Jump to content

Comparing Jordan's drafts to other AL East teams


Recommended Posts

The players in this table were drafted by American League East teams starting with the 2005 MLB June Amateur Draft (Jordan's first Oriole draft) and have since played in at least 1 major league regular season game

Those in italics did not sign in the year drafted

The numbers in "-- xx --" represent the draft position of the team for each year and those in parentheses, the overall draft position of the drafted player

Link to Comparison with AL Central Draft

Link to Comparison with AL West Draft

Can anyone use this factual information to support an argument (pro or con) that Jordan has drafted worse or better than his counterparts in his division?

[font=courier][u]2005		            2006	      2007	          2008[/u][b][u]Orioles[/b][/u]		-- 13 --                 -- 9 --             -- 5 --           -- 4 --(483)David Hernandez	(175)Jason Berken (159)Jake Arrieta   (4)Brian Matusz(48)Garrett Olson		            (5)Matt Wieters		[i](363)John Raynor[/i]						(61)Nolan Reimold(13)Brandon Snyder						[u][b]Rays[/b][/u]-- 8 --                  -- 3 --             -- 1 --           -- 1 --(118)Jeremy Hellickson   (47)Josh Butler   (1)David Price		[i](538)Tommy Hunter[/i]       [i](379)Mike Minor[/i]				[i](748)Clayton Mortenson[/i]    (3)Evan Longoria[i](568)Ike Davis[/i]          (269)Desmond Jennings[u][b]Blue Jays[/b][/u]-- 6 --                 -- 14 --            -- 21 --          -- 17 --(206)Robert Ray	    [i](660)Brad Mills[/i]        (38)Brett Cecil		 (6)Ricky Romero    (14)Travis Snider	  (145)Brad Mills		[i](1253)Brett Wallace[/i]	                  (175)Marc Rzepczynski				   (21)J. P. Arencibia		[u][b]Red Sox[/b][/u]-- 28 --                -- 27 --            -- 20 --          -- 30 --(47)Michael Bowden    (28)Daniel Bard				(42)Clay Buchholz     (71)Justin Masterson				(26)Craig Hansen     (163)Dustin Richardson			[i](438)Pedro Alvarez[/i]   (553)Lars Anderson  				[i](1303)Jason Castro[/i]    (83)Aaron Bates 			(23)Jacoby Ellsbury  (283)Ryan Kalish					[i](1008)John Hester[/i]   [i](433)Matt LaPorta[/i]   					(45)Jed Lowrie	    (523)Josh Reddick				[u][b]Yankees[/b][/u]-- 29 --                -- 28 --            -- 30 --         -- 28 --[i](199)Doug Fister[/i]      (41)Joba Chamberlain [i](1050)Drew Storen[/i]		(169)Zach Kroenke     (21)Ian Kennedy				(109)Brett Gardner   (404)Daniel McCutchen				(259)Austin Jackson  (284)Mark Melancon				[i](889)Justin Turner[/i]   (524)David Robertson					     (134)Colin Curtis					     (614)Kevin Russo

[/font]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You really can't come up with a good conclusion from this because we still(and other orgs do to) have a lot of true prospects from HS that were drafted in 06, 07 and 08 who are going to play in the ML but haven't yet. I also wouldn't include unsigned guys, but thats just me. Great you reconized talent, but you didn't sign it, so what?

And I agree AS, and it has nothing to do with the amount of $$ they spent on bonuses. Their drafted players who have ML time regardless of being signed or not is far far stronger than anything else listed here. Their scouting is obviously strong, Castro, Laporta and Alvarez are more premium ML talent then any other team listed IMO and they were the small batch that DIDN'T sign....crazy....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really can't come up with a good conclusion from this because we still(and other orgs do to) have a lot of true prospects from HS that were drafted in 06, 07 and 08 who are going to play in the ML but haven't yet. I also wouldn't include unsigned guys, but thats just me. Great you reconized talent, but you didn't sign it, so what?

