Orioles Draft Preview
by Andy Seiler on Feb 3, 2010 3:57 PM EST
Email
PrintHey guys, I've appreciated the links to my blog in the past in this community, so I thought I'd share my most recent piece with you.
I'm doing team-by-team draft previews that will be part of my 2010 MLB Draft Notebook, and the Orioles were the second team up. I focused on the draft history of scouting director Joe Jordan, and dissected what the Orioles might be looking for in the 2010 draft.
Here's an excerpt from the writeup, which features small writeups on 25 players involved with Jordan's work:
Looking at draft budgeting, the Orioles have been one of the better teams at investing in the draft in recent years. Following the expensive signings of Wieters and Matusz, they spread a great deal of money out over multiple players in 2009, reaching about $8.5 million in draft spending. I’d expect more of the same in 2010. The Orioles pick at numbers 3, 85, 118, and every 30 picks after that, assuming that Rod Barajas signs a Major League deal with another club before the draft. Seeing as the Orioles are down a second-round pick, and they didn’t pick up any compensation picks, I see them going after multiple players that fell due to signability issues and signing them up themselves. The best examples of that in 2009 were Michael Ohlman and Cameron Coffey, a pair that signed bonuses comparable to the end of the first round when looking at the assigned slots of their bonuses. If they don’t want to spread their money out as much this year, and there might be a clear cut number three pick come June that makes them want to do so, they could easily allocate the majority of their resources towards that pick. I don’t see anyone commanding $6+ million at the number three pick this year like Donavan Tate did a year ago, but it’s quite possible.
What do you think? What will the Orioles do?
FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.
115 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I am hoping, and I think the front office is as well
That a top college bat or arm is available. If they could add another top prospect to the wave of prospects that are major league ready, it just makes sense to do so. If they cant do that, and there is no clear best player available then I would expect the same approach as they took in 2009 (which was to spread the money around). My prediction is Ranaudo. Having Tillman, Matusz, Britton, Raunaudo, and Arrieta close to major league ready is just too tempting to pass up.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
+1
I am also pulling for Ranaudo. He could be ready by 2012, which is right when we should be big time contenders.
by Jordan Tuwiner on Feb 3, 2010 8:04 PM EST up reply actions
The trouble I have with that is that we have lots of pitchers ready in 2012
By then, Tillman, Matusz, Arrieta, Erbe, Patton, Britton, and Bergesen should all be established in the majors in some role.
This is where 'buy the bats' starts to come into play
‘Buying’ isn’t just free agency, its about having a surplus of prospects available where something like the Adrian Gonzalez trade that’s been so frequently mentioned comes into play. While its nice to fill a natural hole in the organization, a prospect’s value extends beyond his current team. This is especially true for pitching. Someone always needs pitching.
I agree
But that doesn’t make Ranaudo the right play. Given the choice between the guy who will be ready faster and the one with the higher upside, I vote Taillon.
I havent spent much time looking into this
But Seiler says that Ranaudo has frontline stuff. So that means he’s not only closer but he’s also far more of a “sure thing”. Unless the difference in upside is substantial then I dont worry about it.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 4, 2010 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
You cant count on that being enough
Prospects are not a sure thing, and pitching prospects especially.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 4, 2010 4:54 PM EST up reply actions
No, you can't...
….which is why we also have Hobgood, Hernandez, Coffey, Berry, Wirsch, maybe Johnson, Spoone, and a bunch of other arms who could pan out.
At the same time, that’s why you don’t really want to use the #3 overall pick on a college righthander who is a Boras client and doesn’t have the highest ceiling in his draft class.
You can’t afford to have no top positional prospects, particularly in the current baseball environment. It doesn’t make sense. Because of the greater volatility with pitching prospects, a lot more of them are available for high signability costs in the later rounds than quality position players. And we have no second round pick.
See
The no second round pick really doesnt mean antyhing to me, if anything then thats more incentive to pick a player who may be more expensive because you can afford to do that and go over-slot later on for the guys you like.
Also what good is a ceiling if its unlikely they will ever reach it? Its not as though Ranaudo has a low ceiling though.
I see your point about needing a position prospect, and while i would love to see them get a good one, you just have to go with the best talent instead.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 5, 2010 10:26 AM EST up reply actions
Doesnt mean anything to me either
We basically got a 1st rounder in the 11th and 22nd round last season.
by Jordan Tuwiner on Feb 5, 2010 12:15 PM EST up reply actions
That's an exaggeration
They were much ckiser to second round talents.
