229 replies to this topic

[Remember The Alomar]

Really an excercise in futility at this point. The reasoning on the picks seems sound. They went for power arms. We'll see how it shakes out.

I voted a B, but yeah, pretty much this.

You also have to take into consideration the effects of the new CBA and how that alters draft strategy as a whole.

July 13th will be fascinating.

[Mike B]

Really an excercise in futility at this point. The reasoning on the picks seems sound. They went for power arms. We'll see how it shakes out.

Pretty much my thought. It is obvious DD and the organization want hard throwers. They got 20 pitchers, most power arm types. It is good strategy but who the hell knows how it will work out. Let's go O's and good luck to all the new players.

[Stotle]

What you grade is the strategy.

I like how Stotle put it....Be more aggressive early on....IE, get the higher ceiling, more expensive players early.

I think we'll see how the signings shake out. In the shadow draft we ran at CD we went with Buttrey in the 4th (Jon wanted Christian Walker in the 4th, actually, before the draft even started). I made the Buttrey selection because that's where I thought we should take a shot for an impact player. Truth is, Buttrey may decide against signing and we'll be left with nothing for that round and no comp pick.

For me, personally, I like the risk. I don't buy into the idea that Gausman would get to drive the bus in negotiations. If I were in Baltimore's shoes, I'd have a document ready to go showing him why he is on par with Matusz, and should get the same deal plus any inflation. Be fair and give him a deal he deserves, but it's not like he is likely to turn down, say, a $3.5 MM take-it-or-leave-it deal and go back to school for another year with hopes of getting selected in the top 4 again and paid more with less leverage.

[RichardZ]

I think we'll see how the signings shake out. In the shadow draft we ran at CD we went with Buttrey in the 4th (Jon wanted Christian Walker in the 4th, actually, before the draft even started). I made the Buttrey selection because that's where I thought we should take a shot for an impact player. Truth is, Buttrey may decide against signing and we'll be left with nothing for that round and no comp pick.

For me, personally, I like the risk. I don't buy into the idea that Gausman would get to drive the bus in negotiations. If I were in Baltimore's shoes, I'd have a document ready to go showing him why he is on par with Matusz, and should get the same deal plus any inflation. Be fair and give him a deal he deserves, but it's not like he is likely to turn down, say, a $3.5 MM take-it-or-leave-it deal and go back to school for another year with hopes of getting selected in the top 4 again and paid more with less leverage.

Unless they show the Orioles how you rated Gausman on par or ahead of Hultzen and Bauer, who both got a lot more than 4.2M. You can play hardball in negotiations and to the take it or leave it 3.5M offer. Might work. Might not. Gary Rajsich is the one who has to live with the outcome. One thing, I'd bet on. A 3.5M offer wouldn't be accepted until the deadline, if it was accepted and it would probably create some acrimony between the two sides. Again, it might work, but at what cost. And what if it didn't work? We might not ever know unless the O's actually sign him for less than the 4.2M. You say that should use Matusz's bonus as a barometer and include inflation. Heck, the inflation is what pitchers got in last year's draft. You want Gausman to take half of what pitchers you call comparable got. Try selling that. I see a slot signing for Gausman which is fair under the new system. Trying to sign him for under MLB's own guidelines amounts to a slap in the face as in "We thought you were one of the top 4 players in the draft but we want to pay you like the 7th or 8th best guy." In the real world, the O's will come off as the bad guys as they try to give less than what their own league says is fair.

[ChaosLex]

Let me clarify. I know that we have no idea how any of these guys will perform yet. I just meant how you feel about the guys we drafted as compared to who was still availabe on the board. In other words, your own personal feelings.

[Stotle]

I think we'll see how the signings shake out. In the shadow draft we ran at CD we went with Buttrey in the 4th (Jon wanted Christian Walker in the 4th, actually, before the draft even started). I made the Buttrey selection because that's where I thought we should take a shot for an impact player. Truth is, Buttrey may decide against signing and we'll be left with nothing for that round and no comp pick.

For me, personally, I like the risk. I don't buy into the idea that Gausman would get to drive the bus in negotiations. If I were in Baltimore's shoes, I'd have a document ready to go showing him why he is on par with Matusz, and should get the same deal plus any inflation. Be fair and give him a deal he deserves, but it's not like he is likely to turn down, say, a $3.5 MM take-it-or-leave-it deal and go back to school for another year with hopes of getting selected in the top 4 again and paid more with less leverage.