And I agree AS, and it has nothing to do with the amount of $$ they spent on bonuses. Their drafted players who have ML time regardless of being signed or not is far far stronger than anything else listed here. Their scouting is obviously strong, Castro, Laporta and Alvarez are more premium ML talent then any other team listed IMO and they were the small batch that DIDN'T sign....crazy....

I especially agree with your statement in bold above -- yet, many on this message board have expressed strong convictions that Jordan's drafts have been weak (inferior to those of his competition)

To achieve positive results from the draft, a team must, eventually, populate a portion of its 25 man roster with effective contributors who were drafted, signed and developed (or traded/exchanged for drafted players)

To accomplish this requires:

good scouting and analysis to identify those players with the greatest potential to fit your organization and contribute at the major league level

good baseball and business acumen to identify those players that your organization can and will sign

good organization-wide development practices to yield the maximum potential of the drafted players

and a great deal of luck

In all fairness, I think that the jury is still out on Jordan (and the organization's business and development practices since McPhail assumed responsibility)

We are all impatient, but this is a mighty big ship that was way off course for a very long time

Unfortunately, it will take time just to get it turned around, let alone, back on course and full speed ahead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really can't come up with a good conclusion from this because we still(and other orgs do to) have a lot of true prospects from HS that were drafted in 06, 07 and 08 who are going to play in the ML but haven't yet.

This is even true for 2005. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the median age of players debuting in the majors is 24. So, some HS guys from 2005 will debut in 2011 or even later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really can't come up with a good conclusion from this because we still(and other orgs do to) have a lot of true prospects from HS that were drafted in 06, 07 and 08 who are going to play in the ML but haven't yet. I also wouldn't include unsigned guys, but thats just me. Great you reconized talent, but you didn't sign it, so what?

And I agree AS, and it has nothing to do with the amount of $$ they spent on bonuses. Their drafted players who have ML time regardless of being signed or not is far far stronger than anything else listed here. Their scouting is obviously strong, Castro, Laporta and Alvarez are more premium ML talent then any other team listed IMO and they were the small batch that DIDN'T sign....crazy....

The scary thing is that is just TWO years, it gets worse...2007 signed Hagadone (who they traded later), and drafted but didn't sign Hunter Morris who was drafted by MIL this year. Jacob Cowan (might know this one), Y. Grandal (top 10 pick this year). 2008: Casey Kelly, and Ryan Westmoreland. 2009: Kendal Volz, Rey Feuntes, and then 2010 was insane as well.

I get very jealous over their drafting ability I have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scary thing is that is just TWO years, it gets worse...2007 signed Hagadone (who they traded later), and drafted but didn't sign Hunter Morris who was drafted by MIL this year. Jacob Cowan (might know this one), Y. Grandal (top 10 pick this year). 2008: Casey Kelly, and Ryan Westmoreland. 2009: Kendal Volz, Rey Feuntes, and then 2010 was insane as well.

I get very jealous over their drafting ability I have to say.

I don't think a team (us or them) should get credit for drafting a guy and not signing him!

Lots of teams knew Pedro Alvarez was a good talent. The Red Sox gambled and lost. I could argue it's a negative since they wasted a pick.

Taken to the extreme (hypothetical), am I genious if I draft 10 straight HS kids who go to college but eventually become stars or am I a knucklehead.

This comparison should be about what the team got from there draft. They got nothing for P. Alvarez etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think a team (us or them) should get credit for drafting a guy and not signing him!

Lots of teams knew Pedro Alvarez was a good talent. The Red Sox gambled and lost. I could argue it's a negative since they wasted a pick.

Taken to the extreme (hypothetical), am I genious if I draft 10 straight HS kids who go to college but eventually become stars or am I a knucklehead.

This comparison should be about what the team got from there draft. They got nothing for P. Alvarez etc.

I absolutely think they should because they recognized the talent and that's what it should be about. He wasn't "Pedro" until he went to college and was successful, they were on him before that. MOST of these guys aren't clear first round talent until they go to college and develop, sure SOME of them might be and come back stronger, but if they are viewed in that talent range it's a big risk to go to college for a couple years to try to get a little more money.

