Photo

Keegan Akin


  • Please log in to reply
249 replies to this topic

#41 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,664 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 11 June 2016 - 04:38 PM

No dude you have it backwards. What I said was *you* didn't know who this guy is. You are upset because they didn't take a pick who was valued higher in a mock draft? Please.

Dude, please explain to me what I'm confused about.  You are clearly the one that is confused.

 

1) You keep suggesting "I don't know who the guy (Nolan Jones) is".  If you mean I don't know him personally or that I haven't gone to his games with a clipboard, hey, you got me there (did I say I had?)....but he's pretty much a consensus 1st round pick.  For the record, I'm not saying anything about Sedlock vs Jones.  Jones was higher on every board I've seen, but with you next pick at 54, it seems clear it's unlikely he'd be there....so if you add other things to your BPA profile (which is how I'd guess teams get around the issue with fans)....if you like Sedlock, no issues, no qualifiers, nothing....you scouted him, you like him, take him.

 

....but when your pick comes at #54 and a Pennsylvania product with LHed power at (likely?) 3B is still sitting there.....jump on it.  How hard is that.  I wasn't on at the time, but I'd have said the same thing Rob did.  I was agreeing with his position.  he was saying that (I believe) BEFORE he was not selected.  

 

The argument for going with Akin over Jones is you think he's a better prospect AND you don't think Akin would last 15 more picks at 69.....but the highest I think I've seen Akin is BA at 80.  mlb.com was a 119.  It just doesn't seem like a big stretch to suggest Akin would be around at #69.  You get Jones and Akin.

 

In that scenario...if you draft Hays at 91 (I like the pick), then you maybe don't get Dietz.  Was Dietz higher on your board than Jones too?  I guess if he was, ok, but it'd be kind of hard to believe.  Dietz was 102 on mlb.com and BA.  Jones was in the 20 range.

 

My point is over 3 picks you get to pick 3 of these guys...Jones, Akin, Dietz and Hays.  in every scenario.....shouldn't Jones be one of those 3 guys?  Maybe they have a good reason....maybe they were unprepared for him being available there and were scared....but my point...on a baseball message board where we share opinions about baseball is that it's a miss. You are arguing that I'm not allowed to have an opinion.  I am sharing the (pretty reasonable) reason for that opinion.

 

2) "You are upset because they didn't take a pick who was valued higher in a mock draft?" Again, it's an opinion.  If we wait to share our opinions 5 years from now, I guess I could always say I was right.  I'll just wait for the results and then tell you what happened is what I wanted.  I'm not upset.  I lose nothing either way.  It's a baseball message board.  The draft is happening.  We're discussing the draft.

 

I'ts not about the mock draft specifically.  The point, if you follow along, is that there was discussion about Jones being taken even at #27.  He's a projectable talent that merits discussion at #27 (or even higher).  Professionals have that opinion.  When we first projected the Orioles draft picks (I made a post on it somewhere, 7 of top 91 picks was the projection), when I just looked at the guys in that range, Jones jumped out to me.  Not a big deal, you just read what others think and you fit guys into what you think makes the most sense.  There's been lots of discussion on Jones in different forums.  As I already said, one of the analysts on MLB Radio specifically was discussing him earlier this week.

 

It just seems odd that you apparently think we aren't allowed to have an opinion different than what the Orioles do.  Where do you get off saying they shouldn't trade a draft pick? You said you didn't agree with that...right?  So when you disagree it's ok, but when others disagree with whatever, then you are the arbiter of whether that's OK?  Hypocrite much?

 

3) Please.  If you want to be snarky about my position, at least have the courtesy to have my position correct. If you disagree, great, but ideally, you'd present an actual counter point. 



#42 McNulty

McNulty

    la cerveza está muy fría

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,692 posts
  • LocationBS

Posted 11 June 2016 - 04:38 PM

Lets pump the breaks here a second. 

 

I'll reset and restate my point.  This doesn't need to be full of hostility.

 

Rob and Dude were saying that Akin wasn't the top talent available.  Clearly. 

 

I simply disagree that this is clear.  Furthermore, they might be trying to save money on this pick for bonus pool reasons.  To overslot in other rounds.  These are players that no one has heard of, myself included, before the draft started.  You simply cannot judge the quality of this pick based on BA rankings.  That's insane.  Opinions among scouts vary pretty wildly, especially beyond the first 15 or so picks. 

 

To condemn the Orioles immediately is pretty clearly based on animosity and frustration from previous failings.  Its not based on the pick itself, nor the draft philosophy.  They clearly wanted to target college arms, and did so.  Seems like a fair plan. 