Unless they show the Orioles how you rated Gausman on par or ahead of Hultzen and Bauer, who both got a lot more than 4.2M. You can play hardball in negotiations and to the take it or leave it 3.5M offer. Might work. Might not. Gary Rajsich is the one who has to live with the outcome. One thing, I'd bet on. A 3.5M offer wouldn't be accepted until the deadline, if it was accepted and it would probably create some acrimony between the two sides. Again, it might work, but at what cost. And what if it didn't work? We might not ever know unless the O's actually sign him for less than the 4.2M. You say that should use Matusz's bonus as a barometer and include inflation. Heck, the inflation is what pitchers got in last year's draft. You want Gausman to take half of what pitchers you call comparable got. Try selling that. I see a slot signing for Gausman which is fair under the new system. Trying to sign him for under MLB's own guidelines amounts to a slap in the face as in "We thought you were one of the top 4 players in the draft but we want to pay you like the 7th or 8th best guy." In the real world, the O's will come off as the bad guys as they try to give less than what their own league says is fair.

I think you might be undervaluing how important slot can be. Kids will definitely argue "I'm a better talent than the slot I was picked".

You apparently feel strongly about this, but I think you are wrong and your analysis is off with regards to "what the league thinks is fair". The slot allotments were intentionally made to be higher than slot recommendations in the past to allow teams the flexibility. These allotments are not a recommendation for how much a player should receive. It is recommended slot plus a little extra so that teams can have flexbility in how they use their allotment in the aggregate. While the term "slot" is being used interchangeably by reporters, it's a different concept than what we had under the old system.

Matusz was selected in the same slot, by the same organization. Have you compared their college stats? Noted Matusz is left handed? I'm not sure why you feel as strongly as you do, but I think it's a misguided stance:

Matusz 105 IP, 141 SO, 22 BB, .211 BAA, 1.71 ERA
Gausman 115,7 IP, 128 SO, 27 BB, .230 BAA, 2.72 ERA

You really think it's a stretch to say Gausman is a comparable collegiate pitcher, but right handed instead of left with slightly lower production his junior year? I won't lay out the stats for Bauer and Hultzen, but both were superior to Gausman's stats, and both were selected ahead of Gausman's slot -- they shouldn't be in a contract discussion.

Gausman with a $3.5 MM offer -- do you want to take this now, or come back as a senior (with absolutely no leverage) and hope for a successful, healthy, year that puts you ahead of the younger and potentially equally talented arms and position players that will also be available? And remember, in order to get more than $3.5 MM, you need to go at least this high next year and convince a team that, even though you have no leverage, you should get every penny the team has to give you at this position in the draft. If you go any lower, all you've done is lost a year of pro experience, a year of the development that can only come from working with professionals on a daily basis, and pro pay check.

$3.5 MM plus you get every penny we have left over up to the 5% amount over 10 round allotment. I don't think there's any way Baltimore should end up giving $4.2 MM to Guasman (though, personally, I think he is worth that).

[SportsGuy]

Agree with Stotle...No way he walks away from 3.5M.

Also agree with RZ that we could put that deal on the table today and I doubt Gausman jumps and signs it.

I think he ends up signing for somewhere around 3.75M.

[Stotle]

Agree with Stotle...No way he walks away from 3.5M.

Also agree with RZ that we could put that deal on the table today and I doubt Gausman jumps and signs it.

I think he ends up signing for somewhere around 3.75M.

Right, and I am fine with the idea of going over the $3.5. But that's where I'd start and I'd have a whole lot of leverage and evidence to support that as a starting point.

[Can_of_corn]

For me, personally, I like the risk. I don't buy into the idea that Gausman would get to drive the bus in negotiations. If I were in Baltimore's shoes, I'd have a document ready to go showing him why he is on par with Matusz, and should get the same deal plus any inflation. Be fair and give him a deal he deserves, but it's not like he is likely to turn down, say, a $3.5 MM take-it-or-leave-it deal and go back to school for another year with hopes of getting selected in the top 4 again and paid more with less leverage.

Didn't Matusz sign a Major League deal? If they are comparable shouldn't Gausman get a bump up for not having that option?

[RichardZ]

I think you might be undervaluing how important slot can be. Kids will definitely argue "I'm a better talent than the slot I was picked".