And you are a genius if you do because the % of the HS kids you can get late that go on to be super successful in college really isn't that high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During 2005-2010 the Red Sox had 30 picks in the first 3 rounds (+supplementals) and the Os had 17.

The Sox have worked the system very, very well.

Jordan hasn't had as many opportunities as his RS counterpart.

Here are the numbers for the rest of the division:

Tampa 21

Toronto 27

NY 18

Of course, a few of these picks are compensation for not signing a player from the previous year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During 2005-2010 the Red Sox had 30 picks in the first 3 rounds (+supplementals) and the Os had 17.

The Sox have worked the system very, very well.

Jordan hasn't had as many opportunities as his RS counterpart.

Here are the numbers for the rest of the division:

Tampa 21

Toronto 27

NY 18

Of course, a few of these picks are compensation for not signing a player from the previous year.

Totally agree with the main premise, but my problem is all of the later round picks that BOS has taken good talent and signed (or not signed, but at least took a shot at).

Can you imagine the balance of power if BOS signs Laporta, Pedro, Castro and Grandal? All taken late in the draft where we just as easily could have taken them.

Even if you for instance take all 4 of those guys late, and pay them $1-1.5m to sign (most of them should take that) instead of paying for Atkins or Gonzalez just one year...sigh. Hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely think they should because they recognized the talent and that's what it should be about. He wasn't "Pedro" until he went to college and was successful, they were on him before that. MOST of these guys aren't clear first round talent until they go to college and develop, sure SOME of them might be and come back stronger, but if they are viewed in that talent range it's a big risk to go to college for a couple years to try to get a little more money.

And you are a genius if you do because the % of the HS kids you can get late that go on to be super successful in college really isn't that high.

Come on. You think no one else but the Red Sox knew Pedro Alvarez had talent? All 30 teams knew this. None of the others wasted a pick on him.

Why would we give the Red Sox credit for doing so.

Obviously, they didn't know how good he was going to be or they would have offered him substantially more money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on. You think know one else but the Red Sox knew Pedro Alvarez had talent? All 30 teams knew this. None of the others wasted a pick on him.

Why would we give the Red Sox credit for doing so.

Obviously, they didn't know how good he was going to be or they would have offered him substantially more money.

This is how the draft works.

He was not some consensus top pick who wanted too much money to sign. He was just another talented HS kid that thought he was better than he was at the time. (there are a ton every year, some go to college and get better, some go to college and get worse)

How are you going to say that everyone knew how great he was so they didn't waste a pick knowing they couldn't afford him, yet turn right around and say the Sox had no idea how good he was going to be so they didn't pay him?

I get that they are our rivals and you want to take away from what they've done, but they hands down have one of the best scouting departments in baseball, you have to respect that. Texas and TB are also in this category, which is part of the problem why we are struggling. When you have two of the best drafting teams in baseball, another one that is a top spender in the intl market (TOR) and the Yankees who will just outspend everyone just on principle it gives you an uphill battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree with the main premise, but my problem is all of the later round picks that BOS has taken good talent and signed (or not signed, but at least took a shot at).

Can you imagine the balance of power if BOS signs Laporta, Pedro, Castro and Grandal? All taken late in the draft where we just as easily could have taken them.

Even if you for instance take all 4 of those guys late, and pay them $1-1.5m to sign (most of them should take that) instead of paying for Atkins or Gonzalez just one year...sigh. Hindsight.

Agreed. There is the possibility that in the years 05-08 Jordan may not have had the budget to pay over slot (is that the term?) in the later rounds. I don't know. I really have a tough time evaluating Jordan when I don't know the constraints he is or isn't under. He certainly has been positive—at least publicly—about his budgets in 09 and 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a misconception about the "later rounds". For the highly talented kids with strong college commits (like Pedro Alvarez) teams are aware that the likelihood of signing is slim. Still, teams make these selections because 1) they want to start building a relationship with the kid, and 2) they want to be the team there for the kid if he has a change of heart and decides he wants to start his baseball career.

