Do we need a fundamental shift in draft philosophy?

[Mashed Potatoes]

We play in the toughest division in baseball and we will never have the resources NY and BOS will have in free agency. So where do we close the gap? In my opinion the draft is the most underutilized area in baseball for talent acquisition. Yes we have begun to spend more money on overslot picks but that only puts us on par with everyone else in our division. The rest of the AL East do the exact same thing! Here's a post of mine from another thread,

My problem is that in order to get a leg up on our competition I think Jordan should be given more aggressive directives/parameters. Get the very best player possible every pick. That doesn't mean you're going to give every high school kid what his agent is asking for, the talent has to justify the cost, but if you tell Jordan he has twice as much to spend as in years past I think that would affect the way he drafts

Alex Eisenberg from BaseballIntellect (also posts here under NoVaO) espoused a similar concern in his article Trouble in Birdland for THT. He provides a specific example that illustrates how teams are willing to spend significant sums of money on stop gaps and star ML players, but are dramatically more stingy when adding MiL talent.

Luck can have a lot to do with the quality of one's draft. However, one thing teams can control is the amount of talent they draft. Because they are big-market teams, the Red Sox and Yankees can and do spend more money than your average team on players that drop because of signability issues. But it's not a huge disparity. What amounts to a large sum of money spent on player signing bonuses for a team's draft choices is around $10 million. That's roughly half of the one-year salaries for the highest paid players in baseball. Or to put it another way, that's a little under half of the one-year salary for Houston's Carlos Lee. So the Astros theoretically could have had Wil Myers (Round 3, $2 million), Max Stassi (Round 4, $1.5 million), Zack Von Rosenberg (Round 6, $1.2 million), Ian Krol (Round 7, $925,000), Madison Younginer (Round 7, $975,000), Jonathan Singleton (Round 8, $200,000), and Kendal Volz (Round 9, $550,000) for $7.35 million. Would you make that trade, Carlos Lee for all those players I just listed from the 2009 draft and $11.65 million? At the time each team made their selection last year, you can make the case for each player I just listed, that they were the best player on the board at the time they were selected.

So there is an opportunity here for teams to take advantage of -- and it's starting to happen, but teams aren't going far enough. This is especially true for a team like Baltimore which needs to find an edge over their richer counterparts.

I think whether or not you would make that trade is besides the point because in our situation it wouldn't be deciding between a valuable piece and riskier assets. An Orioles analogy would be substituting Garret Atkins for a league minimum Dan Johnson type plus Max Stassi, Zack Von Rosenberg, Ian Krol, and Madison Younginer. One allocation of resources is clearly superior to the other in terms of future talent and breaks even in terms of helping the major league club now. Even these examples set up an either/or situation when you could potentially have both for a relatively mild increase in the context of the overall budget of operating a franchise.

The financial structure of major league baseball puts us in a difficult position and it will require creativity and thinking ahead of the baseball norms in order to compete with the best. Moneyball was all about identifying and exploiting market inefficiencies and I think the draft is one such place. Breaking even with NY and BOS in the draft is not good enough when they will consistently beat us elsewhere. Doing things better than before is not good enough.

The draft is the last place where the richer organizations have not yet separated themselves from the rest of baseball. It's time for the O's to get aggressive before the big boys realize they can throw their financial weight around there too.

[Greg Pappas]

I agree whole-heartedly and have made these points on numerous occasions. I have bit my tongue for the most part, but it's simply fool-hardy not to take full advantage of the draft. We don't and never have. Trust me when I say that were I running things, this franchise would be far better off.

[hoosiers]

I agree whole-heartedly and have made these points on numerous occasions. I have bit my tongue for the most part, but it's simply fool-hardy not to take full advantage of the draft. We don't and never have. Trust me when I say that were I running things, this franchise would be far better off.

To say the Os "never have" takent advantage of the draft via increased spend is exaggerated and not true .... but that's not the larger point.

Many here have advocated for a higher draft spend. I am surprised that some, even quality writers, feel the need to compare lack of value in some free agent signings against the value of players taken in the draft. The difference in value is more than a little obvious, IMO.