 

I know the thread was a joke, but the SG Wet Dream Team thread should be further proof that all the scouting reports in the world are nothing better than an informed guess.  Guys who look like future stars flame out all the time.  Lets take a step back and actually see what the kid can do first before jumping to conclusions.

 

Is this better?  I've been at work all day and severely distracted, so hopefully this clears it up.


  • Ricker Says, bnickle and RShack like this

@fuzydunlop


#43 McNulty

McNulty

    la cerveza está muy fría

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,692 posts
  • LocationBS

Posted 11 June 2016 - 04:41 PM

Dude: Paragraph one, just stop. Maybe he told teams 'I'm going to college unless you pay me $3.5 mil'. You don't know what's going on.

And once again, you are basing *everything* off of a ranking system that you are accepting as binding fact. Its so far from that.

Again, I'm not arguing for Akin over Jones or anyone else. I'm saying the Orioles liked him better for any number of reasons.

I can't deal with this nonsense any more. Someone else give it a shot.
  • Ricker Says likes this

@fuzydunlop


#44 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 85,547 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 11 June 2016 - 04:43 PM

I don't think he has, but I see no issue with the process here. It may be another poor draft, but no one knows that yet. There isn't some huge talent gap in who they took and who they didn't. After the elite few, there isn't a huge talent disparity, IMO. So few drafted players ever make it. Crapshoot is putting it lightly.


If they had the first 2 pitchers neck and neck with Jones and they went with the pitchers, I am perfectly fine with that.

I tend to doubt that was the case though or if it was the case, it's because they made it that way because they wanted the college arms.

I like the guys we took, at least their profiles. Even if they fail as starters and end up productive relievers, that makes them better than most picks.

But im a BPA guy, especially for a team that is talent starved in the minors.


@BSLRobShields

#45 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 85,547 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 11 June 2016 - 04:45 PM

Dude: Paragraph one, just stop. Maybe he told teams 'I'm going to college unless you pay me $3.5 mil'. You don't know what's going on.
And once again, you are basing *everything* off of a ranking system that you are accepting as binding fact. Its so far from that.
Again, I'm not arguing for Akin over Jones or anyone else. I'm saying the Orioles liked him better for any number of reasons.
I can't deal with this nonsense any more. Someone else give it a shot.


The problem is, one of those reasons is "we wanted and targeted college pitching early".

That strategy is fine...provided that the guys you take are the best available guys. That strategy is poor if you took lesser talent just to have the college pitcher.

It's fair to believe the Os did that here based on their comments and unlike Mike, I don't see these as comments to ignore. I don't think the team is trying to lie to the fans. I think this what they wanted to do and they did it. It's as simple as that.


@BSLRobShields

#46 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 11,213 posts
  • LocationLanham, MD

Posted 11 June 2016 - 05:36 PM

Backing up McNutty here,

 

You put 30 scouts in a room and ask them about a guy and you'll be AMAZED at the range of opinions you get. Just cause a publication or two has a certain ranking on a player, don't think that is a hard tangible number. That is a process of a bunch of guys debating people, some are higher on them some are lower on them. So not surprising at all to see a team take a guy much higher or lower in the MLB draft than a guy or a publication thinks because of the variance of opinions and with so many different players out there.


  • McNulty likes this
@JeremyMStrain

#47 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,664 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 11 June 2016 - 05:56 PM

Backing up McNutty here,

 

You put 30 scouts in a room and ask them about a guy and you'll be AMAZED at the range of opinions you get. Just cause a publication or two has a certain ranking on a player, don't think that is a hard tangible number. That is a process of a bunch of guys debating people, some are higher on them some are lower on them. So not surprising at all to see a team take a guy much higher or lower in the MLB draft than a guy or a publication thinks because of the variance of opinions and with so many different players out there.

 

Jeremy I get that and this is especially true the further you get down in the draft.

 

....but the discussion here is ~#20 versus ~#100.  I don't have the math now, but I did it last year on taken versus projection and the Orioles were the most out-of-line of any team...and it wasn't even close.

 

So if that's true and OK, then we should see those hits (the success) that back the Orioles way of doing it.  Is there any argument at all that the Orioles are one of the better drafting teams?

 

For the record, I've said this many times and I'll say it again, but the Orioles have done a decent job of finding usable talent after the 5th round.  First round, outside of Hobgood (blah), good.  after 5th....ok....but they seem to minimize the opportunity of that 2-5th rd window.  There's some good players in there and for whatever reason, we seem limited to bullpen arms. 

