Jump to content



Recent headlines from The Baltimore Sun

Photo
- - - - -

MacPhail's draft choices


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,829 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 04 February 2014 - 10:22 AM

Here's a good article about the O's draft history during the AM era. One thing on note, AM didn't draft Matt Weiters. I'm been crediting MW to AM all this time. Just so that everyone knows where I'm coming from. I am not a fan of AM. But this is a balanced article that isn't meant to defend or criticize him. It simple discusses his time here, now that we're a couple of years removed and his selections have become seasoned minor leaguers.

 

 http://www.camdencha...l-jordan-drafts


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

#2 weenie

weenie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 924 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 11:04 AM

Interesting read.  In particular it piqued my curiosity as to the players brought in via free agency that forced the O's to lost 2nd and 3rd round draft choices during the McPhail era.  Names like Wigginton, Bradford, Walker and Baez came to mind as candidates.  But it did enlighten me somewhat on the current reluctance of the FO toward Morales, Cruz, Jimenez and Santana.

 

It seems valid to me to retain your first rounder if it means the next Wieters, Machado or Gausman in lieu of a high cost FA but then again that high pick could lead to Hobgood.  The decision to sign a free agent with draft compensation attached should be driven by the depth projected in the next amateur draft. Does anyone have any idea what the scouts are saying about the next draft pool depth?   



#3 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,336 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 11:07 AM

I don't need to know anything about the draft's depth to know that the Orioles will take a pitcher, and that, like every other top starting pitching prospect they've taken the last 20 years, he will be an unmitigated failure.

Edited by Slidemaster, 04 February 2014 - 11:08 AM.

The kids are alright.

#4 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53,712 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 11:14 AM

Interesting read.  In particular it piqued my curiosity as to the players brought in via free agency that forced the O's to lost 2nd and 3rd round draft choices during the McPhail era.  Names like Wigginton, Bradford, Walker and Baez came to mind as candidates.  But it did enlighten me somewhat on the current reluctance of the FO toward Morales, Cruz, Jimenez and Santana.

 

I was going to read the article. But after reading that paragraph,I've decided I don't want to relive those days :(


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:

#5 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,829 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 04 February 2014 - 11:46 AM

Interesting read.  In particular it piqued my curiosity as to the players brought in via free agency that forced the O's to lost 2nd and 3rd round draft choices during the McPhail era.  Names like Wigginton, Bradford, Walker and Baez came to mind as candidates.  But it did enlighten me somewhat on the current reluctance of the FO toward Morales, Cruz, Jimenez and Santana.

 

It seems valid to me to retain your first rounder if it means the next Wieters, Machado or Gausman in lieu of a high cost FA but then again that high pick could lead to Hobgood.  The decision to sign a free agent with draft compensation attached should be driven by the depth projected in the next amateur draft. Does anyone have any idea what the scouts are saying about the next draft pool depth?    

that's what was so frustrating about those years. the team didn't rebuild or buy a winner. they just spun their wheels and stayed in place. I'll repeat a comment I heard on the radio, "give the mets credit for knowing how to lose" they went all in on losing and gathered up good pitching prospects. from what I've heard, they plan to use the money they've saved, and invest it in the right FA players when they believe they have a core that's ready to compete.

 

PGA doesn't do that. he seems to start each year with a clean ledger. any money saved the previous year(s) is deposited into ownership's private accounts, and they start with 0.00 again.    


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

#6 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,829 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 04 February 2014 - 11:53 AM

Does anyone have any idea what the scouts are saying about the next draft pool depth?   

I found this 

 

http://www.baseballa...3-carlos-rodon/

 

The O's have the 17th overall pick. And while this ranking order doesn't mean that's the order they'll be drafted in, some of the correlation may point the O's to kid at #19. the O's will certainly take a pitcher, that's almost a given. and he is the first pitcher that appears after #17. 


Edited by weird-O, 04 February 2014 - 11:57 AM.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

#7 Struds

Struds

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,624 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 12:09 PM

 

PGA doesn't do that. he seems to start each year with a clean ledger. any money saved the previous year(s) is deposited into ownership's private accounts, and they start with 0.00 again.    

I feel like it's even worse this year; my understanding is that there is $30 million in new MASN money.  Most teams would use that to improve.  Thus far, IIRC, the team's payroll is projected to be a little lower than last year's.



#8 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,829 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 04 February 2014 - 12:20 PM

I feel like it's even worse this year; my understanding is that there is $30 million in new MASN money.  Most teams would use that to improve.  Thus far, IIRC, the team's payroll is projected to be a little lower than last year's.

The new money is $25M from the national contract that MLB signed. Each franchise got a slice of that pie. most teams, the Indians for example, used that money to increase their payroll. they built on a team that made it to the playoffs. The Angelos and Co. decided to pocket it.

 

if you're talking about a separate pile of money, that would mean the team got a $55M check and decided to pass the savings on to the stockholders. all I can do is shake my head and laugh. 


Edited by weird-O, 04 February 2014 - 12:22 PM.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

#9 Struds

Struds

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,624 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 12:25 PM

The new money is $25M from the national contract that MLB signed. Each franchise got a slice of that pie. most teams, the Indians for example, used that money to increase their payroll. they built on a team that made it to the playoffs. The Angelos and Co. decided to pocket it.

 

if you're talking about a separate pile of money, that would mean the team got a $55M check and decided to pass the savings on to the stockholders. all I can do is shake my head and laugh. 

Thanks for the clarification. I had some facts wrong, but the point is clearly valid. 

 

I actually hate the idea of overspending, but if that's what it (usually) takes to be highly competetive, and the money is available, it ought to be used.