You apparently feel strongly about this, but I think you are wrong and your analysis is off with regards to "what the league thinks is fair". The slot allotments were intentionally made to be higher than slot recommendations in the past to allow teams the flexibility. These allotments are not a recommendation for how much a player should receive. It is recommended slot plus a little extra so that teams can have flexbility in how they use their allotment in the aggregate. While the term "slot" is being used interchangeably by reporters, it's a different concept than what we had under the old system.

Matusz was selected in the same slot, by the same organization. Have you compared their college stats? Noted Matusz is left handed? I'm not sure why you feel as strongly as you do, but I think it's a misguided stance:

Matusz 105 IP, 141 SO, 22 BB, .211 BAA, 1.71 ERA
Gausman 115,7 IP, 128 SO, 27 BB, .230 BAA, 2.72 ERA

You really think it's a stretch to say Gausman is a comparable collegiate pitcher, but right handed instead of left with slightly lower production his junior year? I won't lay out the stats for Bauer and Hultzen, but both were superior to Gausman's stats, and both were selected ahead of Gausman's slot -- they shouldn't be in a contract discussion.

Gausman with a $3.5 MM offer -- do you want to take this now, or come back as a senior (with absolutely no leverage) and hope for a successful, healthy, year that puts you ahead of the younger and potentially equally talented arms and position players that will also be available? And remember, in order to get more than $3.5 MM, you need to go at least this high next year and convince a team that, even though you have no leverage, you should get every penny the team has to give you at this position in the draft. If you go any lower, all you've done is lost a year of pro experience, a year of the development that can only come from working with professionals on a daily basis, and pro pay check.

$3.5 MM plus you get every penny we have left over up to the 5% amount over 10 round allotment. I don't think there's any way Baltimore should end up giving $4.2 MM to Guasman (though, personally, I think he is worth that).

First of all, I respect all of your analysis and your expertise (sincerely) when it comes to the draft. Your theory is a sound one in principle. I'm just presenting the other side. Not sure why you insist that I feel "so strongly" two times for emphasis. I find it interesting for someone who downplays stats when I bring them up to actually use them in these hypothetical contract negotiations. As you know (and would argue yourself and have I believe) just because Bauer had superior stats doesn't make him the better pitcher, prospect, or more valuable commodity). You want to compare the bonus of some pitcher picked FOUR years ago and use that as a barometer for Gausman. I think his agent would laugh at that. The more recent bonuses of last year are much more relevant in this case. Again, the "slot" recommendations are more closely tied to 2011 numbers than 2008 numbers. As they say, that ship has sailed.

As I stated previously, you might win, with the "take it or leave it" 3.5M offer but even if accepted you have to play "chicken" with your #1 choice. I agree that it makes more sense to take the 3.5M than to go back to school and hope for the same or better but similar things have happend (J.D. Drew, a positon player of course) before. If the 3.5M really is a hard "take it or leave it" (now you are saying you'd start there which isn't the same) I think it might cause more trouble than getting the extra pick signed that you hope for.

As a counter to your logic (which I tend to agree with) that he'd be better off taking the 3.5M than going back to school. Why didn't any teams use this last year on Cole, Bauer, and Hultzen. All three would have been at the same risk and everyone knew hard slotting (as to the maximum payout) was coming. It may look like the team has the hammer but when it comes down to it, the team is afraid of losing their guy, in this case over 700K. Stay tuned. Maybe the O's sign him for close to what you are taking about and sign some later round guys with the extra money.

[SportsGuy]

I think you might be undervaluing how important slot can be. Kids will definitely argue "I'm a better talent than the slot I was picked".

You apparently feel strongly about this, but I think you are wrong and your analysis is off with regards to "what the league thinks is fair". The slot allotments were intentionally made to be higher than slot recommendations in the past to allow teams the flexibility. These allotments are not a recommendation for how much a player should receive. It is recommended slot plus a little extra so that teams can have flexbility in how they use their allotment in the aggregate. While the term "slot" is being used interchangeably by reporters, it's a different concept than what we had under the old system.