 

The only draft where they really tried to use underslot signings to add later guys was the Hobgood draft and that, again, was horrible.  Grant Green hasn't turned out to be anything and so far, neither has Zack Wheeler....so <<shrug>>  The Orioles don't leverage the full value of their Pool dollars (ever, right?) so saying "we do X to accomplish Y" doesn't seem to fit with anything they've actually done.  Especially if you throw a grade on the results.



#48 McNulty

McNulty

    la cerveza está muy fría

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,692 posts
  • LocationBS

Posted 11 June 2016 - 06:05 PM

Yes, by all means, use results to judge process.  That's always very sound.


@fuzydunlop


#49 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 11,213 posts
  • LocationLanham, MD

Posted 11 June 2016 - 06:12 PM

Jeremy I get that and this is especially true the further you get down in the draft.

 

....but the discussion here is ~#20 versus ~#100.  I don't have the math now, but I did it last year on taken versus projection and the Orioles were the most out-of-line of any team...and it wasn't even close.

 

So if that's true and OK, then we should see those hits (the success) that back the Orioles way of doing it.  Is there any argument at all that the Orioles are one of the better drafting teams?

 

For the record, I've said this many times and I'll say it again, but the Orioles have done a decent job of finding usable talent after the 5th round.  First round, outside of Hobgood (blah), good.  after 5th....ok....but they seem to minimize the opportunity of that 2-5th rd window.  There's some good players in there and for whatever reason, we seem limited to bullpen arms. 

 

The only draft where they really tried to use underslot signings to add later guys was the Hobgood draft and that, again, was horrible.  Grant Green hasn't turned out to be anything and so far, neither has Zack Wheeler....so <<shrug>>  The Orioles don't leverage the full value of their Pool dollars (ever, right?) so saying "we do X to accomplish Y" doesn't seem to fit with anything they've actually done.  Especially if you throw a grade on the results.

 

No, see that's what I'm telling you, that is the misconception that most people make about the MLB draft. It's nothing like the other drafts, and the first round one team could have a guy top of the draft boards, and another team have him in the 3rd round. (exaggerating a bit but the point remains) One team might see a flaw in a top prospect and decide that he's not worth a top round salary slot. There have been plenty of top ranked players that I just wasn't a fan of for whatever reason. I imagine in the spaces of draft rooms and departments that these things happen. So basing a poor draft decision on a BA ranking just doesn't really work. BA might be truly in love with a guy, but one of the orgs. isn't even seriously considering him for whatever reason. Maybe he doesn't fit the mold of a player they look to develop, or maybe they don't like a certain trait. There are infinitely more variables in this draft than say the NFL draft, where you don't have the luxury of drafting and developing guys, they pretty much have to be instant contributors in the NBA and NFL, and in NHL the system isn't as deep as baseball.

 

I haven't agreed with plenty of the O's drafting moves over the years, but I do know enough to know I don't know anything when it comes to that stuff because of how much information isn't shared versus what gets out publicly. I know there have been consensus #1 overall picks that I wouldn't have drafted there for whatever reason, and if I have those kinds of issues as a microcosm, then other teams have similar issues, with the more opinions in a draft department making decisions even more varied.

 

I think it's really their development system that is completely screwed up, and some of these players could/would have done much better in other orgs. You can make an argument looking at that, that the O's should only be drafting advanced college players who need less development than the higher ceiling HS kids. So maybe taking a bunch of college SP versus taking the pure BPA (again in MLB the BPA gets a little too muddled to really adhear to.

 

Short answer, your #20 is very easily someone else's #10, and someone's #100 could easily be someone's #40.


  • Ricker Says and McNulty like this
@JeremyMStrain

#50 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 85,547 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 11 June 2016 - 06:22 PM

Backing up McNutty here,

 

You put 30 scouts in a room and ask them about a guy and you'll be AMAZED at the range of opinions you get. Just cause a publication or two has a certain ranking on a player, don't think that is a hard tangible number. That is a process of a bunch of guys debating people, some are higher on them some are lower on them. So not surprising at all to see a team take a guy much higher or lower in the MLB draft than a guy or a publication thinks because of the variance of opinions and with so many different players out there.

You and McNulty are arguing a point that no one is.


@BSLRobShields

#51 Ricker Says

Ricker Says

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,825 posts
  • LocationGermantown, MD

Posted 11 June 2016 - 06:59 PM

Maybe... But you're obviously missing their over arching point... That you're clearly wrong. It'd be nice to see you admit it.
@0TheRick0 (AKA The Rick)
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." ~ The Earl of Baltimore

#52 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 114,540 posts

Posted 11 June 2016 - 07:01 PM

Maybe... But you're obviously missing their over arching point... That you're clearly wrong. It'd be nice to see you admit it.

