2010 Spending vs. Slot

[allstar1579]

Here's a list of the top 10 rounds and who spent what versus slot rec. AKA this is who spent more or less than slot in the top 10. The O's were 6th. Callis is on top of things

http://ht.ly/2tp9R

[Ruzious]

The O's should look at what the Braves are doing under Wren. They're one of the low spenders and 3rd lowest in bonus money (didn't have a 1st round pick for the 2nd time in 3 years, yet they still do well year after year.) Make the most of the money you spend. Of course, they spend money on international players - 5 of their top 10 prospects are international.

[Frobby]

The teams at the very top of the draft ought to be among the most over slot because the top few picks cost so much. So, I don't find the Orioles' number 6 ranking to be very meaningful.

[Stotle]

The teams at the very top of the draft ought to be among the most over slot because the top few picks cost so much. So, I don't find the Orioles' number 6 ranking to be very meaningful.

Right -- Machado is the majority of that equation.

[allstar1579]

The teams at the very top of the draft ought to be among the most over slot because the top few picks cost so much. So, I don't find the Orioles' number 6 ranking to be very meaningful.

Slot for the number 3 pick was around $3.5m right? We paid him 1.75m over slot and we were $3.5m overslot total. Does that help it make more sense?

P.S. I'm not advocating that the O's outspent people or did anything particularly well, was more interested in the fact that of the teams above us only PIT had a worse record, and their numbers are skewed (they only signed 6 guys, a few for huge bonuses).

[hoosiers]

Not a big fan of the analysis for a couple reasons. As Frobby noted, early first round picks get disproportional amounts above slot - so Machado skews our number.

Also, we did not have an second round pick so that lowers our slot expectations.

The analysis is one perspective among several in the draft. I find it difficult to believe anyone would believe we walked away with the sixth most talent in this draft.

[Mackus]

Not a big fan of the analysis for a couple reasons. As Frobby noted, early first round picks get disproportional amounts above slot - so Machado skews our number.

Not always.

Christian Colon, the pick right after Machado, signed for $2.75M.

[Frobby]

I find it difficult to believe anyone would believe we walked away with the sixth most talent in this draft.

Really? Why not? I don't claim to know who walked away with the most talent in the draft, but if we didn't come in the top 6, who did, and why did they do better than we did? We had a high draft position, and we spent plenty, so shouldn't we have been in the top 6 if we knew what we were doing? Or is our lack of comp picks and a 2nd round pick just to much of a disadvantage to overcome unless we spent a lot more than we did?

[allstar1579]

Not a big fan of the analysis for a couple reasons. As Frobby noted, early first round picks get disproportional amounts above slot - so Machado skews our number.

Also, we did not have an second round pick so that lowers our slot expectations.

The analysis is one perspective among several in the draft. I find it difficult to believe anyone would believe we walked away with the sixth most talent in this draft.

It ignores that 2nd round pick though, it only used the slot recs. for the picks that we actually had, for that same reason it balances out the Red Sox having so many picks because it figures in the slot recs. for those picks in it's base price. The % is how much OVER all available picks teams were spending.

If you just look at it at face value it doesn't tell you much, but the 2nd and 3rd time you go back and start figuring in these things you'll see that it's showing how much teams spent with what they had to work with and it gets more interesting. Like I said earlier, sometimes those top 10 picks will skew a bit, but after that the overslot amount isn't outrageous. Look at the NATS, even with going WAY overslot with Harper AND signing Cole later overslot they still came in behind us % wise.

[allstar1579]

Really? Why not? I don't claim to know who walked away with the most talent in the draft, but if we didn't come in the top 6, who did, and why did they do better than we did? We had a high draft position, and we spent plenty, so shouldn't we have been in the top 6 if we knew what we were doing? Or is our lack of comp picks and a 2nd round pick just to much of a disadvantage to overcome unless we spent a lot more than we did?

Yeah, pretty much. Unless we were willing to get some overslot talent that dropped later, we weren't going to close that gap. BOS had all those picks AND did a great job of getting guys that fell a bit and getting good value for some other guys who fell.

[Frobby]

Yeah, pretty much. Unless we were willing to get some overslot talent that dropped later, we weren't going to close that gap. BOS had all those picks AND did a great job of getting guys that fell a bit and getting good value for some other guys who fell.

Well, that's one team. If hoosiers says we're not in the top 6, there have to be at least 5 more. And since he said he doesn't see how anyone could believe we're in the top 6, that suggests that he'd say we're much lower than 7th. So I want to know who he thinks did better, and why. I don't follow amateur baseball closely at all, so it's a genuine question from me, not a rhetorical one.

[allstar1579]

Well, that's one team. If hoosiers says we're not in the top 6, there have to be at least 5 more. And since he said he doesn't see how anyone could believe we're in the top 6, that suggests that he'd say we're much lower than 7th. So I want to know who he thinks did better, and why. I don't follow amateur baseball closely at all, so it's a genuine question from me, not a rhetorical one.

I think it's a little early after the signing period to rank them all, but I can say pretty easily we might not be in the top 10. I wasn't really impressed with our draft at all honestly. Just my opinion though.

I'd probably say at this point BOS, TB, PIT, WAS, and CLE beat us out pretty easily. I have to admit though I haven't really looked through too many other team's drafts yet, but at first glance I'd say ANA, DET and NYY look to have us beat and I kind of like MIN and KC too.

[RVAbird]

Not a big fan of the analysis for a couple reasons. As Frobby noted, early first round picks get disproportional amounts above slot - so Machado skews our number.

Also, we did not have an second round pick so that lowers our slot expectations.

The analysis is one perspective among several in the draft. I find it difficult to believe anyone would believe we walked away with the sixth most talent in this draft.

Callis' chart is not analysis, it's raw data. Anyone drawing goofy conclusions that spending over-slot means better talent is reading what he wants into this.

[Flosman]

The comments in threads like this are a great example of how the FO will never be right until the O's start winning. We all wanted the team to sign over slot guys, check, we wanted to see international talent, check, but of course we did not do it right. We all wanted to see the team do the right things and claimed we would be patient. Well I think the general view is we can be patient as long as we see results now. I don't have great confidence that we are good at scouting but I think there is a lot of evidence that the current regime is doing the things we thought they should be doing.

[Stotle]

Slot for the number 3 pick was around $3.5m right? We paid him 1.75m over slot and we were $3.5m overslot total. Does that help it make more sense?

P.S. I'm not advocating that the O's outspent people or did anything particularly well, was more interested in the fact that of the teams above us only PIT had a worse record, and their numbers are skewed (they only signed 6 guys, a few for huge bonuses).

Slot was $3 million. BAL was around $3.5 million overslot total, with $2.25 going to Mr. Machado. $1.25 million over-slot spending was spread out among the rest of the draft class.