Draft Review - Baltimore Orioles
by Andy Seiler on Jul 14, 2009 11:22 AM EDT
Email
PrintI've posted a review of the Baltimore Orioles' draft over at MLB Bonus Baby. There's comments on all 50 picks. The next team up will be the San Francisco Giants.
Here's an excerpt for you, this being the size of each year in my draft previews before the draft:
1. Matt Hobgood, RHP, Norco HS (CA), #5 overall, 6’4’’/245: This was an unexpected pick. The Orioles had a history of going for expensive players over the last couple of years in Matt Wieters and Brian Matusz, but they apparently wanted to go with the Pirates’ philosophy of save a little here in order to spend a little more later. Hobgood has good pure stuff, but his build is deceiving. He’s not overpowering, and the projectability isn’t completely there, but he still has #2 potential if everything comes together. As with most prep pitchers, he just needs to learn how to command his offspeed stuff. He signed fairly quickly, but hasn’t appeared on a roster yet. DOB: 8/3/90. Signing bonus: $2.422 million.
2. Mychal Givens, SS, Plant HS (FL), #54 overall, 6’1’’/190: Givens was in the running for a first-round slot at the beginning of the year, but the flaws in his game never seemed to be fixed. A two-way player, Givens drew a lot of attention on the mound, where his fastball rated up with anybody in the entire draft class. However, he wasn’t durable enough to be a starter, and his breaking ball was well below average. In the field, his hitting draws question marks, though his strong arm and defensive skills should keep him at short, providing he becomes consistent. However, this is a decent pick for draft position and talent, though he hasn’t signed yet, and it might go down to the final weekend before the signing deadline. DOB: 5/13/90. Commitment: Oklahoma State.
3. Tyler Townsend, 1B, Florida International, #85 overall, 6’3’’/215: Townsend snuck up on everybody this year, as he entered the year as only a possible mid-round pick. However, by the end, I was really thinking someone might call his name at the end of day one. Surprisingly, it was at the beginning of the third round. He has a big bat, and he projects well for both average and power. However, he can’t run at all, his arm is pretty weak, and first base is about it for him if you want even average defense at his position. Altogether, this is about average for all factors I consider, as he signed quickly, but is off to a poor 8-for-47 start (.170) with Aberdeen in the NYPL. DOB: 5/14/88. Signing bonus: $417,600.
4. Randy Henry, RHP, South Mountain CC (AZ), #116 overall, 6’3’’/198: This is probably one of the more intriguing names in the entire draft. Henry was supposed to be a solid 2008 draft prospect before he blew out his elbow and missed his senior year of high school. He ended up at South Mountain as a result, and he was held back a lot during the season. He only threw 11 innings, but as the year went along, his stuff got stronger and stronger. Now he’s considered a 19 year old kid without much mileage on his arm, and he’s got the pure stuff of a high-upside starter. I thought he might last a round or two later, but he’s got the pure talent to be a round or two higher. He still hasn’t signed, and he’s got another year at South Mountain, so he might command a little more money than slot, but he’s going to sign, and it will probably be before the deadline. DOB: 5/10/90. Commitment: None.
5. Ashur Tolliver, LHP, Oklahoma City, #146 overall, 6’0’’/170: Tolliver was also an interesting name to watch entering the draft. Having broken out on the Cape a year ago, he transferred into Oklahoma City from Arkansas-Little Rock and continued his success through most of the year. While I like this pick, I do give some credence to the thought that Tolliver can’t handle a starter’s load, as his frame really isn’t your prototypical pro starter’s. However, his stuff in relief on the Cape tells me he can probably be a lefty setup man, maybe even a closer in a pinch. That’s great value in the 5th round, so I grade this pick up. He hasn’t signed yet, but it will happen, and it will likely happen well before the deadline. DOB: 1/24/88.
The cutoff point in the Orioles' draft in terms of transitioning to unsignable or organizational players is after the David Baker pick in the 14th round.
What do you guys think?
34 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I really like this overview of everything. The only thing I do not agree with is where it says that Hobgood isnt overpowering. Part of the reason he had so much helium coming into draft day and also a reason Joe Jordan liked him so much was because he added some velocity. Reports I last heard on him and ones from Joe Jordan state that he was in the mid 90’s touching a tad higher than that. I am trying to find out more exact information though from his uncle, Id rather have first hand knowledge than info from inconsistent reports some saying that he tops out at 92 MPH then another one will say he can touch 98. Hopefully his uncle can reveal the truth on the matter for me….
He tops out at more than 92.
But he sits in the low-90s, which isn’t overpowering. He reaches 95ish from the reports I’ve been given. Maybe 96. That’s great, but that’s not overpowering. For me to say a guy is overpowering takes a lot. Using a low-90s fastball, a pitcher needs to have quality offspeed stuff, while a guy with an overpowering fastball needs pretty much an average second offering and that’s it. Neftali Feliz comes to mind there. Hobgood doesn’t have a Shelby Miller arm, but he’s much more refined.