 

He should admit that he's wrong about about a point he isn't making? lol



#53 Ricker Says

Ricker Says

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,825 posts
  • LocationGermantown, MD

Posted 11 June 2016 - 07:01 PM

Rob will be just fine, relax Stoner.
  • bnickle likes this
@0TheRick0 (AKA The Rick)
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." ~ The Earl of Baltimore

#54 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 114,540 posts

Posted 11 June 2016 - 07:02 PM

Rob will be just fine, relax Stoner.

 

Ohh, right... I can't agree with Rob.



#55 Ricker Says

Ricker Says

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,825 posts
  • LocationGermantown, MD

Posted 11 June 2016 - 07:04 PM

Rob will be just fine, relax Stoner.
Ohh, right... I can't agree with Rob.
Oh come on now... If that were an actual rule your post count would be cut in half. No one's suggesting that. You just don't need to rush to his defense as much as you do.
@0TheRick0 (AKA The Rick)
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." ~ The Earl of Baltimore

#56 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 114,540 posts

Posted 11 June 2016 - 07:07 PM

Oh come on now... If that were an actual rule your post count would be cut in half. No one's suggesting that. You just don't need to rush to his defense as much as you do.

 


I agree with his points, and think the arguments being made as counters aren't counters to his actual argument.

 

You are just in another one of your salty moods where you are trying to be combative. First with the comment I edited out to Rob, and then with the subsequent comment that he should admit to being wrong....  again, for an argument he hasn't even made.

 

Yeah, Rob is plenty capable of speaking for himself...    I'm also capable of having my own opinions. Thanks.



#57 McNulty

McNulty

    la cerveza está muy fría

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,692 posts
  • LocationBS

Posted 11 June 2016 - 07:10 PM

You and McNulty are arguing a point that no one is.

 

I don't think so.  But I'm comfortable with the points I made.  If you disagree, that's cool.  Lets move on.  Its Saturday after all.


@fuzydunlop


#58 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,664 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 11 June 2016 - 07:14 PM

No, see that's what I'm telling you, that is the misconception that most people make about the MLB draft. It's nothing like the other drafts, and the first round one team could have a guy top of the draft boards, and another team have him in the 3rd round. (exaggerating a bit but the point remains) 

 

Short answer, your #20 is very easily someone else's #10, and someone's #100 could easily be someone's #40.

 

My responses aren't really different.

 

We aren't talking about 20 vs 10 or 100 versus 40, we're talking about 100 versus 20.  Regardless, I'm not a BPA in the draft, I'm a get the most talent you can in the draft.  If I really like a guy and I understand I like him more than the consensus, I'd try to get him as low as reasonable and pop other talent at the point where they wouldn't make the next draft slot so....

 

If my board looks like....

 

X: Akin

X+1: Jones

X+2: Dietz

 

I pop Jones at Jones at #54 and Akin at #69 (if I think he lasts 15 spots).....on my board, Jones + Akin is better than Akin+Dietz, but BPA has me draft the latter versus the former.

 

Liking talent that others don't means you should have opportunities to draft more of the top talent on your board than other teams.



#59 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,664 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 11 June 2016 - 07:18 PM

Let me re-group with these comments.

 

1) I followed this draft less than all other recent drafts, so in general, I have less opinion.

 

2) I hate we throw away opportunity on moves related to Gallardo and Matusz.  Hate it.  

 

3) In general, I like the feel of the draft, at #1, I like 2-5 better than other drafts and there's some things to like (again, limited opinion) about Day3

 

4) I think not drafting Nolan Jones with an unexpected opportunity at #54 is a miss.

 

That's it.  Time will tell.



#60 McNulty

McNulty

    la cerveza está muy fría

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,692 posts
  • LocationBS

Posted 11 June 2016 - 07:22 PM

My responses aren't really different.

 

We aren't talking about 20 vs 10 or 100 versus 40, we're talking about 100 versus 20.  Regardless, I'm not a BPA in the draft, I'm a get the most talent you can in the draft.  If I really like a guy and I understand I like him more than the consensus, I'd try to get him as low as reasonable and pop other talent at the point where they wouldn't make the next draft slot so....

 

If my board looks like....

 

X: Akin

X+1: Jones

X+2: Dietz

 

I pop Jones at Jones at #54 and Akin at #69 (if I think he lasts 15 spots).....on my board, Jones + Akin is better than Akin+Dietz, but BPA has me draft the latter versus the former.

 

Liking talent that others don't means you should have opportunities to draft more of the top talent on your board than other teams.

 

Right.  And you'll sign all of these guys given the draft pool.  Go on with your bad self, dude with a computer


@fuzydunlop





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners