9 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

WBAL Radio: http://www.wbal.com/...-Orioles-Moves- (Audio link)

Part 2: http://www.wbal.com/...-Orioles-Moves-

[Greg Pappas]

Thanks for sharing this. I'm a big fan of Callis' and BA in general. I've spoken with him a few times on the phone in years past, and he was always friendly, open and honest about prospects, and other items we may have discussed.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Thanks for sharing this. I'm a big fan of Callis' and BA in general. I've spoken with him a few times on the phone in years past, and he was always friendly, open and honest about prospects, and other items we may have discussed.

Yeah, I had the same experiences with Callis when I interviewed him in October (link can be found in the Minors' Section). Really nice guy.

[Luke Jackson]

Callis mentions that Hobgood was a financial selection...are we sure that's true? The national prospect guys always refer to Hobgood as a money pick, but was he really? I know Jon Shepard over at Camden Depot steadfastly says that Hobgood wasn't a money pick. They allocated about a million bucks each to Cameron Coffey and Michael Ohlman in '09, and gave second rounder Mychal Givens a hefty amount of money to sign. Obviously, none of those picks have panned out thus far and in retrospect, it's easy to say that the O's should have done what it took to get a consensus top arm like Jacob Turner or Shelby Miller or Zach Wheeler. But you know who else was connected to the O's quite a bit leading up to the '09 draft? Tyler Matzek, who's facing an uphill battle as well. (Remember when fans were like, "We should have picked Matzek!!!" and then it's become, "We should have picked Turner!!!" Point is, it's really easy to look back at the draft and point out a pick was a financial selection when it doesn't work out. Here's what we do know about Hobgood:

-Joe Jordan absolutely loved him, especially his makeup.
-Hobgood was expected to be an easy sign, and ended up being just that. Signed for under slot.
-Hobgood showed far better stuff in high school (touched 97) than he has in the O's system, but was still a reach.

It's easy to look at that and say "money pick," but do we really know that? Money WAS allocated to later in the draft (a strategy that hasn't worked out, and certainly a strategy that we can debate).

Luke

[BSLChrisStoner]

Callis mentions that Hobgood was a financial selection...are we sure that's true? The national prospect guys always refer to Hobgood as a money pick, but was he really? I know Jon Shepard over at Camden Depot steadfastly says that Hobgood wasn't a money pick. They allocated about a million bucks each to Cameron Coffey and Michael Ohlman in '09, and gave second rounder Mychal Givens a hefty amount of money to sign. Obviously, none of those picks have panned out thus far and in retrospect, it's easy to say that the O's should have done what it took to get a consensus top arm like Jacob Turner or Shelby Miller or Zach Wheeler. But you know who else was connected to the O's quite a bit leading up to the '09 draft? Tyler Matzek, who's facing an uphill battle as well. (Remember when fans were like, "We should have picked Matzek!!!" and then it's become, "We should have picked Turner!!!" Point is, it's really easy to look back at the draft and point out a pick was a financial selection when it doesn't work out. Here's what we do know about Hobgood:

-Joe Jordan absolutely loved him, especially his makeup.
-Hobgood was expected to be an easy sign, and ended up being just that. Signed for under slot.
-Hobgood showed far better stuff in high school (touched 97) than he has in the O's system, but was still a reach.

It's easy to look at that and say "money pick," but do we really know that? Money WAS allocated to later in the draft (a strategy that hasn't worked out, and certainly a strategy that we can debate).

Luke

I had the opportunity to interview Jordan a few times, and this was addressed:

http://baltimorespor...ife.com/?p=1277

Baltimore Sports and Life: “After you selected Matt Hobgood, you immediately stated in several interviews that the pick had zero to do with sign-ability, it was about drafting the player you had identifed as wanting. I think that is an important distinction, and I was glad to see you make that known. No matter what the Monday Morning Quarterbacks (myself included) have to say, you are the one being held responsible for the decision. I think you deserve a lot of credit for taking the player you identified, instead of taking a known ‘name’, you were less comfortable with. Can you speak to the comfort you get, in selecting the player you wanted, vs. a player you might have felt left with?”

Joe Jordan: “As a staff we put a lot of time and effort in evaluating players. It only makes sense to take the player “WE” want in each round. In the end we will make good decisions and some will not work out. I don’t worry for a second what the so called experts think – I trust the people in my draft room much more than someone from the outside evaluating our work.”

[Can_of_corn]

How often does a team admit they made a certain pick for financial reasons?

As for Matzek I would gladly trade Hobgood, Givens, Ohlman and Coffey for him.

[waroriole]

Callis mentions that Hobgood was a financial selection...are we sure that's true? The national prospect guys always refer to Hobgood as a money pick, but was he really? I know Jon Shepard over at Camden Depot steadfastly says that Hobgood wasn't a money pick. They allocated about a million bucks each to Cameron Coffey and Michael Ohlman in '09, and gave second rounder Mychal Givens a hefty amount of money to sign. Obviously, none of those picks have panned out thus far and in retrospect, it's easy to say that the O's should have done what it took to get a consensus top arm like Jacob Turner or Shelby Miller or Zach Wheeler. But you know who else was connected to the O's quite a bit leading up to the '09 draft? Tyler Matzek, who's facing an uphill battle as well. (Remember when fans were like, "We should have picked Matzek!!!" and then it's become, "We should have picked Turner!!!" Point is, it's really easy to look back at the draft and point out a pick was a financial selection when it doesn't work out. Here's what we do know about Hobgood:

-Joe Jordan absolutely loved him, especially his makeup.
-Hobgood was expected to be an easy sign, and ended up being just that. Signed for under slot.
-Hobgood showed far better stuff in high school (touched 97) than he has in the O's system, but was still a reach.