Even atheists believe in Matt Wieters
Either way
That’s two second rounders. We can easily get someone later in the draft of equal/greater talent than what we would be able to get with our second round pick. Coffey and Ohlman did get higher bonuses than some other first round guys.
by Jordan Tuwiner on Feb 5, 2010 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
That doesn't make them...
…players deserving of first round status.
This is a silly thing to argue about. Obviously, Ohlman and Coffey were nice gets. But equally as obvious is that Givens and Ohlman and Coffey are better to have than Ohlman and Coffey alone. You can’t have enough good prospects.
This isn’t a luxury for us. We have to have more and better prospects than other teams do to be competitive in our division. If the Orioles are not consistently a team with a top ten system, we will not consistently be a contender. Period. Losing the third pick of the second round makes that harder, and we will have to do a better job drafting than we did in 2009 to not be hurt by it.
Thats true
But if we did not have Givens we could have drafted someone else with another pick to make up for that. We didnt have a 2nd round pick in 07 I believe, and we still got Arrieta.
by Jordan Tuwiner on Feb 5, 2010 3:54 PM EST up reply actions
This is true
And if you remember we almost let Givens go to college. You prepare yourself for that kind of situation by taking more over-slot guys later.
Draft status is determined by a weird mix of demands and talent. So you can still get the talent even if you dont have your second round pick you may just have to shell out a little extra cash.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 5, 2010 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
I think that's the wrong way to approach this
There is no chance to add prospects as cheaply as the amateur draft. Since the O’s are still a non-factor internationally, it is all that much more important. And as more and more teams are realizing this, more and more are diving into the signability pool in later rounds.
The Orioles can’t afford this season to miss out on a Devin Harris type over a couple hundred thousand. We should be aiming to sign every player in the top 25 rounds, and to make every pick in those rounds someone who has legit potential. We can do that for fifteen million and it is a bargain at that price.
Right now, we’re half-assing our newfound focus on player development. In our division, that simply won’t do.
How are they Half-assing?
Because they’re not spending enough money on picks? Hasn’t Stockstill mentioned that he’s not only looking at the best guys but also their motivation/personalities? He seems to want to draft the guys that will “work hard” and “take their vitamins”.
Just looking for clarification.
It isn't just money
They have to sign every real prospect they draft, and they have to be active on international signings.
I like Jordan’s draft strategy (Stockstill isn’t responsible for who they pick) – but everyone needs to get signed. The international market is untouched by the Orioles – in part because of Angelos’ seeming reluctance to sign Cubans. They took and signed some good signability guys in Webb, Coffey and Ohlman. But they also passed on the premiere signability guys like Von Rosenberg, Myers and Stassi.
Signing some late round signability guys won’t cut it alone. The Red Sox are doing it too, as are the Rays. The Blue Jays added a lot of premiere prospects this offseason, and even though they had a disastrous draft in 2009, they have bonus picks this year and a front office that seems to know what to do with them. And the Yankees are the Yankees.
It is a competitive marketplace. Drafting as well as the Red Sox will not cut it. Having a system that is merely as good as our competition won’t cut it either. Yes, I don’t think we’re spending enough money on picks, but I also don’t see us as having a plan to be the best in the league at developing talent, and that’s what it will take.
This nonchalance, for example, about losing our second round pick. It assumes that most of the other teams in the league are stupid and will remain stupid. And I simply disagree that this is the case. Last year, we were a bit ahead of the league in our draft strategy. We cannot assume that this will continue, or overestimate how much better we were. And to the extent that we do have an advantage now, we have to exploit it as much as possible, because it most certainly won’t last.
The market will correct itself. And it doesn’t seem to me that we are much ahead of the market. And given our competitive disadvantage with out immediate competition to the north, that’s a problem.
by James F on Feb 5, 2010 11:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Not really arguing
I would def agree that the team needs to improve its international scouting, but I think saying its “untouched” is bit strong.
I think it’s an open question to figure out which international strategy makes sense…do you go with the flashy way or do you go with safety in numbers?
Also, did you see the balto sun article on the international signings? It can be found here.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Feb 6, 2010 1:34 AM EST up reply actions
Why not go both?
It is nice that we signed 36 players. At the same time, that cost us a mere third of Garret Atkins base salary.
