would provide value for our franchise but he is not carrying us out of the basement of the AL East.

I disagree here...A high OBP, above average defensive SS is a huge thing for us to have.

Having a BRob type player at SS isn't a bad thing.

Yes, Machado has that great upside but he is also at least 3-4 years away and needs to be developed properly...by a team that can't really develop.

That's not to say that machado won't end up being a good pick and that the Orioles won't develop him correctly...But there is no reason to believe they will.

So then it comes back to the idea of, is machado advanced enough to overcome the problems of the organization?

[mweb]

Okay, but I think the question then is why was the media wrong last year but right this year?

I'm not saying they were right or wrong in either case.

Jordan did seem to agree with the media in this case though.

So as someone who isn't close to being a draft expert, all I have to go off is the media, posters on here like yourself, what Jordan seems to think, and the basic analysis that I can provide.

So if the vast majority of sources I see have Machado as being better than Colon, some by a good margin, and Jordan must agree with that, then that's enough for me.

Last year is certainly questionable since the vast majority did not agree with Jordan.