299 replies to this topic

[Slidemaster]

The Tigers might actually be worse than us.

It's been shown how much less consistently the 2nd overall pick turns into a star compared to the first.

This season will actually be a failure in my eyes if they can't get their act together and get the 1-1 pick.

[Nigel Tufnel]

I think it's pretty likely that Villar and Givens will be traded, and maybe Bundy, too.  So that will hurt the O's.  But, yeah, the Tigers are on a 12-47 streak, and if they keep that up there's nothing the O's can do.

[SportsGuy]

The Orioles will end up with a better record imo.

I think they will bring up some young guys and they will perform well enough.

Tigers could also offload guys like Boyd, Castellanos and especially Greene.

[russsnyder]

I'm really not that concerned about it.

 

The second pick overall would not be a disaster.

 

Further, like Nigel says, the Orioles can't really do anything about the Tigers' futility.

[Mackus]

Not getting the 1st pick is always a risk of tanking especially now that more teams seem to be trying it.  Someone might do it better than you.  

 

The 1st pick isn't all that valuable in baseball.  At least not compared to football or basketball.  2nd is far less valuable, but at least it's still usually clearly more valuable than the 3rd.  Once your down to 3rd, then there really is very little difference in dropping back for the remainder of the round.  

 

Median (half of picks have more, half have less) career WAR for #1 pick is about 24.  Drops to 12 for the #2 and down to 6 for the #3.  Rest of the round slowly trickles down to about 1-2.

 

To show what a low bar this median is, Brian Roberts had 30 career WAR.  So if he was an #1 overall pick, he'd be in the 64th percentile for best careers (from '80-'04).  You'd have to be quite happy if your #1 overall pick ends up with Brian Roberts' career.

[bmore_ken]

I'm really not that concerned about it.

 

The second pick overall would not be a disaster.

 

Further, like Nigel says, the Orioles can't really do anything about the Tigers' futility.

I'm not concerned about it either. Most of our guys are young and hungry. I wouldn't expect them to intentionally lose games for a better draft position.

[Mackus]

I agree that it wouldn't be horrible if they end up with the #2 pick as opposed to #1. 

 

But it would negate the only claimed incentive for intentionally being so bad and make me even more disappointed that they chose this weak ass path rather than sign some cheap guys that could've filled the terrible gaps and have the team be not as horrendous and not as awful to watch.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Posnanski just wrote about the Tigers today (which is how I knew they were on a 12-47 streak):

 

The Detroit Tigers have the worst record in baseball. I have to admit, this sort of snuck up on me. I mean, yes, I knew the Tigers were pretty terrible. But in my mind, I still had them being better than Miami, Baltimore and Kansas City.

 

They are not. They were 18-20 on May 12, and that's about how I had expected them to be. Since then, they’ve gone off the rails. They’ve gone 12-47, which is inspiringly awful baseball. That’s ‘62 Mets baseball. Their lineup is a calamity. The Tigers have one player on the entire roster, one player, with a 100 OPS+. That would be Nicholas Castellanos, who is hitting a fine but hardly salute-worthy .285/.342/.483. He is not just the best player on the team, he’s the best player by A LOT.

 

The pitching staff is just typically bad.

 

I am not at all clear what this Tigers team is supposed to be. They’re not young; there isn’t a single contributor on this team who is younger than 25. But they’re not old either other than Miggy, who has five homers and a .367 slugging percentage, and Jordan Zimmermann, who is 0-7 with a 7.51 ERA. They’re just blah, a team that seems to be going through the motions, a half-hearted tanker that at this point is just hoping for time to move faster. They have won three games this month.

 

https://joeposnanski...hings-late-july

[NewMarketSean]

I think the improvement and hopeful establishment of guys like Means, Nunez, Santander and Severino as quality MLB players is worth losing the 1-1 draft pick.

 

We do actually need half-decent baseball players these next few years and that we found these guys for literally nothing and they're performing is worth it, IMO.

[OldSchool]

I'm really not that concerned about it.

 

The second pick overall would not be a disaster.

 

Further, like Nigel says, the Orioles can't really do anything about the Tigers' futility.

Reggie Jackson was a #2 pick.

[SportsGuy]

Reggie Jackson was a #2 pick.

Piazza was drafted in the 66th round.

[Slidemaster]

Reggie Jackson was a #2 pick.

Yes, I'm not surprised that in the history of baseball there have been good number 2 picks. It doesn't change the fact that the number 1 pick is far more valuable.

[NewMarketSean]

I agree that it wouldn't be horrible if they end up with the #2 pick as opposed to #1. 

 

But it would negate the only claimed incentive for intentionally being so bad and make me even more disappointed that they chose this weak ass path rather than sign some cheap guys that could've filled the terrible gaps and have the team be not as horrendous and not as awful to watch.

Then you're talking about a #10-20 pick.

 

Give me the #2 over that.

 

70 wins still means you suck.

 

2006 wasn't anymore fun than this. I actually prefer this.

[bmore_ken]

Then you're talking about a #10-20 pick.

 

Give me the #2 over that.

 

70 wins still means you suck.

 

2006 wasn't anymore fun than this. I actually prefer this.