Of course, I would like to see the Os spend $5M or $10M MORE in the draft by walking off with multiple consensus national projects who slip in the draft. To some extent, Joe Jordan selected and paid some prospects who fell in the draft $1M beginning last year and there are hints that he will do it again with this year's class.

I think where people get lost is that if the Os were to spend $5M more on the draft one or more of the following would happen:

- that MOST EVERY TEAM would follow suit within a year or two and the end result would simply be to dramatically drive up the cost of the player draft

- we'd start a draft spending war which we will not win

- more players would be selected in order of value as teams are forced to take higher talent earlier instead of letting it slip in the draft - a result which would divide talent more equitably, but likely substantially increase the cost of acquiring talent.

IMO, I'd like to see the Commish's office step in and tell teams to spend as much as they want in the first five rounds, but that teams have a total of $2M to spend after the fifth round. That would force draftees be forthright and realistic in their requests and keep the large market clubs from exploiting the draft.

At the end of the day, the Os have to do what is best for the Os. That is to acquire more talent during the draft and that would require more spending, but I think folks should be careful what they wish for.

[Frobby]

Trust me when I say that were I running things, this franchise would be far better off.

I didn't know you had the resources to fund unlimited spending on the draft! Excellent, when do you buy the team?

All kidding aside, I agree that if we are looking for ways to compete with teams that spend twice what we do on major league payroll, we have to be willing to be right at the top in spending in the draft and other areas that are relatively cheap by comparison.

[Stotle]

I think Jordan's JuCo/HS targets "generally" do not have enough upside for the cumulative spend to be worth it, but that is 100% a personal opinion on how to best create a draft portfolio.

I strongly disagree with giving high six-figure bonuses to injured HSers that lack a track record.

I strongly disagree with the idea that you can have a successful draft based on the knowledge obtained through the media and paying the players you like their asking price.

I think BOS had the best draft of any organization in 2010, and that is because I see a clear plan for bringing in a diverse set of investments that vary in risk but generally stay true to certain profile characteristics. I also see a shifting back and forth during the draft between upside and probability, in each case with value taken into account. Jaffe, Shoulders, Sing, and Duke are all prepsters I like -- but that doesn't mean I'd give any of them 900K right now just to get them into my system, and I think it's a mistake to take the stance that "draft talent is at a discount so you should be willing to overpay (given risk profile and "now" profile) to bring a player in.

My issues (to the extent I have them) with Baltimore's drafting is that I don't get a sense of what their overarching principles are, and I don't think the overslot tactics being used are the most effective use of resources considering the upside that comes along with it. That said, there were 1525 players drafted this year and I feel comfortable about 500 deep. That would get me to around Round 20. I'm not qualified to berate Jordan for his tactics -- but I will say that looking at the risk profiles and knowing what I know about a number of the players, I'm dubious that BAL is gaining any ground on the competition (and that is a MUST for an organization that isn't going to spend with the competition at the ML level).

[Sports Guy]

Between ther amateur draft and international signings, we should be spending 15-20 million a year...on just the players we acquire.

That doesn't include the budgets for the scouts themselves, facilities, etc...

Now, if there are years where the talent isn't there, so be it..but I am not sure if that ever happens.

[NoVaO]

I think where people get lost is that if the Os were to spend $5M more on the draft one or more of the following would happen:

- that MOST EVERY TEAM would follow suit within a year or two and the end result would simply be to dramatically drive up the cost of the player draft

- we'd start a draft spending war which we will not win

- more players would be selected in order of value as teams are forced to take higher talent earlier instead of letting it slip in the draft - a result which would divide talent more equitably, but likely substantially increase the cost of acquiring talent.

The problem here is that the Red Sox are basically already doing this, as are a few other teams to a lesser extent. While I do advocate to go above and beyond what teams currently spend, I'd like to at least see us match what the Red Sox or Rays do with their drafts.

You have to find some advantage over the big market teams and the draft and international market are the most efficient ways to do that.

[Stotle]

The problem here is that the Red Sox are basically already doing this, as are a few other teams to a lesser extent. While I do advocate to go above and beyond what teams currently spend, I'd like to at least see us match what the Red Sox or Rays do with their drafts.