But it also depends on what you mean by the “flashy way”. If you mean merely top international free agents like Chapman and Sano, then no, we don’t have to sign the absolute biggest names. But the Royals, for example, have signed Cuban lefthander Noel Arguelles, Dominican shortstop Paul Carlixte, Nicaraguan third baseman Cheslor Cuthbert and Korean catcher Jin-Ho Shin this season. All together, they took about $10 million and without counting Arguelles, only three million for the other three. Any one of them would be the top international prospect in the O’s system after Lebron.
The way I see it...
I’ll completely agree with you in that the Orioles need a better plan for international scouting and drafting. At this point, they’re being beaten by the Pirates and that’s unacceptable.
I think the best course of action is a metered yet broad draft view. You hire more scouts and evaluators and set them up in sectors. Once they return with the facts about players in their sector, you create a hierarchy of talent and zero in on the upper echelon guys. Then, you throw money at them.
They need a much larger appearance in Asia, the Caribbean, and Europe. These are the key markets. I live in Seoul and every kid ones a glove; their are diamonds everywhere and they play often. You have to be doing your diligence by scouting high school talent before they can be signed by their own country’s teams. Not to mention that the Os only have institutes in the DR – correct me if I’m wrong here. They need facilities in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and China; and at least one facility in Europe.
The issue I have is two fold: 1) it doesn’t seem like due diligence is done in drafting and scouting international, if not the best, talent; and 2) a drive to broaden their scope. Because if they’re not willing to devote themselves to improving passed a group of white kids, they’re not only not going to win, they’re going to be a laughing stock.
I don't know about the institute plans
Those only pay off as long as the current market continues, and I don’t know how long it will – certainly an international draft is widely discussed. I also think academies in China and Japan are unlikely to justify their costs.
I’d love to see the Orioles invest heavily in Korea because it is an underdeveloped market and the O’s could corner it. But I’d also like to see the O’s get more involved in the players who are standing out and getting $1m bonuses because they save you uncertainty in scouting – lots of teams scout those guys and the demand for their services is a good, cheap way to crosscheck your own scouting.
accountability of those areas
I’m really not sure that I agree with the need to go more into certain Asian markets (specifically Japan, which seems inefficient to me), though Korea seems like worthy of exploration, based on their WBC performance and the issues with the professional baseball league. I guess the issue at hand is how much should the international budget be? Should there be a budget? Do you go top heavy or go for numbers (which is what I meant btw, sorry for being so vague)? Does the team have the infrastructure to go with numbers?
Didn’t mean the deluge of questions…just trying to figure out the next steps…
I mean I agree that they need to do more than the Sox and the Yankees. And really when you have half the revenue streams of your competitors, you need to be efficient, so it makes a lot of sense that the Pirates and Orioles had a similar ’09 draft philosophy and the Pirates have done an excellent job of acquiring players from several corners of the globe.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Feb 6, 2010 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know that there are set answers
I think the key is to find an advantage and exploit it absolutely.
There are different ways you can go about this. You can spend a lot more on international players. You can spend $20m grabbing the best signability player in every round of the draft. You can have the biggest and best collection of scouts scouring the globe. There is more than one route to success.
But the goal has to be to have the best system in the division. And we need to act in a goal-oriented manner to achieve that.
No Os exposure in Korea
There does need to be a plan set in motion and maintained, yes. This seems to be, as we’ve both said, a major issue. If ‘half-assed’ was in reference to the lip-service of scouting countries for 4 days and expecting the fans to be happy, then I’d agree.
Also, Korea is a massively untapped resource. There are ball caps everywhere. The saddest of which is a wealth of Pirates caps along with MFY, PH, Phillys, Tigers, and Twins (the last of which is because they have teams in their own league called the Tigers and Twins). With that said, when I walk down the street in my Os cap, people are confused. They’ve never seen it before, and that’s never a good thing.
Repeat after me:
You NEVER have enough pitching.
"The moment you stop thinking you're the best, it's time for you to get out the game." -'King' Mo Lawal
Does anyone ever have enough anything?
This is one of those mantras I don’t entirely support, because it isn’t like there are teams out there with too much offense, or too many elite shortstops or centerfielders.
Again, I don't know that I agree
Pitching certainly seems that it is in higher demand, but I think a good bit of that is an illusion – there are 12 pitchers on a team, and only one or two players at each other position. But pitchers aren’t, as a group, more likely to bring back greater value in a trade than a comparable hitter. I tend to think that this is one of those things people say without examining whether or not it is really true.
Pitching is HALF your roster spots
Teams will ALWAYS be in the market for a reliever of 5th starter and will pay accordingly. A backup 3B? Not so much.
