Photo

17 v T5


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,573 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 10 December 2022 - 10:54 AM

The only real unique thing from non-competitive behavior is the opportunity to pick at the top of the draft.  Many try to add things to this list, but it's really only one thing.  Even though draft pool can make a difference, it's still fairly easy to get your down-draft over-slots (certainly true for what the Orioles have done) if you want.

 

...but for the purposes of this, let's not debate those other things here.

 

The Orioles draft 17th in 2023.  Had a micro shot at Top 6 in the new rules.  "Getting stuck in the middle" of the draft is supposedly (that's the narrative) the WORST place to be.  The Orioles (and Brewers in the NL) were the first teams out of the playoffs.  

 

1) This isn't really the point, but is anyone lamenting having only the 17th pick in the draft after an improbable run towards the Playoffs last year?  Did anyone say..."yeah we might make the playoffs...but our draft position...ugh."  I don't recall.   This is a little rhetorical because I think the answer is no-one.

 

2) and more importantly, what are we really giving up by drafting 17 versus top 5?

 

We know the Orioles selected Kjerstad (2020), Cowser (2021) and Holliday (2022) as a function of their intentional non-competitive behavior.

 

If you just take the 17th guy in the draft the last 3 years you get Nick Yorke (2020), Matt McLain (2021), Justin Crawford (2022).

 

Would you trade [intentionally losing] for [81+ wins] in 2019, 2020 and 2021 for the difference between Yorke/McLain/Crawford and Kjerstad/Cowser/Holliday?

 

I didn't actually like the Yorke pick, so if you look at the opportunity of the 17th pick, you could have made better picks.  In 2020 you had a top10 guy like Garrett Mitchell fall to 1-20 and a guy I liked Jordan Walker go to the Cardinals at 1-21.  If I was picking 17th in 2020, I'd have probably taken Walker.

 

I am a fan of McLain (someone I even thought the Orioles might pop at 1-5) so if he was there at 1-17, I'd clearly have taken him.

 

In 2022, Crawford had some helium for top10 and he'd have been a consideration for me, but it's crazy that Cam Collier fell to 1-18 people were talking about him as an underslot in the Top 5....so If I'm drafting at #17 last year and Cam Collier gets to me...I take him.

 

Now do the bolded comparison from above....

 

...would you trade losing bad for 3 years for .500+ non-Playoff seasons 19-21 for the difference between Jordan Walker, Matt McLain and Cam Collier?  Heck, I might prefer that group straight up.

 

In the next draft, there will be quality Talent that will fall to the Orioles at #17.  Orioles have done well in the draft and everything else you can do in the draft is basically the same.


  • makoman likes this

#2 BobPhelan

BobPhelan

    OTV

  • Moderators
  • 14,498 posts
  • LocationBel Air, MD

Posted 05 January 2023 - 06:17 PM

The extra slot money also has to be taken into account. You may not get Mayo or Baumler in 2020 for example. Also have later picks in each round so might not get the guys we did in later rounds either. Norby, Beavers, Fabian, etc.

In a vacuum I’ll take more competitive baseball for those three years and trade those batches of players for each other in return. But since there is much more to it than that and the system is thriving and ready to spew out major leaguers at a consistent rate for the foreseeable future I would keep things the way they happened.

But I completely understand those that may feel differently.
  • dude and makoman like this

#3 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,247 posts

Posted 05 January 2023 - 06:22 PM

The extra slot money also has to be taken into account. You may not get Mayo or Baumler in 2020 for example. Also have later picks in each round so might not get the guys we did in later rounds either. Norby, Beavers, Fabian, etc.

In a vacuum I’ll take more competitive baseball for those three years and trade those batches of players for each other in return. But since there is much more to it than that and the system is thriving and ready to spew out major leaguers at a consistent rate for the foreseeable future I would keep things the way they happened.

But I completely understand those that may feel differently.

THere is much more to it than that isnt there.



#4 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,573 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 05 January 2023 - 06:49 PM

The extra slot money also has to be taken into account. You may not get Mayo or Baumler in 2020 for example.

 

I've addressed this is other threads, but I don't think it's guys like Mayo and Baumler you give up.  They can play games with those guys into the 4th and 5th round, but if you draft (position) differently, and you love Mayo/others, then you have to pop them instead of a guy like Servideo or Haskin.  You draft [these guys] 2 and 3 and you're swapping out 2/3 for different guys 4/5.  I've run some of that elsewhere.

 

My general thought is if you want to build an elite Talent pipeline, it's not about drafting T5....I'll come back to this.

 

Also have later picks in each round so might not get the guys we did in later rounds either. Norby, Beavers, Fabian, etc.