You have to find some advantage over the big market teams and the draft and international market are the most efficient ways to do that.

I agree Alex. I think Jordan believes he is mining an undervalued cross-section of the draft -- I am just doubtful it produces much, if anything, in the way of true game-changing talent (more likely, a solid regular when he hits).

All that said, while I agree with your post, none of this is particularly "new". This has been a battle cry for a long while, and as you point out there are teams that are already working along these lines. I disagree that you can focus solely on high cost talent, but you should be able to max out on talent while balancing with probability between $9 - $13MM a year, depending on the profile of the draft class.

[Sports Guy]

I heard Jordan on the radio recently and they asked him if he goes with the BPA strategy, ala the Ravens.

He said a lot of time they do.

I find that hard to believe unless our scouts are really that bad.

[NoVaO]

I agree Alex. I think Jordan believes he is mining an undervalued cross-section of the draft -- I am just doubtful it produces much, if anything, in the way of true game-changing talent (more likely, a solid regular when he hits).

All that said, while I agree with your post, none of this is particularly "new". This has been a battle cry for a long while, and as you point out there are teams that are already working along these lines. I disagree that you can focus solely on high cost talent, but you should be able to max out on talent while balancing with probability between $9 - $13MM a year, depending on the profile of the draft class.

While I might pick a few more high cost players, I agree you need to have some sort of balance. I actually think Tampa did a great job of this in the first 10 rounds of their draft.

[Sports Guy]

What picks of recent years (we all know about Rowell and Beato in 2006) were so bad that you don't believe they took best player available? Now, Jordan admits that they do it most of the time. Obviously there are times when players are passed up based on signability. How do you feel about Jordan's 2007 draft when he tooke 1. Matusz, 2. Avery and 3. Hoes with his top 3 picks? Is that bad scouting?

We have seen the names written over and over again that we could have drafted but passed on...To sit there and act as if we didn't pass on consensus better talent is absurd...You are just trying to create an argument that doesn't exist.

I think Avery was a bad pick..Never liked it.

I felt he should have gone Smoak instead of Matusz...Hoes seems ok.

[mcgraw238]

I heard Jordan on the radio recently and they asked him if he goes with the BPA strategy, ala the Ravens.

He said a lot of time they do.

I find that hard to believe unless our scouts are really that bad.

Depends...I think that BPA from the viewpoint of a Director of Scouting is going to include price tag in the BPA equation whereas the fan does not care about that component.

[Sports Guy]

Yeah, the consensus picks, right. We should have taken Stephen Head instead of Nolan Reimold. We should have taken Tim Melville instead of whoever. We should have taken Tyler Ladendorf (not you) instead of Avery. Blah, blah, blah. I wanted Smoak as well but I think we both agreed later that Matusz was a fine pick. Now you are reversing again? Smoak looks like he's going to be very good but I don't think you can argue with taking Matusz instead. You are doing the same thing you and others do on draft day only this time you don't even have any evidence. We always see "we should have taken this guy" or "we should have takent that guy". 9 times out of ten we never here from that guy again. Is Tim Melville a big time prospect? Answer. No. You better be careful on Avery. I'm willing to say that I'm not sure about Avery. He has his drawbacks but he's starting to look very interesting. Of course, you can reverse your course later on and say you liked the pick if he turns into a stud. LOL

Reversing? What are you talking about.

Where did I say that Matusz was a bad pick? Let me help you out..I DIDN'T...Just said I would prefer Smoak and have always felt that way.

Let's try to have the ability to argue what is being said on the computer..not what the voices in your head are saying.

[Sports Guy]

You were arguing that we passed on guys we should have taken and mentioned Smoak. If Matusz wasn't a bad pick then saying you wanted Smoak has nothing to do with your argument. We didn't make a bad pick by passing on someone else.

Try again...You asked me how I felt about the 2007 draft:

How do you feel about Jordan's 2007 draft when he tooke 1. Matusz, 2. Avery and 3. Hoes with his top 3 picks?

So I answered you.

[Moose Milligan]

I don't believe that Hobgood was the BPA. I didn't believe it then, I don't believe it now and nothing can really convince me otherwise.