Matusz was selected in the same slot, by the same organization. Have you compared their college stats? Noted Matusz is left handed? I'm not sure why you feel as strongly as you do, but I think it's a misguided stance:

Matusz 105 IP, 141 SO, 22 BB, .211 BAA, 1.71 ERA
Gausman 115,7 IP, 128 SO, 27 BB, .230 BAA, 2.72 ERA

You really think it's a stretch to say Gausman is a comparable collegiate pitcher, but right handed instead of left with slightly lower production his junior year? I won't lay out the stats for Bauer and Hultzen, but both were superior to Gausman's stats, and both were selected ahead of Gausman's slot -- they shouldn't be in a contract discussion.

Gausman with a $3.5 MM offer -- do you want to take this now, or come back as a senior (with absolutely no leverage) and hope for a successful, healthy, year that puts you ahead of the younger and potentially equally talented arms and position players that will also be available? And remember, in order to get more than $3.5 MM, you need to go at least this high next year and convince a team that, even though you have no leverage, you should get every penny the team has to give you at this position in the draft. If you go any lower, all you've done is lost a year of pro experience, a year of the development that can only come from working with professionals on a daily basis, and pro pay check.

$3.5 MM plus you get every penny we have left over up to the 5% amount over 10 round allotment. I don't think there's any way Baltimore should end up giving $4.2 MM to Guasman (though, personally, I think he is worth that).

First of all, I respect all of your analysis and your expertise (sincerely) when it comes to the draft. Your theory is a sound one in principle. I'm just presenting the other side. Not sure why you insist that I feel "so strongly" two times for emphasis. I find it interesting for someone who downplays stats when I bring them up to actually use them in these hypothetical contract negotiations. As you know (and would argue yourself and have I believe) just because Bauer had superior stats doesn't make him the better pitcher, prospect, or more valuable commodity). You want to compare the bonus of some pitcher picked FOUR years ago and use that as a barometer for Gausman. I think his agent would laugh at that. The more recent bonuses of last year are much more relevant in this case. Again, the "slot" recommendations are more closely tied to 2011 numbers than 2008 numbers. As they say, that ship has sailed.

As I stated previously, you might win, with the "take it or leave it" 3.5M offer but even if accepted you have to play "chicken" with your #1 choice. I agree that it makes more sense to take the 3.5M than to go back to school and hope for the same or better but similar things have happend (J.D. Drew, a positon player of course) before. If the 3.5M really is a hard "take it or leave it" (now you are saying you'd start there which isn't the same) I think it might cause more trouble than getting the extra pick signed that you hope for.

As a counter to your logic (which I tend to agree with) that he'd be better off taking the 3.5M than going back to school. Why didn't any teams use this last year on Cole, Bauer, and Hultzen. All three would have been at the same risk and everyone knew hard slotting (as to the maximum payout) was coming. It may look like the team has the hammer but when it comes down to it, the team is afraid of losing their guy, in this case over 700K. Stay tuned. Maybe the O's sign him for close to what you are taking about and sign some later round guys with the extra money.

This is a great question and one I don't get with the ML teams.

Sure, you may get some moron who goes back to school but for the most part, these guys aren't walking away from 4 million and being a top 5 pick. Its too risky, especially for pitchers.

[RichardZ]

[

Right, and I am fine with the idea of going over the $3.5. But that's where I'd start and I'd have a whole lot of leverage and evidence to support that as a starting point.

All fine and good. This is a negotiation. You don't think the other side can put just as much evidence to support a 4.2M starting point? In the end, it doesn't even come down to evidence. It's who blinks first. But, even if the O's win that game there may be some fallout. I'm sure you could use history and past drafts to argue why the three college pitchers from last year shouldn't have gotten the numbers they did. BUT THEY DID. WHY? The teams blinked. If the Pirates have told Cole you can have 5M, take it or leave it, under your logic he would have signed, right?


Oh BTW, Cole's stats might not even be as good as Gausman's this year.

[Stotle]

For me, personally, I like the risk. I don't buy into the idea that Gausman would get to drive the bus in negotiations. If I were in Baltimore's shoes, I'd have a document ready to go showing him why he is on par with Matusz, and should get the same deal plus any inflation. Be fair and give him a deal he deserves, but it's not like he is likely to turn down, say, a $3.5 MM take-it-or-leave-it deal and go back to school for another year with hopes of getting selected in the top 4 again and paid more with less leverage.

Didn't Matusz sign a Major League deal? If they are comparable shouldn't Gausman get a bump up for not having that option?

Great catch. About $3.5 all in for matusz, so I amend my $3.5 suggestion and say $3.7 as a starting point (accounting for Gausman's lesser numbers).