 

I guess the answer to this is maybe.  But it seems problematic to me to suggest that if Norby's name was swapped out for another one because he was picked just before a different, slightly later pick, that an Organization that is good at doing this wouldn't be able to do it.

 

We're suggesting that without THAT pick, for THAT guy, we'd be in some type of much lesser space. 

 

Again, if we're good, I find that a problematic position. 



#5 BobPhelan

BobPhelan

    OTV

  • Moderators
  • 14,498 posts
  • LocationBel Air, MD

Posted 05 January 2023 - 06:55 PM

I see those points and agree to an extent. I’m sure they would adjust and identify players in their stead if they had to. And I do agree that the ultimate goal is choose well no matter where you pick, the later the better for competitive reasons. But I still wouldn’t mess with the butterfly effect for the past. Moving forward tho let’s pick as late as possible.
  • dude and makoman like this

#6 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,573 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 05 January 2023 - 06:59 PM

.....But since there is much more to it than that and the system is thriving and ready to spew out major leaguers at a consistent rate for the foreseeable future I would keep things the way they happened.

 

...but none of that "much more to it than that" stuff is tied to drafting 17th or Top 5.

 

The Orioles draft in what the rebuilding manual says is the worst position.to be in.  Last team out of the Playoffs means the worst draft position.  Are we concerned that team minor league Talent is unsustainable?...because as I've said many times....if we were drafting 1st, we could draft X, Y, Z (x22 whatever)....if you win the WS and draft last, you can have the exact same draft but you trade X for the last guy.  It's one guy different...it's definitely a much better guy different...but if you're good, you figure it out.  In theory, you should do better drafting 17th than 30th, but I'll accept the same argument as in 17 v T5. 

 

Bottom line is it doesn't matter where you draft if you can identify and develop Talent.  Success isn't tied to your draft position, it's tied to your ability to identify and develop Talent.

 

I'm confident the OTR Team will make credible arguments for the players the Orioles draft and their potential and impact for the future this year.  I've already suggested some ways to add CompA and CompB picks for next July.  Be creative, find a way.



#7 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,573 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 05 January 2023 - 07:08 PM

Moving forward tho let’s pick as late as possible.

 

So this is my mantra.  Draft last (in the first round). 

That means I won a bunch of games and I never needed to sign a compensated FA.

 

Good MiL systems are not tied to MLB approach.  Whatever you do, you'll get more, success is never about a start point.



#8 BobPhelan

BobPhelan

    OTV

  • Moderators
  • 14,498 posts
  • LocationBel Air, MD

Posted 05 January 2023 - 07:09 PM

Worth noting that picking early while the international presence was built up from scratch helped speed things up. Now that’s it’s up to speed that isn’t quite as important.
  • RichardZ likes this

#9 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,573 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 05 January 2023 - 07:22 PM

Worth noting that picking early while the international presence was built up from scratch helped speed things up. Now that’s it’s up to speed that isn’t quite as important.

 

Not intended to badger, I was going to leave this alone...but, I don't understand what "helped speed things up" is referring too.

 

If we have [Top 5 picks we made] versus [if we picked 17th - this thread] versus just released [Top 5 picks we made] the International opportunities, the 2022 and 2023 results and really any future opportunity are basically the same. 



#10 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,361 posts

Posted 05 January 2023 - 07:42 PM

I think being #1 or #2 is different than anywhere else (if you take the best guy). I don't think any other reasonable slide down in position really matters. Sure #3 is better than #20, but it's not really any more likely to net you a difference maker than #9.

The extra bonus pool being higher does help you increase your overall haul but only if you spread it around. And I don't know by how much or at what point the manipulation runs out. Like I'm not sure if getting a 3rd round talent in the 10th really matters nearly as much as getting a 1st round talent in the 2nd or 3rd. Harder to evaluate, and different assumptions all make reasonable sense.
  • BobPhelan likes this

#11 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,573 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 06 January 2023 - 12:40 PM

I think being #1 or #2 is different than anywhere else (if you take the best guy). I don't think any other reasonable slide down in position really matters. Sure #3 is better than #20, but it's not really any more likely to net you a difference maker than #9.

 

We've (you've) done this a lot and [everyone should] accept the data.  That data is relative to other picks...so while the 1-1 or 1-2 pick certainly have SIGNIFCANTLY better average impact over the history of Baseball, the reality is those guy on average haven't had that big of an impact.  You certainly have the Griffeys, ARods, Chippers that have HoF level careers...but the year the Braves drafted Chipper 1-1 (we'd all want him), the Orioles drafted Mussina 1-20.  The year the Astros drafted Correa 1-1, the Dodgers drafted Seager 1-18 and the A's draft Matt Olson 1-47.