It's easy to look at that and say "money pick," but do we really know that? Money WAS allocated to later in the draft (a strategy that hasn't worked out, and certainly a strategy that we can debate).

Luke

I always liked the philosophy of this draft. There wasn't a consensus pick (or someone that really made a lot of sense) with the 5th pick. So, they took a guy that would take slot money, and spread around what was left over later in the draft. It didn't work out, but the philosophy was sound. Hopefully, with better amateur scouts, we'll be able to make it work next time.

[Can_of_corn]

Callis mentions that Hobgood was a financial selection...are we sure that's true? The national prospect guys always refer to Hobgood as a money pick, but was he really? I know Jon Shepard over at Camden Depot steadfastly says that Hobgood wasn't a money pick. They allocated about a million bucks each to Cameron Coffey and Michael Ohlman in '09, and gave second rounder Mychal Givens a hefty amount of money to sign. Obviously, none of those picks have panned out thus far and in retrospect, it's easy to say that the O's should have done what it took to get a consensus top arm like Jacob Turner or Shelby Miller or Zach Wheeler. But you know who else was connected to the O's quite a bit leading up to the '09 draft? Tyler Matzek, who's facing an uphill battle as well. (Remember when fans were like, "We should have picked Matzek!!!" and then it's become, "We should have picked Turner!!!" Point is, it's really easy to look back at the draft and point out a pick was a financial selection when it doesn't work out. Here's what we do know about Hobgood:

-Joe Jordan absolutely loved him, especially his makeup.
-Hobgood was expected to be an easy sign, and ended up being just that. Signed for under slot.
-Hobgood showed far better stuff in high school (touched 97) than he has in the O's system, but was still a reach.

It's easy to look at that and say "money pick," but do we really know that? Money WAS allocated to later in the draft (a strategy that hasn't worked out, and certainly a strategy that we can debate).

Luke

I always liked the philosophy of this draft. There wasn't a consensus pick (or someone that really made a lot of sense) with the 5th pick. So, they took a guy that would take slot money, and spread around what was left over later in the draft. It didn't work out, but the philosophy was sound. Hopefully, with better amateur scouts, we'll be able to make it work next time.

I can see that with a mid or late round selection but top 5 you have to go BPA. The basically traded down from 5 to 13 to pick up a couple of 4th round picks.

[waroriole]

Callis mentions that Hobgood was a financial selection...are we sure that's true? The national prospect guys always refer to Hobgood as a money pick, but was he really? I know Jon Shepard over at Camden Depot steadfastly says that Hobgood wasn't a money pick. They allocated about a million bucks each to Cameron Coffey and Michael Ohlman in '09, and gave second rounder Mychal Givens a hefty amount of money to sign. Obviously, none of those picks have panned out thus far and in retrospect, it's easy to say that the O's should have done what it took to get a consensus top arm like Jacob Turner or Shelby Miller or Zach Wheeler. But you know who else was connected to the O's quite a bit leading up to the '09 draft? Tyler Matzek, who's facing an uphill battle as well. (Remember when fans were like, "We should have picked Matzek!!!" and then it's become, "We should have picked Turner!!!" Point is, it's really easy to look back at the draft and point out a pick was a financial selection when it doesn't work out. Here's what we do know about Hobgood:

-Joe Jordan absolutely loved him, especially his makeup.
-Hobgood was expected to be an easy sign, and ended up being just that. Signed for under slot.
-Hobgood showed far better stuff in high school (touched 97) than he has in the O's system, but was still a reach.

It's easy to look at that and say "money pick," but do we really know that? Money WAS allocated to later in the draft (a strategy that hasn't worked out, and certainly a strategy that we can debate).

Luke

I always liked the philosophy of this draft. There wasn't a consensus pick (or someone that really made a lot of sense) with the 5th pick. So, they took a guy that would take slot money, and spread around what was left over later in the draft. It didn't work out, but the philosophy was sound. Hopefully, with better amateur scouts, we'll be able to make it work next time.

I can see that with a mid or late round selection but top 5 you have to go BPA. The basically traded down from 5 to 13 to pick up a couple of 4th round picks.

They apparently thought Hobgood was BPA, but even if they didn't I could see making that pick. Is the difference between a theoretical Hobgood and Matzek so great that it's not worth a theoretical Givens, Coffey and Ohlman.

[Can_of_corn]

I don't count Givens, sure he signed late but he signed for 800K as a high 2nd pick.

I think that yes you have to go for the big hit in the top 5. I was very happy with the Coffey pick at the time but he was a huge risk and you don't give up the chance of a TOR arm like Matzek on that big a risk.

Even when picked Hobgood's absolute realistic ceiling was what a #3 starter? If you want a sure thing without a high ceiling in the top 10 you pick a college arm.

Of course the O's should have had the money to pick Matzek and still get Coffey and Ohlman.