[Stotle]

I think you might be undervaluing how important slot can be. Kids will definitely argue "I'm a better talent than the slot I was picked".

You apparently feel strongly about this, but I think you are wrong and your analysis is off with regards to "what the league thinks is fair". The slot allotments were intentionally made to be higher than slot recommendations in the past to allow teams the flexibility. These allotments are not a recommendation for how much a player should receive. It is recommended slot plus a little extra so that teams can have flexbility in how they use their allotment in the aggregate. While the term "slot" is being used interchangeably by reporters, it's a different concept than what we had under the old system.

Matusz was selected in the same slot, by the same organization. Have you compared their college stats? Noted Matusz is left handed? I'm not sure why you feel as strongly as you do, but I think it's a misguided stance:

Matusz 105 IP, 141 SO, 22 BB, .211 BAA, 1.71 ERA
Gausman 115,7 IP, 128 SO, 27 BB, .230 BAA, 2.72 ERA

You really think it's a stretch to say Gausman is a comparable collegiate pitcher, but right handed instead of left with slightly lower production his junior year? I won't lay out the stats for Bauer and Hultzen, but both were superior to Gausman's stats, and both were selected ahead of Gausman's slot -- they shouldn't be in a contract discussion.

Gausman with a $3.5 MM offer -- do you want to take this now, or come back as a senior (with absolutely no leverage) and hope for a successful, healthy, year that puts you ahead of the younger and potentially equally talented arms and position players that will also be available? And remember, in order to get more than $3.5 MM, you need to go at least this high next year and convince a team that, even though you have no leverage, you should get every penny the team has to give you at this position in the draft. If you go any lower, all you've done is lost a year of pro experience, a year of the development that can only come from working with professionals on a daily basis, and pro pay check.

$3.5 MM plus you get every penny we have left over up to the 5% amount over 10 round allotment. I don't think there's any way Baltimore should end up giving $4.2 MM to Guasman (though, personally, I think he is worth that).

First of all, I respect all of your analysis and your expertise (sincerely) when it comes to the draft. Your theory is a sound one in principle. I'm just presenting the other side. Not sure why you insist that I feel "so strongly" two times for emphasis. I find it interesting for someone who downplays stats when I bring them up to actually use them in these hypothetical contract negotiations. As you know (and would argue yourself and have I believe) just because Bauer had superior stats doesn't make him the better pitcher, prospect, or more valuable commodity). You want to compare the bonus of some pitcher picked FOUR years ago and use that as a barometer for Gausman. I think his agent would laugh at that. The more recent bonuses of last year are much more relevant in this case. Again, the "slot" recommendations are more closely tied to 2011 numbers than 2008 numbers. As they say, that ship has sailed.

As I stated previously, you might win, with the "take it or leave it" 3.5M offer but even if accepted you have to play "chicken" with your #1 choice. I agree that it makes more sense to take the 3.5M than to go back to school and hope for the same or better but similar things have happend (J.D. Drew, a positon player of course) before. If the 3.5M really is a hard "take it or leave it" (now you are saying you'd start there which isn't the same) I think it might cause more trouble than getting the extra pick signed that you hope for.

As a counter to your logic (which I tend to agree with) that he'd be better off taking the 3.5M than going back to school. Why didn't any teams use this last year on Cole, Bauer, and Hultzen. All three would have been at the same risk and everyone knew hard slotting (as to the maximum payout) was coming. It may look like the team has the hammer but when it comes down to it, the team is afraid of losing their guy, in this case over 700K. Stay tuned. Maybe the O's sign him for close to what you are taking about and sign some later round guys with the extra money.

To be clear, the "feel strongly" was in reference to the "try doing X and see what happens" statements. Sounded like you were characterizing my suggestions as off the wall. I understand you were just adding emphasis to a counter point.

Generally, I agree with your point. Regarding stats, you are absolutely correct that I play them down in evaluation to a degree. In my experience, they tend to be more important with regards to contract negotiations in that they are the only facts that both sides have. Gausman can say he is better than Cole and show better stats (which is what I'd do were I his advisor). Baltimore can say he's comparable to Matusz and show the stats.

The fact that I personally like Gausman better than Bauer or Hultzen doesn't come into play because teams aren't showing aggregate appraisals to the kids they draft. Where does that leave us?