If the point of an exercise is to determine the scouting aptitude of various departments, organizations should absolutely get credit for identifying players even if they don't end up signing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a misconception about the "later rounds". For the highly talented kids with strong college commits (like Pedro Alvarez) teams are aware that the likelihood of signing is slim. Still, teams make these selections because 1) they want to start building a relationship with the kid, and 2) they want to be the team there for the kid if he has a change of heart and decides he wants to start his baseball career.

If the point of an exercise is to determine the scouting aptitude of various departments, organizations should absolutely get credit for identifying players even if they don't end up signing them.

Thanks for putting it more eloquently than I could. I should just start relaying everything through you so you can translate for me :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • I think the development system was his biggest downfall. Though the blacklisting from S. Korea isn't great either.  They could draft well, but not develop well as evidence by some of his draft prospects thriving in the new Orioles environment.  On a side note, I blame Angelos and company more than DD for the delay (and ultimately the poor execution) in selling off the core of the 2012-2016 teams. I think its better practice to bring in a new GM to down the dismantling. As unbias as someone tries to be, its got to be harder for the GM that built the team to dismantle it without some level of bias. 
    • I don't think anyone will disagree with any of that, but I think Wildcard was saying that a hopefully contending team still has players from the Duquette regime contributing five years later. I'm going to pick Elias 1000 times in 1000 for the way baseball is played now with technology, but Duqutte did do several good things and did build a team that had a core run. Obviously Buck gets some credit here too for that run, but before the Toronto thing happened that sucked most of Duquette's power away, They were a great duo when it came to putting a winning major league team on the field. The drafting was pretty solid behind Rajsich but the development was clearly behind the times and that hurt the organization. Elias is heads and shoulders above anything Duquette installed development wise.
    • Fangraphs with a belated look at the Irvin trade: “As Eric pointed out to me, Hernaiz was going to have a tough time climbing the hitter-heavy Baltimore system, so he was a luxury there. In that sense, this trade is a good reallocation of resources. Baltimore is competing in a brutal division at the major league level and could use pitching help. Oakland is competing for the first pick in the draft and is in dire need of a farm system overhaul. I don’t think this trade is going to swing the AL East or West anytime soon, but I do think it’s a good bit of business by two rational teams with differing objectives.” https://blogs.fangraphs.com/cole-comfort-orioles-bolster-rotation-in-trade-with-oakland/ There’s some breakdown of Irvin’s stuff in the article, nothing earth-shattering.   
    • Hopefully you know that Dan Duquette had nothing to do with the Chris Davis signing, right? Peter Angelos made that signing at the behest of Buck Showalter.
    • It's apparent that the O's are acquiring pitching that's closer to ready while developing hitting. It's not like they don't have young pitchers too, but they must see more risk there. Just look at the staff now. It's mostly guys who had already worked their way through some of the developmental steps. The O's identify guys they think they can help and go get them, mostly for very cheap.  That's not a mistake or an oversight. It's their model based strategy. Now you may think you have a better model, but I kind of doubt it. We also haven't seen this plan fully mature yet. The international guys aren't ready and many of the draft picks are just starting to get to the higher levels. Heck, we've just now started to implement trading prospect bats for pitching and we got 4 years control of an average starter for our 6th-7th best SS prospect.    This isn't exhaustive, but here's a lot of our top guys and how they were acquired. I'd say we have a decent staff even before maturation of the system and/or making many hitting prospect for pitcher trades. Gibson, Voth, Watkins, Baker, Bautista, Wells, Givens, Krehbiel  - Signed or claimed Bradish, Kremer, Zimmermann, Tate, Irvin, Perez, Vespi - Via Trade Hall, Rodriguez, Means, Baumann, Akin - Homegrown  
    • Honestly I don’t know why anyone would want to buy a minority interest in the Orioles at this stage.  That would be such an exercise in frustration.  I guess it could be a decent investment financially because franchise values only go up, but I wouldn’t want to tie up my money in any enterprise controlled by the Angelos family.  
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...