MLB Bonus Baby - A Draft Blog - Author
First Inning - Amateur Draft Contributor
by Andy Seiler on Jul 14, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
nice
I see what you mean by overpowering, me and you just have different definitions. Feliz was throwing gas at the Futures game. So tell me, you seem to be knowledgable and even knew stuff on draft prospects that I never heard of until the O’s drafted them. I hate comps, but what is a good comp for Hobgood? I guess Im not even asking for a comp necessarily, but more or less what kind of pitcher to expect. I mean is he a Matusz kind of pitcher in the making or is he more of a power guy like Joba or somewhere in between?
My assumption, though is probably not right because I have never seen him pitch in person, is that he is kind of a mix of a Joba/Matusz kinda guy….
based on body-type
it seems he’s more joba (6’2"/230) than matusz (listed at 6’5"/200 in college but 6’4"/170 on fangraphs)… a big body suggests big musculature and supporting structures… so while he may not be as dominating as his build suggests, he should still be able to eat innings better than a similar pitcher of slimmer build
I was asking...
More based off of what kind of pitcher that he is….Is he going to be a Matusz guy with good lcoation and good stuff and a feel for pitching….. or a power amr like Joba…..
with a hs arm
it’s going to depend more upon how he progesses these next few years… his offspeed is sloppy at this point… one good thing is that if he’s not overpowering with his fb it may force him to work on command and develop his offspeed stuff at an earlier stage than a guy with an overpowering fb
matusz and joba were easier to project, coming out of college and already facing good-elite competition, and were more polished when they were drafted
by gorilla_baller on Jul 14, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
His offspeed is sloppy? Which offspeed are you speaking of? Do you mean change up or secondary pitches? Ive never seen the kid pitch, but it was said that he had the best curve ball of the HS arms on a report I read, then it said he has an average slider and a feel for the changeup. And also, though the author of this thread said he doesnt consider touching 96+ isnt overpowering, I beg to differ. Maybe when you are comparing it to Feliz he isnt, but Feliz’s fastball is plus-plus and is extraordinary.
Just to throw it out there, just as there are reports that Hobgood maxes out at around 92, there are also reports that have him toppig out at 98. So, hopefully once he gets throwing in Bluefield this month, the answer will be more clear….
i was just going by
the scouting report above… maybe he has filthy offspeed stuff but the sloppiness i’m referring to is command-related
by gorilla_baller on Jul 14, 2009 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I hate that Hobgood pick
Givens was a nice pick and Tolliver is also a solid pick but Hobgood…really? I personally would’ve taken 13 other pitchers (6 of them HS arms) before Hobgood: The HS arms I would’ve taken are: Zack Wheeler, Jacob Turner, Tyler Matzek, Matt Purke, Shelby Miller & Chad James. The college/Indy arms I would’ve taken before Hobgood are: Rex Brothers, Tanner Scheppers, Aaron Crow, Alex White, Mike Leake, Eric Arnett and Kyle Gibson (forearm injury and all).
Grab Some Pine Meat!
I don't understand the Hobgood hate
The guy was first round talent, so I don’t really think it was much of a reach. Also the kid was National Gatorade Player of the Year, so he’s got talent. I really think the decision was made by character. The Baltimore Sun wrote an article on him (I can’t find it right now), but the kid has a real good head on his shoulders and is going to work real hard. I was orginally disappointed by the pick, but after learning more about the kid I’m starting to like it alot more.
He makes his first start on Saturday.
I like Hobgood quite a bit
Probably a little early, but I dont understand why its generating such negative feedback.
I highly doubt this was a signability pick. Both Jordan and Hobgood have mentioned Ackley, a Boras client, was higher on the O’s list. Also signability wasn’t an issue the past two drafts. I don’t see why it would suddenly become an issue. I think this was just a case where the talent in the draft had a sharp decline after the first two picks. Most of the high school pitchers seemed pretty evenly matched, and the O’s liked Hobgood’s attitude and work ethic.
If it wasn't a signability pick
he wouldn’t already be under contract and be making his debut this week. He didn’t get paid what the 5th overall talent in the draft would “deserve” based on market value, he signed for slot immediately and went to camp.
I like the pick/bonus from the team’s perspective, don’t get me wrong. But to say that it wasn’t a signability pick seems suspicious to me considering that none of his peers are under contract yet. All of them will either receive higher bonuses than his, or will turn down higher offers than what Hobgood got and go to college.