As do I. At least the team has a clear direction now.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

I agree that it wouldn't be horrible if they end up with the #2 pick as opposed to #1. 

 

But it would negate the only claimed incentive for intentionally being so bad and make me even more disappointed that they chose this weak ass path rather than sign some cheap guys that could've filled the terrible gaps and have the team be not as horrendous and not as awful to watch.

So you are saying you'd rather have a 65 win team that drafts say 7th vs a 55 win team that drafts 2 or 3rd?  I'll take the draft picks anyday. But then we have debated this to death already. Neither camp is wrong since its all in the eye of the beholder. I am not watching a 65 or even 70 win team anymore than I am watching this team. And in fact maybe even watch less since they would have a bunch of outdated players I could care less about. 

[Mackus]

So you are saying you'd rather have a 65 win team that drafts say 7th vs a 55 win team that drafts 2 or 3rd?

 

Yes.

 

It's not really about the win totals as much as the look and feel of the product.  I'd be happy to watch a team full of prospects that are  overmatched even if they're getting their brains beat in every night.  Young and with potential is exciting and would make up quite a bit for horrendous, historically terrible performance.  But watching mostly hopeless players who have little business with more than a cup of coffee is not at all exciting and the potential #1 draft pick does not come close to making up for the lack of having the team be something I enjoy and want to watch and care about. 

 

This particular team has a few guys who are young and with potential and a few guys who are legit MLB vets.  But very few of each.  It's otherwise littered with hopeless guys with no upside who also are bad.  I'd be much more interested if we replaced much of that useless dreck with players in either other category, even if that doesn't mean we'll have any hope of actually winning an interesting number of games and it costs us a shot at the top draft pick.

 

I just don't think the draft position is worth it in baseball.  Football or basketball it's worth a ton more and can make a huge impact.  But not in baseball, likelihood of adding that type of player (compared to the likelihood of finding that player a little later on) is too low to be worth sacrificing a year's worth of caring about baseball before the season even begins.  I miss caring about the team.

[weird-O]

Yes.

 

It's not really about the win totals as much as the look and feel of the product.  I'd be happy to watch a team full of prospects that are  overmatched even if they're getting their brains beat in every night.  Young and with potential is exciting and would make up quite a bit for horrendous, historically terrible performance.  But watching mostly hopeless players who have little business with more than a cup of coffee is not at all exciting and the potential #1 draft pick does not come close to making up for the lack of having the team be something I enjoy and want to watch and care about. 

 

This particular team has a few guys who are young and with potential and a few guys who are legit MLB vets.  But very few of each.  It's otherwise littered with hopeless guys with no upside who also are bad.  I'd be much more interested if we replaced much of that useless dreck with players in either other category, even if that doesn't mean we'll have any hope of actually winning an interesting number of games and it costs us a shot at the top draft pick.

 

I just don't think the draft position is worth it in baseball.  Football or basketball it's worth a ton more and can make a huge impact.  But not in baseball, likelihood of adding that type of player (compared to the likelihood of finding that player a little later on) is too low to be worth sacrificing a year's worth of caring about baseball before the season even begins.  I miss caring about the team.

To each his own, and you've done a good job of explaining the version of an O's team that would be more interesting for you to watch. 

But there is one thought that your post brought to mind. This terrible O's team is probably only going to be this terrible for 1, maybe 2, more seasons before you'll get what you want to see (a young team with higher upside - more entertaining). If your delayed gratification better positions the team for greater success more quickly, it seems like a small sacrifice to make. After all, it's not just 1-1. It's also having the first pick in subsequent rounds (excluding the compensatory picks). 

 

Maybe it's the decade plus of watching the O's be an after thought, an also ran, that makes this year's team tolerable, because I think it serves the greater good.  

[OldSchool]

Yes, I'm not surprised that in the history of baseball there have been good number 2 picks. It doesn't change the fact that the number 1 pick is far more valuable.

It is only valuable if you draft the right player. Mike Trout wasn't the first pick and today he would be #1. 

Besides most people think Patrick Bailey, C, North Carolina State will be the top pick. The O's with pick 1 would probably go for someone else. 

[BSLSteveBirrer]

It is only valuable if you draft the right player. Mike Trout wasn't the first pick and today he would be #1. 

Besides most people think Patrick Bailey, C, North Carolina State will be the top pick. The O's with pick 1 would probably go for someone else. 

When you have the #1 pick nobody can take the player you want. The further down the food chain the more likely it becomes that the player you want is gone by the time its your turn. All this means is that, in next year's draft the O's might get the same guy whether they pick 1st or 2nd.

[Slidemaster]

It is only valuable if you draft the right player. Mike Trout wasn't the first pick and today he would be #1.
Besides most people think Patrick Bailey, C, North Carolina State will be the top pick. The O's with pick 1 would probably go for someone else.

Nobody knows who's going to go number one next year. There's an entire season of baseball that needs to be played before that's determined.

Not getting the top overall pick would be a loss. It would make every single round a little weaker than getting the top pick. You can cherry-pick examples of guys who weren't the top overall pick who were great, but it doesn't change the fact that it is strictly better to have the number one overall pick in every round.