"The moment you stop thinking you're the best, it's time for you to get out the game." -'King' Mo Lawal
And hitting is the other half
Seems to me that it was hitting prospects that landed the Brewers CC, hitting prospects that were two thirds of the package for Halladay. Yes, no one wants a backup 3b. But a backup CF with good defense got the Twins JJ Hardy too.
Value has value, whatever role it plays on the field. I don’t see much evidence that teams value pitching over offense, or pitching prospects above comparable hitting prospects.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
And what does the Bedard trade tell us then?
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
that you got four pitchers and one position player
for one pitcher.
Look – unless someone can prove otherwise, the evidence to me seems clear. Value is value. Players who are valuable are valuable whatever position they play – indeed, as we’ve discussed before, many pitchers are traded for a lot less than their value (i.e. Santana). There are no more teams suffering from an excess of positional talent than there are teams suffering from an excess of pitching talent.
This entire debate is predicated on the idea that we as an organization should focus our efforts disproportionately on acquiring high-end pitching prospects, regardless of our organizational needs. I think that’s silly. I’ll note that our two key offensive players were Orioles’ first round picks – Markakis and Wieters. So was Brian Roberts. Reimold was a second round pick by the Orioles. Our second best position prospect is another O’s first round pick. In simple terms, over half our offensive production is projected to come from players selected by the Orioles in the first two rounds of the draft. Meanwhile, of our pitching staff, only one of our twelve pitchers expected to break camp with the team was selected by the Orioles in the top two rounds. And our top picks who have been busts have primarily been pitchers as well – Wade Townsend, Adam Loewen, Chris Smith and Beau Hale in the last decade alone (Townsend didn’t sign, but still managed to be a bust). Meanwhile, our batters selected with our first pick in the same period have a much better track record – Wieters, Rowell, Snyder, and Mike Fontenot, with only Rowell looking like a total bust so far (and he’s still quite young).
It is pretty simple – batters selected with top picks are more likely to provide value in the long run. And there isn’t any verifiable difference in the trade value of hitting prospects and pitching prospects. And we have a system with considerable problems in developing positional talent at present. And it is foolish to ignore that simply because of a mantra like “you can never have too much pitching”.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
A Major League pitcher.
That just posted a WAR of 5.
Santana was traded for less than his value because the Twins were not in a good negotiating position – everybody and their mother knew they couldn’t sign him so they had to take what they could get.
I would say there absolutely are teams with too many OF prospects for example or too many SS prospects – and what do they do when that happens? Trade them for pitching! Because you carry 13 pitchers as opposed to 4 OFers and 2 SSs.
I didn’t say anything about focusing solely on pitchers in the draft – I was just saying you can never have too much pitching. I’ve always been of the opinion that you draft the best player available regardless of his position or your need.
Also using the O’s past draft history to say that drafting pitchers with your top pick doesn’t make sense is pretty absurd – we were awful at drafting for many years. it had nothing to do with taking pitchers over hitters.
It is pretty simple – batters selected with top picks are more likely to provide value in the long run. And there isn’t any verifiable difference in the trade value of hitting prospects and pitching prospects.
Is this based on something? data or something?
I don’t necessarily think that there is more value in trades for pitchers, but I think there is more of a guaranteed market for pitchers whereas there isn’t always a market for hitters. So sure, when there’s need for both whatever offensive position you are trying to trade he will have similar value to a pitcher of equal relative skill, but the need for the pitcher will always be there whereas the need for the position player might not.
asdf
batters selected with top picks are more likely to provide value in the long run
It is based on data, that has been studied several times. But I’ll put together a fanpost about it. But hitters taken in the first round are more likely than pitchers taken in the first round to reach the majors, and are more productive there, and the disparity is greater in the top half of the round.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
I agree
Batters are more likely than pitchers to have more value. However, a top pitching prospect in the draft is still more valuable than an above average hitting prospect in my mind. You take the best talent.
P.S.
AM could have had a SS prospect (carlos triunfel) but choose Tillman instead supposedly. That decision looks pretty good right now even though Tiunfel is still a solid prospect.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 8, 2010 3:46 PM EST up reply actions
Triunfel is a decent prospect
Although I’ve always thought he was overrated. But he’s about as much a shortstop prospect as Wilmer Flores is – he simply won’t be able to stay at the position.
On the subject of the draft, I’m not so sure you do take the best talent. The goal is to leave the store with the most value total, not with the single most valuable item.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
So
Would you advocate a signability pick with the first pick (if there is no clear elite player left) in order to get more value later in the draft?