Slot matters a lot. First because it serves as a starting point. Players argue for more than slot in two scenarios: 1) I am more talented than the "average" pick here (which is what slot is based upon), and 2) I believe I will be worth more than this at a later date and you need to pay me closer to what I think I'll be worth than what my slot and current taletns say I am worth.

The team has strong arguments for not going over slot in that they do not want to set a precedent for future negotiations. This comes into play more with, say, a fourth round college junior. They may argue they are a 2nd rd talent, and the team may agree, but the team does not want to set new baselines. Next year, when the team selects a college player in the same spot, they want slot to be the starting point and not some new 10% above slot number established the prior year.

Historically, Baltimore has clearly done a good job of making their case for certain signing amounts. I still believe that, as a third round pick, with Correa apparently signing for somewhere between $4 and $5 million, that Gausman is going to have a huge argument for deserving more than around $3.7. At the end of the day, as far as Baltimore's draft is concerned, they cna probably sign everyone even if he takes the full $4.2. As you said, stay tuned (and it will be interesting to see how it plays out).

But that doesn't mean that they couldn't have gotten him for slightly less and used that extra money later. Going with senior signs in rounds 6-10 saves them about $500K. they have up to about $340K in the 5% extra space in the pool. That alone is $840K to tack on to 2nd and 3rd round allotments. Is Kline a bad player? Absolutely not. Nor is Marin or Walker. But I do not think Baltimore fully leveraged their pool to the extent they could have (based solely on appearance -- I have no clue how it will actually shake out).

[Stotle]

[

Right, and I am fine with the idea of going over the $3.5. But that's where I'd start and I'd have a whole lot of leverage and evidence to support that as a starting point.

All fine and good. This is a negotiation. You don't think the other side can put just as much evidence to support a 4.2M starting point? In the end, it doesn't even come down to evidence. It's who blinks first. But, even if the O's win that game there may be some fallout. I'm sure you could use history and past drafts to argue why the three college pitchers from last year shouldn't have gotten the numbers they did. BUT THEY DID. WHY? The teams blinked. If the Pirates have told Cole you can have 5M, take it or leave it, under your logic he would have signed, right?


Oh BTW, Cole's stats might not even be as good as Gausman's this year.

But it's a different system now. The MLB org does have the argument that "we would love to give you $10 MM, but we can't -- this is the best we can do under this system."

Cole was selected 1st -- again, slot is huge in setting the starting point.

[RichardZ]

Agree with Stotle...No way he walks away from 3.5M.

Also agree with RZ that we could put that deal on the table today and I doubt Gausman jumps and signs it.

I think he ends up signing for somewhere around 3.75M.

There is no doubt that you should be the team's negotiator. I believe you had a take it leave it offer for Manny Machado that would have saved us a ton of money also.

[Stotle]

Got a text that zimmer was almost done and it would be around 3.4, so 3.5 def not enough. Looks like RZ may have better read than me. Hopefully the money id save on senior signs would serve as a buffer, but /ight be tough to sign buttrey at this point.

[JeremyStrain]

What was the slot number on #5, I feel like that's going to drive most of this. If $4.2 is slot, I don't think $3.5 was a bad starting point, if you split the difference and get to $3.8 or so, that's ok, and if you go all the way to $4.2 that's what you should have been expecting barring a pre-draft agreement anyway (and it seems there were a lot of those, especially in ATL).

[SportsGuy]

Agree with Stotle...No way he walks away from 3.5M.

Also agree with RZ that we could put that deal on the table today and I doubt Gausman jumps and signs it.

I think he ends up signing for somewhere around 3.75M.

There is no doubt that you should be the team's negotiator. I believe you had a take it leave it offer for Manny Machado that would have saved us a ton of money also.

HS kids have a little more leverage....But we don't know what he would have really taken if you played hard ball with him.

I don't remember what I said to pay him..I wanna say 4-5 million.

[Stotle]

Got a text that zimmer was almost done and it would be around 3.4, so 3.5 def not enough. Looks like RZ may have better read than me. Hopefully the money id save on senior signs would serve as a buffer, but /ight be tough to sign buttrey at this point.

Looking into KAN deeper, looks like their approach (since they had no extra picks) was to pay slot for 1st round and save some in the second and third to spread to the 5th and 6th. If they gave Zimmer full 3.5, looks like they will not make a run at Austin Fairchild (16th round).