#10 Agrippa

Agrippa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,010 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 12:33 PM

Thanks for the clarification. I had some facts wrong, but the point is clearly valid. 
 
I actually hate the idea of overspending, but if that's what it (usually) takes to be highly competetive, and the money is available, it ought to be used.

it's not overspending when the cost of the goods and services is established in an open market. Spending more on a player than the other teams is not overspending it's the nature of the business. The orioles just refuse to compete and would rather just exist. Good for ownership they make their money.If they put a product out that people are willing to buy, why should they spend more?

#11 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,829 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 04 February 2014 - 01:08 PM

Thanks for the clarification. I had some facts wrong, but the point is clearly valid. 

 

I actually hate the idea of overspending, but if that's what it (usually) takes to be highly competetive, and the money is available, it ought to be used.

no problem, I just wanted to make sure we weren't talking about 2 different bumps in revenue. 

 

I agree, that overspending isn't the best way to build a team.


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

#12 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,829 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 04 February 2014 - 03:05 PM

it's not overspending when the cost of the goods and services is established in an open market. Spending more on a player than the other teams is not overspending it's the nature of the business. 

this is a blanket statement that is historically false. there is always an established market value, but anyone who holds up the final contract amount, and calls it the "market value", clearly doesn't understand basic economic principles. and while the pro sports industry doesn't fit within the usual boundaries of business, it still follows economic principles.

 

here are some exceptions that discount your assertion. these are some examples that qualify as overpaying for a player.

 

Alex Rodriguez & Texas - Tom Hicks bid against himself and offered a contract that dwarfed the next highest offer. if I remember correctly, they gave him 3 times the nearest bid. 

 

Manny Ramirez & Boston - The Red Sox offered a contract that was reportedly twice as as high as the next highest offer.

 

Alex Rodriguez & NYY - no one was interested in signing him to a 10 yr contract at age 33. 

 

Albert Belle & ChiW- he was given $11M/yr. I think the next highest offer was $6M.

 

these are just a few that immediately jumped to my mind.

 

and just to show that I'm not biased against the highest contract, here is a recent exception that shows how the highest offer is not an example of market value, but for opposite reasons than I described above.  

 

Kershaw & LA - $30.7M/yr

 

Kershaw's contract is the highest ever given to a pitcher. but it isn't a market value contract. the MV of a player is essentially the amount of money it would take to replace him. this usually falls between net value and net value + reasonable profit margin. replacing Kershaw would force the Dodgers to blow by $30.7M/yr. how far? we don't know. the only way to determine that figure would be if he was free to negotiate with all 30 teams. if that would have happened, it's pretty safe to assume he would have been offered more than $30.7/yr by several teams. and no doubt, one of those teams would have gone well in excess of the others. 


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

#13 JoyinMudville

JoyinMudville

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • LocationBrooklyn

Posted 04 February 2014 - 04:50 PM

I hate to come off as an apologist for the O's as I want more from this front office like everyone else here.

 

But... when we talk about money, my understanding is that the O's are devoting some portion of their money (not reflected in the 80 million payroll number) toward international efforts and an expanded scouted department. Didn't they also invest in some type of baseball academy in the Dominican or somewhere?

 

It's hard to know how to quantify these expenditures.



#14 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,829 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 04 February 2014 - 05:24 PM

I hate to come off as an apologist for the O's as I want more from this front office like everyone else here.

 

But... when we talk about money, my understanding is that the O's are devoting some portion of their money (not reflected in the 80 million payroll number) toward international efforts and an expanded scouted department. Didn't they also invest in some type of baseball academy in the Dominican or somewhere?

 

It's hard to know how to quantify these expenditures.

you don't sound like an apologist. these are legit questions. personally, I don't know the specifics of those expenses. but I know that all 30 teams have money dedicated to scouting. I'm sure the O's spend more than some, and less than others. as for their academy in the DR, all 30 teams have one of those. 

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/dr/academies.jsp


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

#15 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53,712 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 07:17 PM

I hate to come off as an apologist for the O's as I want more from this front office like everyone else here.

 

But... when we talk about money, my understanding is that the O's are devoting some portion of their money (not reflected in the 80 million payroll number) toward international efforts and an expanded scouted department. Didn't they also invest in some type of baseball academy in the Dominican or somewhere?

 

It's hard to know how to quantify these expenditures.

Other teams have been doing that for decades and signing quality free agents. There's a reason supposedly there are now more latin players in the majors than African American ones. Other teams have established an international presence and still signed  free agents. There's simply no excuse why if you've been shopping in the basement for over a decade, you can't sign one or two impact players. Especially after the 2012 season when this team looked like it was heading up. You don't have to signor trade for the absolute top players to make an impact. If this team trades for starting pitchers the caliber of Feldman and Norris a month sooner, instead of trotting  Arrieta and Garcia out there every 5th  day for 2 months, they're in the playoffs


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:

#16 hector

hector

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,693 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 10:33 PM

Other teams have been doing that for decades and signing quality free agents. There's a reason supposedly there are now more latin players in the majors than African American ones. Other teams have established an international presence and still signed  free agents. There's simply no excuse why if you've been shopping in the basement for over a decade, you can't sign one or two impact players. Especially after the 2012 season when this team looked like it was heading up. You don't have to signor trade for the absolute top players to make an impact. If this team trades for starting pitchers the caliber of Feldman and Norris a month sooner, instead of trotting  Arrieta and Garcia out there every 5th  day for 2 months, they're in the playoffs

Too bad they didn't have a Latin future hall of famer DH the last couple years.  They'd have made the World Series.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users