I think we did that to an extent last year and I like the depth it added to our farm system.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 9, 2010 9:51 AM EST up reply actions
Well sure
but I think those cases aren’t as common as people make them out to be. In general everybody in the draft is a pretty big bargain.
you cant just sign everybody
While the draft is a relative bargin, if you dont think a player is worth their asking price then dont sign him.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 9, 2010 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
If you don't think a player is worth his asking price
Don’t draft him in the first place.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
Agreed
But sometimes what they ask for changes
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 9, 2010 1:55 PM EST up reply actions
Not exactly
O’sfan21 is right – everyone in the draft is a big bargain. The correct choice is to get however much value you can because you should always be able to afford signing draft picks. If the Orioles had drafted Strasburg with their first pick last year, it would have been no reason why the O’s couldn’t still sign Coffey, Ohlman, etc. Which is part of what made the Storen pick by the Nats so lousy in my opinion.
But that said, I think that scarcity and market values matter. Pitching in the first round doesn’t have that much better of a track record than pitching in other high rounds, but batters in the first round(s) do. The odds aren’t much better for Hobgood than they are for Wirsch, Berry, or Coffey from last year’s draft class. But the odds are much better for Grant Green, for example, than they are for Mychal Givens. Pitchers are also easier signs in later rounds, because they know their careers are more volatile and that injury or a decrease in velocity can cost them.
Compare the draft classes of the Pirates and the O’s from 2009. Not counting that the Pirates had a supplemental first rounder, they still ended up with the best player available at a key position (Tony Sanchez) and a group of arms featuring Brooks Pounders, Zack Dotson, Zack Von Rosenberg, Trent Stevenson and Colton Cain – a group which compares very favorably with the pitching class of the O’s. As a group, they have somewhat less upside than Hobgood, Coffey et al, but they also have a lot less injury risk.
But at the end of the day, the big difference between their draft and ours is that they also added a top 150 position prospect, who signed early and showed a lot in a half season in the minors.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
can never have enough pitching
pitching is the key, weve seen too many years in which we got killed by our own pitchers, draft another, more the merrier, trade chips or rotation fillers take a pitcher
For #3
I expect an overslot signing, picking up an impact player like Matuez.
After that I expect batters early with pitchers and possible overslot signees in the later rounds
Great work
I really enjoyed reading that summation of the top 5 picks of each draft during the Jordan era. It’s easy to forget some of those names considering how excited I was each of those draft days. It’s also kind of funny how DeMacio probably did a better job than he’s given credit for in hindsight. When they hired Jordan I believed he carried the reputation of being a prep guy, but when I researched his time with the Marlins that didn’t really turn out to be the case (IIRC, 50/50 covering the first 10 rounds). It is compelling to see his successes to date that weren’t really obvious in Britton, Erbe and Reimold and getting certain guys to sign. (Not counting Wieters and Matusz.) I also liked the Oliver Drake pick, because I’m not sure other teams even thought he would be eligible. I’m definitely rooting for that guy. Anyway, whenever I hear “athletic” my eyes roll a little, and I’m waiting for one these “projects” to pan out, but we’ll see.
As for who I think the Orioles will pick, and who I want them to pick: J. Taillion. Seems too good to pass up. I’m really wondering who the Pirates will pick too.
Librarians are hiding something
For those of us that are far less prospect saavy, does anyone mind here just listing a few names and/or quick bio briefs (or link) that are expected to be at the top of the draft? Don’t worry about going overboard because the O’s have the #3 pick, but I more or less would like to hear about who the top pitching prospects are and who the top (available) postion players are? I put available in paranthesis because I presume that catcher we’ve been hearing about for 2 years will go to the Nats at #1. Who’s the top SS prospect and is he worth taking at #3? (SS seems to be the weakest of all positions in all of the O’s system). …. but to throw my two-cents in, im sure McPhail will draft a top SP and stick to his mantra “grow the arms, buy the bats”
"If you want money, go to the bank. If you want bread, go to the bakery. If you want goals, go to the net." - Brooks Laich
"...I got the most gentlemanly player in juniors my last year. I'm a gentleman, always a gentleman." - Matt Bradley
NO THEY DON'T!!!
How many times do we have to go over this??? You draft the best player available regardless of position and then you fill holes however you have to (free agency, trades, international signings, whatever). You don’t draft to fill holes.
You can find all this by going to Andy's blog
But as for the names, the top pitchers are Ranaudo Taillon, and AJ Cole. The top hitters are Bryce Harper, Christian Colon, and Zach Cox. The top shortstops are Colon, Rick Hague and Manny Machado.
Of course, the season may change that a bit.
Thanx – haven’t dug through Andy’s blog yet but this quick referene of names certainly helps. Is Colon good enough to be a #3 pick?
"If you want money, go to the bank. If you want bread, go to the bakery. If you want goals, go to the net." - Brooks Laich
"...I got the most gentlemanly player in juniors my last year. I'm a gentleman, always a gentleman." - Matt Bradley
Depends on how he recovers from injury
But in his most recent mock draft, Andy has Colon going #2 overall to Pitt.
Although
he said that it was partially a signability pick like that did last year
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 5, 2010 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
Thanks for this
I’m a known Colon partisan at this point. But I really appreciate the writeup here Andy. Good luck with the draft guide!
Really looking forward to that guide
Should be an excellent resource on draft day
by Jordan Tuwiner on Feb 4, 2010 7:44 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks.
You can pre-order it here if you want. It’s going to include an up-to-date team draft preview that will look like this with updated sections on trends, draft budgeting, and links to specific players.
Sounds amazing
Nice job coming up with the idea. First one of its kind I think. I’ll be pre-ordering it soon!
by Jordan Tuwiner on Feb 5, 2010 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
I disagree Harper is the real deal
Right now he’s putting up good numbers with wood bats, so that helps me believe he will be a star. Though i don’t think it will matter for the O’s as I don’t think the Nats would pass on him.
He's also pretty big
and isn’t finished growing.
I’m mostly not a fan because of his arrogance and refusal to finish high school. What a brat.
He did finish High School
He got his GED, so he did finish high school. Plenty of college football athletes ‘graduate’ early to enroll, in January to get a leg up on the competition, is that wrong?
I don’t think he is arrogant at all, just misrepresented by the media. Outside of that SI article everything else written about him, makes him sound like any other 17 year old kid.
Now i’m hoping his leaving doesn’t send a bad precedent for other HS baseball players to leave early, but I can’t blame him. He has the talent to excel at the next level, so why shouldn’t he advance. International prospects can sign at the age of 16 and they aren’t nearly as developed as Harper.
by Steve Shoup on Feb 15, 2010 12:11 AM EST up reply actions
That's my issue
There needs to be an age cap or some kind of schooling cap like in the NBA. The idea that someone can opt out of the last year of high school generally means they’ll have little to nothing after their career is over.
Same can be said for international players. 16 is too young to be signing contracts. However! There are so many of these players that sign their contracts and immediately assist their communities, so there’s that.
I just think the owners association and MLB need to be more concerned with players in more facets than how best to take advantage of. Then again, I’m also all for a salary cap.
But Harper will have more education than anyone else his age (or even older)
Harper will already have a HS equivalent PLUS one year at a community college. Tallion and all the other HS athletes will only have a HS degree, despite being a year older.
Ugh. Why?
What on earth is the value in preventing these kids from earning the money that teams want to pay them?
I got my first job at 14 – and I’m not so old that I didn’t have to go get a work permit and the like. By the time I was 16, I’d been a bag boy at a grocery store, an usher at a movie theater, and an intern at a tv station. What makes that okay but playing professional sports not?
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
Why are all these posts bolded I wonder?
I will lead these Peoples to the promised land, also known as "Slightly Ahead of the Blue Jays." ~WietersRunDry
No
But lots of people do drop out of school for work. It doesn’t bother anyone that Miley Cyrus doesn’t go to a regular high school.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
Yes, but she still gets some schooling (as smart as that girl can be)
And, if you didn’t know, any high school student can go to community college. It’s kind of like private school. Harper won’t have any schooling after this. I agree with Dr Orpheus, he’s a bad influence. Kids should be encouraged to graduate high school, and, let’s face it, most prospects don’t make it in the majors. People should look to graduate high school and get some type of higher education, or at least substantial jobs. Not a future that hinges on a lot of ifs. What’s he going to do if he doesn’t make it? There aren’t very many options for high school dropouts, sorry.
Complaining is good for you as long as you're not complaining to the person you're complaining about. - Lynn Johnston (I don't know who that is...but it's a good quote.)
i do
i personally cant stand players leaving college early either. if dropping out of school is a necessity, which in some cases it is, then that’s fine. if it is to go get paid gratuitous amounts of money, then i really can’t stand it (cue the I CAN’T TAKE IT ANYMORE)
by twistedlogic on Feb 16, 2010 9:34 AM EST up reply actions
Are you being serious?
I will lead these Peoples to the promised land, also known as "Slightly Ahead of the Blue Jays." ~WietersRunDry
I support all of this dropping out early nonsense. How often do you get the chance for a million dollar payday, take it while you can because it may never come again. Also if you can make an extra million while you are there go for it. Its economics.
They can get their GED or go to community college once their million dollar arm falls off. They should just be given some personal finance teachings from school and that would be all they need for the time being.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 16, 2010 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
and thats what i dont like
the millionaires are idiots rather than people with college degrees.
by twistedlogic on Feb 16, 2010 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
i'm fine with that, but thats just life i guess
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 16, 2010 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
you're fine with idiots making more than people who deserve it
or you’re fine with me not being fine with that?
by twistedlogic on Feb 16, 2010 5:26 PM EST up reply actions
Excuse me
Just because you don’t finish college at age 22 doesn’t mean you’re an idiot. Geez. Is this what you really think?
Being smart enough to know that you have a limited window in which to excel at something that very few people in the world have the talent for and at which you can earn a ton of money and then go back to school if it doesn’t work out isn’t idiotic.
I will lead these Peoples to the promised land, also known as "Slightly Ahead of the Blue Jays." ~WietersRunDry
oh please (thanks for putting words in my mouth btw)
we’re talking about athletes here, not about people who dont finish college.
by twistedlogic on Feb 16, 2010 6:01 PM EST up reply actions
what's the difference?
i personally cant stand players leaving college early either. if dropping out of school is a necessity, which in some cases it is, then that’s fine. if it is to go get paid gratuitous amounts of money, then i really can’t stand it.
This is absurd logic. If someone has to drop out of college out of necessity, which I’d imagine meaning they need to work more to pay the bills/support their family or something? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but that’s what I inferred, that’s totally ok, but it’s not ok to drop out of college because you have a talent so great and rare that people are willing to pay you millions of dollars to do it? And in addition that talent will only, if you’re lucky, last you into your mid 30s? I honestly have no idea where you’re coming from.
I will lead these Peoples to the promised land, also known as "Slightly Ahead of the Blue Jays." ~WietersRunDry
why is it absurd logic? cuz you dont agree?
my university goes out of its way to bring in recruits for sports and closing the public computer labs that i use everyday to save money (among many other things).
there are people overseas fighting for our freedom (thats a pretty great and rare talent in my opinion). those men and women get paid considerably less than some guy goes to college for 2 yrs just to show off for the pros and leave as soon as soon as possible.
by twistedlogic on Feb 16, 2010 8:28 PM EST up reply actions
What you're saying now is an entirely different argument
If you want to talk about the money that colleges put towards athletics rather than other things, that’s totally different and we’d probably agree. But your disdain for someone leaving college to make a better life for themselves than they can get by sticking around for two more years and getting a degree is just silly.
I will lead these Peoples to the promised land, also known as "Slightly Ahead of the Blue Jays." ~WietersRunDry
again, why is it silly? i’m working my ass off to get a degree. i wont make in my entire working life what a halfway decent ballplayer makes in a year. i’m bitter. why is that silly? it has nothing to do with them making a better life for themselves. i dont like that athletes take advantage of a university for a few years while the rest of us get screwed (and get paid much much less).
by twistedlogic on Feb 16, 2010 8:50 PM EST up reply actions
again, why is it silly? i’m working my ass off to get a degree. i wont make in my entire working life what a halfway decent ballplayer makes in a year. i’m bitter. why is that silly?
Well, I’ll just say I hope you’re not bitter at people for doing things you would probably do (i.e., leave college early for big money). And yeah, it’s unfair, in my opinion, that athletes’ salaries are so insane but I wouldn’t spend time being bitter about it. Just my two cents.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
I think twisted is absolutely right.
Let’s face it: athletes are getting paid millions to play a game, while a lot of people who worked hard their entire life can’t make a decent living.
First off, Bryce Harper is probably going to get paid millions without taking one professional swing. In my opinion, he didn’t earn that money. That’s what bugs me so much—deserving people who work hard in college can’t make it in life while these athletes who get to retire when they’re 38 after playing a game for 18 years. And these rookie salaries are absurd. Bryce Harper is a high school dropout who’s going to earn millions even though he may never reach the major leagues. Tell me how fair that is.
Maybe I shouldn’t be judging because I’m only 15, but that’s my feeling.
Complaining is good for you as long as you're not complaining to the person you're complaining about. - Lynn Johnston (I don't know who that is...but it's a good quote.)