 

Holliday could be great, but if we'd signed Turner to a crazy deal...when would we need him?  Or what if Ortiz turns out to be Swanson. Is my future outlook any different having Holliday versus Collier or Crawford at 17?

 

Your start point doesn't matter.  If you want to build "an elite Talent pipeline" then you need to leverage all of the Talent acquisition means and be better than your cohorts at identifying and developing that Talent.  It doesn't matter where you draft because if you can't do the bolded, you can't be successful. Baseball is way harder than the NFL or the NBA.  Impact of one guy, even if he's great is lessened because you can't put the ball in his hands when the Game is on the line (see: Mike Trout, 1-25).

 

The Orioles aren't screwed because they are drafting 17th this year and we wouldn't have been screwed by drafting 17th in any of the last 3 years and we aren't doomed in future Talent if we win the WS.  The Dodgers, Cards and Rays all do just fine with winning at different points across the Market.



#12 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,052 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 08 January 2023 - 08:28 AM

Couple of thoughts even though we have beat this horse to death over the last 5 years and at this point its all water under the bridge.

 

1. Yes I would take the "non competitive" performance for the picks we got versus  the picks Dude compared them against.

 

2. I don't think there is a reasonable scenario during our "non competitive" window of 2019-2021 where we were going to be close to on the cusp of the playoffs and as I have said often the difference between 55 wins and 65 wins is meaningless to me.

 

3. You can't really use hindsight and just say well we got these guys but could have gotten these other guys. Changing draft position for the O's (which also means other teams positions are changed) can totally alter the draft dynamic.


  • BobPhelan likes this

#13 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,573 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 08 January 2023 - 01:06 PM

1. Yes I would take the "non competitive" performance for the picks we got versus  the picks Dude compared them against.

 

OK.  Yikes, but OK.

 

The current team isn't based on it and the future opportunity isn't based on it, and (in theory) we aren't going to get top5 picks again, so how will we compete into the future?  Should we just remain non-competitive forever so we keep getting top5 picks? 

 

Do you get to hang banners for total number of top 5 picks?



#14 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,573 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 08 January 2023 - 01:10 PM

2. I don't think there is a reasonable scenario during our "non competitive" window of 2019-2021 where we were going to be close to on the cusp of the playoffs and as I have said often the difference between 55 wins and 65 wins is meaningless to me.

 

This is funny because nearly every outlet had the Orioles as the worst team in the League (certainly bottom 5) and the FO made no real moves to compete in 2022, so we won 52 games in 2021 and 83 games in 2022...so one back-of-the-rotation innings eater and the Waiver Wire are worth "31 WAR".

 

We can over-perform from 30 to 13, but we can't perform from 17 to 12.  Are we sure?



#15 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,573 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 08 January 2023 - 01:20 PM

3. You can't really use hindsight and just say well we got these guys but could have gotten these other guys. Changing draft position for the O's (which also means other teams positions are changed) can totally alter the draft dynamic.

 

We know which ACTUALLY GOT to 1-17.  Were the players we selected guys that wouldn't have been selected by the one team that we'd switch spots with.  Isn't that a bit problematic to say we'd select guys in the top16 that no other teams drafting in the top 16 would want?  We know what happened, it happened.

 

Same for Gunnar Henderson.  He had a mid-first round grade on him and we got to select him later.  Guys fall.  Look at Austin Hays and where we got him.  We jumped on some helium at 1-11 in 2018 and now have the top pitching prospect in MLB.

 

It doesn't really matter where you pick, if you are going to be a good minor league system and win over time (you won't get the highest picks) then you have to identify nad develop Talent.  That has nothing to do with your competitive approach in the Majors.  Other teams do it significantly (LAD, STL, TB) over decades.  Never rebuilding.

 

Rebuilding is nothing but an excuse for the Ownership (and FO) to justify lowering fans expectations.  The cases credited with "success" can't defend causality.  Most of them are just failures with no tracking to anything but losing. 

 

Baseball is (by design) competitive so no matter how good all 30 teams are, there will be winners and losers and there will only be one Champion.

 

Get in the damn Arena.



#16 RichardZ

RichardZ

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,254 posts

Posted 11 January 2023 - 02:03 AM

We know which ACTUALLY GOT to 1-17.  Were the players we selected guys that wouldn't have been selected by the one team that we'd switch spots with.  Isn't that a bit problematic to say we'd select guys in the top16 that no other teams drafting in the top 16 would want?  We know what happened, it happened.
 