Signability made a difference
But Jordan probably didn’t see much of a talent difference between Hobgood and his peers. The O’s seem to have recently put high value in getting high character players. Hobgood meets that. It makes sense too, if you are projecting a guy 5 years from now, why would you only consider his physical makeup and not his mental makeup.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 17, 2009 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree with everything in this post
Matzek probably has a better arm, but Joe Jordan likely figured that the difference isn’t that great, and Hobgood clearly has the better attitude/outlook, so why spend a substantial amount more on a guy who may not mentally have what it takes?
"There's only one cure for what's wrong with all of us pitchers, and that's to take a year off. Then, after you've gone a year without throwing, quit altogether." -Jim Palmer
How do you define a "signability" pick?
I think a “signability” pick is one where a team takes a player who has significantly less talent than those still on the board almost solely for financial reasons. Moskos was a signability pick. OTOH, if you expand the definition to include any pick taken with financial considerations in mind, the term becomes meaningless. EVERY team considers the financial element with every pick.
If the Orioles felt that Hobgood has almost the same chance of becoming a star that the other high school arms still available have (let’s say the orioles see it as 25% for Hobgood and 27% for Matzek, et al), but will sign for millions less, that’s simply an intelligent use of resources. It’s hard to argue that the extra millions are worth the tiny increase in the chances of becoming a productive player. And, of course, I’m assuming that the Orioles see him as slightly less talented. It’s possible that they see him as just as good and just as likely to become a productive player.
Also...
I don’t understand the argument that Hobgood signing for quickly for slot proves that this is a “signability” pick. You’re begging the question of whether guys like Matzek are actually worth what they’re demanding. Just because a player wants $5 million or whatever to sign and is willing to wait until the deadline to come to terms doesn’t mean that he’s necessarily worth the extra money.
It's pretty much never the case that an over-slot pick is not worth the money
They have a clearly and demonstrably better success rate than slot picks. People have done studies showing that the amount of money a player gets paid is a better way to predict his future value than the spot he’s picked at is.
Draftees are so bizarrely underpaid relative to their actual talent level that teams should seize any opportunity to invest more money in drafting. No matter how inefficiently you spend it, it’s almost impossible not to come out ahead in the long run (compared to spending the money on MLB free agents, at least).
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I don't like this argument
because the teams that make “signability” picks usually aren’t the ones giving free agents more than they’re worth. Using your own argument against you, you can use the money you save signing Hobgood instead of Matzek to sign a few more draft picks or international FAs and give yourself a better chance to get ML players instead of blowing it all on one player who probably has a good shot at flaming out. At least, this is the case with a lot of pitchers. Most players never reach their potential, so you might as well draft smartly with your sources.
Putting out an awful ML team for the sake of having a little more in the draft isn’t exactly productive, either. That’s what gets budgets slashed and management fired. If you’re a smart and efficient organization, you don’t need to buy the shiniest toy to contend. I don’t think Tampa Bay or Oakland would have drafted Matzek, and they’re the idolized “smart” teams.
by Daniel Berlyn on Jul 18, 2009 2:08 AM EDT up reply actions
The correct move is to draft Matzek AND sign the extra draft picks/IFAs
If you can’t sell your ownership on doing that, then either you haven’t made a convincing enough case, or they’re just shooting themselves in the foot. [Of course, they’re shooting you, the GM, as well, so the cynical GM might maximize his personal earnings at the expense of the corporation by spending more money on MLB free agents. And, if it fools the bosses, fine— it’s just bad strategy in terms of “baseball, the game.”]
If it’s the latter case, then yes, it is quite possible that the most efficient use of resources is to spend them on more lower-grade players rather than fewer higher-grade players. But that’s not really a counterargument.
My post, in a nutshell, says “If possible, teams should spend as much money on amateur talent as they possibly can.” Yours says “If that’s NOT possible, it can be better to spread money out rather than concentrating it.” Those two statements aren’t in tension at all.
I’d shy away from making claims about who Oakland would take, though. They just spent 4 large on Michael Ynoa, not to mention drafting Green, Stassi, Krol, Dyson, and last year Hunter, Dixon, Coleman… it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if they would have taken Matzek if he was available.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
There is a huge difference between Matzek's tag and the guys you mentioned
you only get one first pick, and the A’s try to maximize every one. They’re more likely to get major league value out of Green than any HS pitcher regardless of the potential reward. They couldn’t have signed those guys you mentioned if they had signed Matzek and that’s reality. Think about it, if everyone could sign everyone, not only would they be spending a good portion of what could be their payroll, but bonuses would spike as well. Let’s say you spent 12 mil on a draft, for a lot of teams that’s at least 15% of their payroll and you’d better be able to convince your owner you know what you’re doing, because they’re the ones trying to make money at the major league level and many of them don’t really need to take those kinds of risks. So, you make the most of your resources like teams like the A’s and Twins have over the years, and any extra cash you can get you make the most of.
by Daniel Berlyn on Jul 20, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Never mind, you're right, the A's would never draft a high school pitcher with a high pick
Please ignore the Trevor Cahill and Vin Mazzaro (and Craig Italiano, and Jared Lansford, and Ryan Webb, for that matter) behind the curtain.