If you don't think Bryce Harper works hard
Then I don’t know what to tell you. Just because his version of working hard isn’t opening up a book or however you define it doesn’t mean he just sits on his ass while someone hands him a check.
I will lead these Peoples to the promised land, also known as "Slightly Ahead of the Blue Jays." ~WietersRunDry
Yes, but it's WHAT he works hard at.
Playing a game. That’s what bugs me.
Complaining is good for you as long as you're not complaining to the person you're complaining about. - Lynn Johnston (I don't know who that is...but it's a good quote.)
Well that's your prerogative
But it’s pretty narrow minded in my opinion.
I will lead these Peoples to the promised land, also known as "Slightly Ahead of the Blue Jays." ~WietersRunDry
where are you going with this?
its narrow-minded to value education over playing a sport? really? really??
by twistedlogic on Feb 17, 2010 10:34 AM EST up reply actions
I think it's narrow minded
To think that one person’s journey through life is less valuable than someone else’s because theirs doesn’t focus on what is important to you.
I will lead these Peoples to the promised land, also known as "Slightly Ahead of the Blue Jays." ~WietersRunDry
Let’s face it: athletes are getting paid millions to play a game, while a lot of people who worked hard their entire life can’t make a decent living.
Nobody’s denying that. It’s question of whether we should spend time being bitter about it.
That’s what bugs me so much—deserving people who work hard in college can’t make it in life while these athletes who get to retire when they’re 38 after playing a game for 18 years. And these rookie salaries are absurd. Bryce Harper is a high school dropout who’s going to earn millions even though he may never reach the major leagues. Tell me how fair that is.
Yes, the amount of money coming to him this June will be absurd. But I would like to point out that all of us enjoy plenty of privileges that a lot of people don’t enjoy (particularly in a global context). So while we whine and pout Bryce Harper, or let’s not forget about our enormous privilege that we carry that many people would view us as a Bryce Harper.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
Who would view us like that?
My parents are sending me to a Jewish day school on financial aid because my family is running on salary now that my dad doesn’t have a job.
Do you know how it makes me feel when kids are wearing Abercrombie and Hollister and I’m wearing, well, nowhere near that. I hate to bring my personal situation into this but none of you know me in real life so, I don’t know.
The fact is, I don’t view myself as privileged. I do well in school but that doesn’t mean my parents will be able to pay for my college because my brother is going this coming fall.
Please, don’t generalize. Not everyone can get chances in life even though most people are more deserving of a million dollars than Bryce Harper in my mind.
Complaining is good for you as long as you're not complaining to the person you're complaining about. - Lynn Johnston (I don't know who that is...but it's a good quote.)
As long as people are willing to pay huge ticket prices so that those huge salaries can be paid, "idiots" will be making more money than people that deserve it
Its capitalism, its not perfect but its better than the alternatives. I’m also fine with people maximizing their salaries by skipping school.
So i’m fine with it, college and high school shouldnt be a mandate. Lets face it, not everybody needs calculus, chemistry and all that other stuff to do their jobs. I dont know why people feel as though education is something that everyone must have, but thats an entirely different discussion.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 16, 2010 6:16 PM EST up reply actions
Ummmm are you serious?
You really don’t believe in education? I can understand feeling that an elementary, middle, and high school education isn’t going to help you much in life, but most people need a college education to succeed.
Sure, not everyone needs everything they learn in school, but that doesn’t mean there should be no school.
I’m sorry but that’s just absurd.
Complaining is good for you as long as you're not complaining to the person you're complaining about. - Lynn Johnston (I don't know who that is...but it's a good quote.)
i agree with you
but i dont think he said he didnt believe in education, he was just saying that not everyone needs it.
by twistedlogic on Feb 16, 2010 6:52 PM EST up reply actions
Bingo
There are plenty of professions that dont need a liberal arts education. I personally have my college education and CPA, so i obviously believe in it for myself but the reason why people now need college to “succeed” is because the other levels were mandated. Now its just becoming grad school to stand out, but honestly for a large portion of professions a well-rounded liberal arts education is wasted on the people obtaining the degrees. They would be better off in a trade school or doing internships to learn a trade.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 17, 2010 9:23 AM EST up reply actions
There are plenty of professions that dont need a liberal arts education.
Yeah, I have a post-graduate education and I have friends who don’t have college education but they makes tons more than I do. I have a buddy who’s construction foreman and he does quite nicely for himself.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Official Sponsor of Camden Chat GameThreads
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.