Same for Gunnar Henderson.  He had a mid-first round grade on him and we got to select him later.  Guys fall.  Look at Austin Hays and where we got him.  We jumped on some helium at 1-11 in 2018 and now have the top pitching prospect in MLB.
 
It doesn't really matter where you pick, if you are going to be a good minor league system and win over time (you won't get the highest picks) then you have to identify nad develop Talent.  That has nothing to do with your competitive approach in the Majors.  Other teams do it significantly (LAD, STL, TB) over decades.  Never rebuilding.
 
Rebuilding is nothing but an excuse for the Ownership (and FO) to justify lowering fans expectations.  The cases credited with "success" can't defend causality.  Most of them are just failures with no tracking to anything but losing. 
 
Baseball is (by design) competitive so no matter how good all 30 teams are, there will be winners and losers and there will only be one Champion.
 
Get in the damn Arena.



Get over it. We tanked. We get it. You can become good again without tanking. But you can’t deny it helped to some extent. But you probably will. The horse is dead. Move on.
  • BaltBird 24 and BSLSteveBirrer like this

#17 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,573 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 12 January 2023 - 09:00 AM

Get over it. We tanked. We get it. You can become good again without tanking. But you can’t deny it helped to some extent. But you probably will. The horse is dead. Move on.

 

It's a 100% guarantee that if the Orioles have any level of success (make playoffs, more than once, WS, whatever) that the local and National narrative will proclaim that "tanking" worked.  Look at the claims made about the Astros and Cubs (although the Cubs have stopped because they've been terrible lately).

 

You see today a narrative that even 2022 was some progress as a function of tanking.  It absolutely wasn't.

 

Tanking, non-competitive behavior, whatever language justification anyone wants to use is not the reason the Orioles will have any success in the future.  

 

There's ONE specific thing you get out of the last 3 years and that is ONE unique draft pick. This thread is pointing out you can do pretty well with the difference between that one draft pick and whatever you'd have gotten in the 'worst' draft position.

 

We're currently in the worst draft position and I see zero people lamenting the future.  Release Holliday, Cowser and Kjerstad and does that somehow prevent the Orioles from accomplishing something? (so yes, I 100% deny it's value)

 

You want me to shut up.  Cool.  Why do you want to hold onto the value of losing.



#18 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,361 posts

Posted 12 January 2023 - 10:11 AM

Rebuilding (trading away present assets for potential future assets) can help quite a bit.  Tanking (intentionally losing to improve draft position and pool) doesn't.  The value of even the #1 pick just isn't that high in MLB compared to NFL or NBA.  The odds of finding a star are way lower than other sports and the impact of that star on your roster even if you happen to find one are way lower.  

 

Its is undoubtedly better, or at least not worse, to draft higher and have more pool allocation than to draft lower and have less.  That cannot be argued against.  However I also don't think it can be seriously argued against by anyone who actually watches the games throughout the year that the juice of having a pick a handful or so slots higher (even say #1 compared to #8) is worth the squeeze of watching a team that struggles to win 50 games compared to one that is just normal run-of-the-mill bad.  I simply don't believe anyone who says they don't care about or can't tell the difference, unless you just barely watch at all and check out completely on any team you don't think can really compete.  The advantage of drafting higher is very small.  The disadvantage of watching a putrid team all year is a larger scale.



#19 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,052 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 12 January 2023 - 12:02 PM

Rebuilding (trading away present assets for potential future assets) can help quite a bit.  Tanking (intentionally losing to improve draft position and pool) doesn't.  The value of even the #1 pick just isn't that high in MLB compared to NFL or NBA.  The odds of finding a star are way lower than other sports and the impact of that star on your roster even if you happen to find one are way lower.  

 

Its is undoubtedly better, or at least not worse, to draft higher and have more pool allocation than to draft lower and have less.  That cannot be argued against.  However I also don't think it can be seriously argued against by anyone who actually watches the games throughout the year that the juice of having a pick a handful or so slots higher (even say #1 compared to #8) is worth the squeeze of watching a team that struggles to win 50 games compared to one that is just normal run-of-the-mill bad.  I simply don't believe anyone who says they don't care about or can't tell the difference, unless you just barely watch at all and check out completely on any team you don't think can really compete.  The advantage of drafting higher is very small.  The disadvantage of watching a putrid team all year is a larger scale.

I don't care about the difference between a 50 win team or a 65 win team. Not one bit. We have argued this till the cows come home. Every body has different likes and dislikes. I doubt that I watch a 65 win O's team more than once or twice all year compared to a 50 win O's team. They both suck. But its still the O's and baseball so I will tune in on occassion.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=