Think about it, if everyone could sign everyone, not only would they be spending a good portion of what could be their payroll, but bonuses would spike as well.
And… this is exactly what’s happening. The price cartel doesn’t work anymore— every year the number of over-slot signings is going up, as is the number of teams willing to defy His Seligness to sign one. I figure the draft system (if it’s not corrected) will be completely unworkable within 5-10 years. Fortunately, people are making noises about changing things in the next CBA.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Bad argument...
Your argument (and studies) are bull. Being based on bad facts
There is a default bias because a number of those overslot players are players who saw their slot drop because of salary demands, meaning they are actually performing closer to their expected performance level, just that they dropped.
Obviously Porcello has a better chance of outperforming his draft position than does Hobgood, he dropped 25 spots because of his salary demand.
...
There is a default bias because a number of those overslot players are players who saw their slot drop because of salary demands, meaning they are actually performing closer to their expected performance level, just that they dropped.
Care to explain to me what the difference between “a default bias” and “an exploitable opportunity” is?
The market thinks that Tyler Matzek is a better pitcher than Hobgood or Wheeler. That makes it quite likely that he is, in fact, a better pitcher, and worth the money.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Here's why the Hobgood pick annoyed me
He was projected as a late 1st round talent-going to the Angels at the earliest (from what I read) and this draft was deep in HS arms and while Hobgood was a good HS arm he wasn’t an elite arm
Grab Some Pine Meat!
And you know this how?
The O’s scouted high school arms more extensively than any other publication out there.
"There's only one cure for what's wrong with all of us pitchers, and that's to take a year off. Then, after you've gone a year without throwing, quit altogether." -Jim Palmer
You're right, I'm not a scout
So I just have to go on sites like Baseball America and according to BA, Hobgood was the 18th best RHP and he was the 9th best HS arm and BA gets their rankings by talking to scouts so they do know what they’re talking about in their projections
Grab Some Pine Meat!
There is one thing you forget about the rankings this year
Before the draft BA and other people kept remarking about how after the top 2 picks, they have no clue what will happen. Read into that a little bit. There is no consensus top talent after the top 2. So while somebody else may be rated #3, the difference between #3 and #18 isn’t nearly as great as you may think. So why not draft your player because you will not get another chance.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 21, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
That is true that 2-18 was fairly close, however BA rated Hobgood as a sandwich round talent, not close to a top 5 talent.
Grab Some Pine Meat!
Hobgood
was USA Today and Gatorade National Player of the Year. He was one of the biggest risers in the weeks before the draft with a fantastic year on the mound and at the plate. Maybe BA was late to the party. He already has two plus pitches a 2seamer that sits around 92 and can touch 96. This pitch has hard movement and will chew up bats. His second plus offering is a hard curveball with tight rotation that he can thow for strikes It is a true out pitch. He has easy velocity and solid mechanics with only a few minor adjustments needing to be made. Maybe his biggest plus asset is an unflappable bulldog demeanor that keeps him poised and in control on the mound. He was also one of the top QB talents in SoCal before giving up football to concentrate on baseball. He has tremendous athleticism for someone 6-4 245 and shows great stamina for a H.S. pitcher being able to maintain his velocity deep into games. While he may not have had the highest ceiling of the H.S. pitchers in the draft, he may have the highest floor, mainly due to him being a 2 seam FB pitcher. Has throwing a 2 seamer hurt Trevor Cahill, I think not.
Did they?
Cause from what i remember I was hearing that he would go in the teens. This was a BA mock draft from the day of the draft.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/mock-draft/2009/268312.html
Note that Hobgood is #11 and Callis talks about how nobody knew who was getting drafted when (let me know if there was a list that was talent only and not a mock draft that I am missing). Also note that if nobody knows who teams are drafting, then are the scouts that BA talking to telling the complete story on the prospects they are looking at? I would think that most scouts are going to keep their opinions to themselves in hopes that their player falls. So in a year like this BA may not bet getting the best quality information. Although this last part is purely speculation on my part.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 21, 2009 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions
smooooth and Red have provided some excellent points
But again, I think it’s worth repeating that the O’s probably scrutinized the top high school arms more closely than any other franchise, and certainly more closely than Baseball America.
For a professional publication, I most certainly respect BA, but I wouldn’t take their word as gospel on a prospect whom they likely only fleetingly looked at.
"There's only one cure for what's wrong with all of us pitchers, and that's to take a year off. Then, after you've gone a year without throwing, quit altogether." -Jim Palmer
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
